>>24116559
>gay neoneoplatonic or Aristotelian metaphysics
Bro read the third critique

>>24116588
shut up

>>24116559
The Austrians left you a sandbox to perpetually soil yourself in. No one is going to refute them due to their refusal to offer calculations. You can read the material they offer on their particular business cycle model, they are aware of the process to produce objective statistical assertions but they voluntarily refuse to make any. You could have continued, but you will never offer any refutations unless they are appropriated from elsewhere. Continuing will always be an affirmation of your inability, this doesn't carry any connotations but you will never be able to debate anything due to the epistemological limits of your choices.

>>24116591
You didn't read it.

>>24116600
no I didn't read the third critique, this thread is about the antinomies and the transcendental illusion.

>>24116608
That's why you Platono-Aristotelian metaphysics is gey. The third critique changes all that.

File: 1b6ocq.jpg (100 KB, 600x361)

100 KB JPG

>>24116559

If muslims or christians could be honest about philosophy then they wouldn’t be dogmatists, and thus not followers of those religions.

>>24116559
Why don't you just point out their flaws in reasoning. Maybe the reasons why they hold the problematic premises are not at all what you think they are. Philosophy lives off dialectical dialogue.
>t. Analytic chad

>>24116588
Indeed. I highly appreciate the revival of teleology, which has now finally reached the analytitards. I know that on the continent you have had figures like Kant and Spaemann to whom we could listen if we were not so autistic. But some of us are united with some of you in Aristoteleanism, and that is already a win in my eyes.

>>24116917
I think that Quine has shown quite well that any sentence can be uphold "come what may" and can be moved into the centre of our web of beliefs. There is nothing wrong with being dogmatic about some things as long as they make sense - which, of course, excludes Kant's dogma about the analytic/synthetic distinction. You see, adhering to Catholicism is less problematic than following Kant's project of transcendental philosophy, as the latter but not the former is built upon a nonsensical distinction, one of the dogmas of logical empiricism. We don't have to follow Quine's scientism though, as Donald Davidson's work shows.

>t. Again the analytic chad

>>24116608
Incredible self own

>>24116559
I’m one of the anons that write effortposts like that and I have read most of Kant, I just don’t think he was right. You need to bear in mind that his entire project arises by trying to answer radical skepticism. Because “answering” skeptics requires finding a ground for what’s already foundational, it inevitably introduces error. Kant’s dialectical logic is a fun and provocative read but it won’t convince anyone who actually understands the old metaphysics. Kant was great and all, and well worth reading, but he didn’t know the Greeks.

>>24117548
>but he didn’t know the Greeks.
his categories follow directly from aristotle

File: 711VQiuITML._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (96 KB, 657x1000)

96 KB JPG

>>24116559
No

>>24117555
No they do not he just borrows the term. I know that he has *read* Aristotle he was a professor lol.

>>24117567
it's pretty clear you don't

>>24117567
Oh really, you know that? Then you can probably tell me from what library he got the hard to obtain text in Königsberg back then. Or if he owned the books himself, then tell me their inventory numbers.
People didn't read source material, they read handbooks, in early modern times. People no longer wrote commentaries like in the scholastic or late ancient times, the read handbooks, manuals. Kant's Jaesche Logic is based upon such a manual for example.
Kant didn't read the Greeks nor his contemporaries.
Going back to the source materials was a romantic thing, achieved by Hegel, Herrmann Diels etc.
If you are interested in the history of how and when this came about, I can recommend to you Gadamer's Die Anfänge der Philosophie.

You completely disqualified yourself again.

>>24117548
This, exactly this!

>t. Analytic chad

>>24117903
Oh no, I just realized that
>>24117567
And >>24117555
Are not the same anon. I disqualified myself again.

>t. Sad and disillusioned analytic chad

Anyways, Kant didn't read the Greeks and that is for sure. The best he could cite are snippets or urban myths like the ascription "I know that I know nothing" to Socrates (nowhere to be found in the Platonic corpus)

If you are so sure that Kant studied the Greeks in the original and not merely through some manual, then disprove me and show me a passage where he quotes Aristotle or Plato and mentions the work/dialogue and discussed the passage in it's appropriate context. You won't be able to do that, I guarantee you!

Quite often when he says stuff like "the ancients divided philosophy into physics, ethics, and logic" like he says in the beginning of the Groundwork, he is directly quoting manualist slop. Where do the ancients themselves write this? Aristotle writes about the first philosophy and it's relations to different fields in places like the Metaphysics or De Anima, or EN or his /pol/itcs. But it would be quite difficult to find a passage which would substantiate Kant's claim in Aristotle. (We don't have any treatises by Plato, and don't come with the Neoplatonists, when Kant writes about the Ancients, he meant Plato and Aristotle and maybe the presocratics, which could not be even seriously studied before 1903 (!).) what Kant writes here comes directly out of the manuals that had been used back then to teach the history of philosophy (Compare with Kant's snarky remark at the beginning of the Prolegomena about people who think that studying the history of philosophy is a legitimate philosophical activity. Makes much more sense now, doesn't it, if we take into account that they basically just read early modern power point slides back then and nothing more just like some Elisa, the studious girl who marks up her book with coloured notes and only learns what is relevant for the exam to get good grades.

His Jaesche Logic is also almost entirely unacknowledged manualist slop. When he mentions the Greeks, he repeats what he found in Baumgarten, Wolff etc and their manualist teachers and predecessors.

Anon disqualified himself even more than I did.

>>24116612
>>24117557
>>24117568
>>24116588
E X A C T L Y .
(OP won't answer, 0P gay)

>>24117993
not them but obviously the ancients wouldn't just write "we're now going to divide philosophy into physics, ethics and logic" since it's clearly a summarizing statement. No idea if it's true or false nor do I really care - what would this division consist in anyway - tho I always hear that for the ancients physics and philosophy were not really separate as they are (obviously) today.
>>24116559
>the antinomies and the transcendental illusion
got a quick rundown on these? Transcendental illusion is just (sep)
>According to Kant, human reason necessarily produces ideas of the soul, the world-whole, and God; and these ideas unavoidably produce the illusion that we have a priori knowledge about transcendent objects corresponding to them. This is an illusion, however, because in fact we are not capable of a priori knowledge about any such transcendent objects.
correct? I don't really see why I should care though.

>>24118015
Op's not gay hes just eccentric and likes things like womens cloths.

>>24117416
>incredible self own
it's really not

File: IMG_8499.jpg (760 KB, 1170x1188)

760 KB JPG

>>24116559
>nooooooo you can’t have a priori knowledge
Says who? Kant? Fuck him he’s a fanook.

>>24118015
>OP won't answer
first of all as I said I didn't read the third critique
second of all it's irrelevant as the point my post makes is that these people are basing their metaphysics on antinomies and transcendental illusion. the content of their metaphysics is not what I was criticizing but rather the reasoning they use to arrive at it. thirdly Kant acknowledging the existence of teleology does not make him an Aristotelian or neoplatonist.
>>24118108
thanks
>>24117555
Kant's categories have nothing to do with Aristotle's categories and people still saying this are midwits
>>24117548
>Kant’s dialectical logic is a fun and provocative read but it won’t convince anyone who actually understands the old metaphysics. Kant was great and all, and well worth reading, but he didn’t know the Greeks.
the Greeks clearly base their metaphysics on infinite regress and you were either a skeptic or a dogmatist based on whether you used infinite regress to debunk the possibility of knowledge or to prove that there are first principles.
Kant clearly illustrates why infinite regress occurs and why you can't use it to create a metaphysics. There are NO magical arguments inside the Greeks that can get around this.

>>24118080
>Ancients wouldn't write that, cuz summarizing statement

Take a look at how Aristotle writes e.g. how the study of the soul is placed within the whole of philosophy, how the study of animal movements is related to the whole of philosophy, how the ethics are related to the politics and to the study of man and nature etc. He almost does this at the start of every book

>I have heard that physics
Correct, Aristotle wrote philosophical books on physics.

But you missed the point, didn't you? The point was to show that Kant's sources were not primary.

>>24118129
>the Greeks clearly base their metaphysics on infinite regress

> these people are basing their metaphysics on antinomies and transcendental illusion

Expectation confirmed: he hasn't studied the ancients nor the Third Critique. Also assumes that Kant's portrayal of his predecessors is accurate.

People have shown you that this is very far fetched and that Kant was just a pseud who wrote about the ancients without studying them. Please stop. I won't resist this thread any more.

>>24118160
>Resist

*Revisit

>>24118131
sure, that point is taken (not that I really care, I'm not OP), it just seemed a bit odd to attack kant on a statement he got 2nd hand when it is exactly the type of statement that a 2nd hand author would at least be authorized to make

>>24116559
>>24118129
Retard, the reason everyone's bringing up the Third Critique is because Kant tries to resolve some of the antinomies.

>I said I didn't read the third critique
second of all it's irrelevant as the point my post makes is that these people are basing their metaphysics on antinomies and transcendental illusion
Shut up and read the Third Critique.

>>24118129
>the Greeks clearly base their metaphysics on infinite regress and you were either a skeptic or a dogmatist based on whether you used infinite regress to debunk the possibility of knowledge or to prove that there are first principles.
>Kant clearly illustrates why infinite regress occurs and why you can't use it to create a metaphysics. There are NO magical arguments inside the Greeks that can get around this.
Wrong, Plato was zetetic and has no "metaphysics," just cautious hypotheses meant to make manifest what the beings must be like according to speech (see Phaedo), and Aristotle outright says that not everything is demonstrable, and his metaphysics are correspondingly undogmatic and meant to be taken as something to continue studying since he doesn't pretend that his work manages to settle much definitively.

>>24118303
If plato has no metaphysics then why the fuck does literally everything you read about him attribute the theory of forms and the platonic realm to him? Is everyone misinterpreting Plato except some random shitposter on 4chan?
>inb4 yes.jpg

>complains about dogmatism of Aristotelean anons
Dogmatically clings to his beliefs about Kant and the ancients, even after being shown wrong

>complains about how Aristotelean anons are unbearable in discussion
Discusses Kant and Aristotle without having studied these authors seriously, is unbearable in discussion

Sorry for making this thread!

>>24118303
Sorry, didn't know even that little about Plato and Aristotle. just like Kant, I don't read the authors whom I accuse of flawed reasoning.

>>24118292
Sorry, didn't know that!


>>24117557
>>24117548
>>24117993
Sorry, didn't know that. I was just talking out of my arse.

>>24118322
Because everyone ignores what's said pretty outright in the dialogues. To most readers, Plato MUST have believed in the Idea of the Good, even though a few pages before he has Socrates say outright he only has opinions about the Good. People read the second half of the Parmenides as a kind of theology, even though the introduction of that second half says outright exactly what the second half is supposed to be, a set of exercises. Plato’s students disagreed with each other almost immediately in the first generation, with Speusippus and Xenocrates saying the creation in the Timaeus isn't meant literally, and Aristotle treating it as though it was supposed to be literally meant. It doesn't matter, because Plato could introduce something like the divided line image and tell you exactly what it means, and you'd have numerous readers going on about how it must mean that the Golden Ratio is the Good or the One or the Indeterminate Dyad or such nonsense.

>>24116559
>Muslims and Christians are even worse
Doesn’t jewish scripture talk about flat earth?

>>24118339
To be fair... the Golden Ratio is a good fit for the instructions for the divided line. The main question is whether the Golden Ratio meant the same to the Greeks as it later did to the early moderns and afterwards. Also, the "so what?" is an important question as well. The divided line is a Golden Ratio. So what? You'll never find a good explanation by the most fervent advocates of the theory unfortunately.

I personally think it has something to do with the limits to knowledge or perhaps a critique of the Pythagoreans as subtly expressed elsewhere in passages like the Meno or the Philebus. It might also help to have Jacob Klein's "recovery" of Greek mathematics in mind when discussing the relationship between metaphysics and mathematics. But this is all speculation and by no means a definitive nor complete answer.

>>24118371
I actually agree with all of that, I've just also seen the Golden Ratio that the line is clearly in expanded to mean things more than what Socrates very simply says about what the line represents.

>>24118382
>expanded to mean things more than what Socrates very simply says about what the line represents
Could you go on about this? I love collecting doxa, even if it is deranged. I think that's my life's mission. Collecting deranged doxa and straightening it out.

>>24116559
All btfo by Vedantists btw,

>>24118395
The opinions range a bit, but one example would be Scott Olsen, who seems to says that the Golden Mean appears to be contain Plato's two principles, the One and the Dyad, where these principles in the mean, somehow, generate the beings of the line.

The other noteworthy proponent of the significance of the mean is Jay Kennedy, who observes it in a number of places, but has a very unclear sense of why or what it does, and his standards of it appearing tend to be loose sometimes, where almost any passage that uses the words greater, equal, and less is somehow a reference to the mean, even if none of those words formulate the mean at all.

Socrates just says that the lengths of each section of the line signify both clarity and degree to which they're true, where the mean's application just shows that the two middle sections are implicitly equal in clarity and truth.

>>24118332
Kant was heavily influenced by Latin versions, he responds directly to several Greek philosophers throughout his works. If you are that interested then you will have to weigh the merits of his responses on your own. If you can read German you can read a piece from Georg Meier which was an abstract of logical reasoning that Kant admitted to pulling from but you should also note that part of Kant's education was in theology so his verbatim references to Aristotle are not free of post Aristotle development. Beyond this I have no idea if Kant read Aristotle directly or not but otherwise his positions are addressed in the Critiques and some of his earliest works. You are entitled to believe anyone has flawed reasoning, if you can't demonstrate then you should just refrain from bothering.

>>24116917
I want to disagree with this, because it is absolutely possible to remain a Christian or Muslim while being honest about philosophy. That said, you're right that they wouldn't be dogmatists, and unfortunately the dogmatic majority of a faith always seems to push out any open minded people. I've experienced this myself. Started getting into Christian theology at a fairly young age, then got into philosophy and fell into "heresy". Many such cases, etc. etc.

>>24116559
>Muslims and Christians are even worse
Have you actually read any Islamic philosophy, OP? Mulla Sadra believes in a sort of idealism that comes very close to transcendental idealism. Also he very clearly makes a distinction between the ontic and ontological so he is even immune to Heidegger’s criticism. I've been trying to shill Islamic philosophers in the philosophy threads on this board since many of the topics and issues discussed here have been addressed at length in Islamic philosophy. But for some reason anons refuse to engage with them and think Islamic philosophy is basically like thomism.

>>24118430
>Socrates just says that the lengths of each section of the line signify both clarity and degree to which they're true, where the mean's application just shows that the two middle sections are implicitly equal in clarity and truth.
A very devastating attack on discursive reason, if intended. But what to make of the ends of the line?

>>24118486
Metaphysics actually proves that heckin atheism is right and religion is wrong

>>24118568
You just haven't read enough philosophy. "Many such cases!"

>>24118508
I'm not sure it's an attack, but it does seem to imply that thought and belief and their respective objects aren't superior to each other, being different largely in respect to visibility and invisibility.

The meaning for the ends wouldn't differ in only signifying degrees of comparative clarity and truth. Now, whether there's some meaning to the specific ratio between the two lower sections, the two upoer sections, and the whole lower section to the whole upper section, it's not clear that there's any further meaning there, that would be the limit of the the line as an image. The important function of the ratio is in making the two middle sections equal length, but there seems to be a shift when the cave is introduced to spell out the line further, and the line and cave don't match up easily. Because the line appears first, we're led naturally to taking the movemets in the cave image to simply parallel the line, but the line abstracts from politics, while the cave is explicitly political. I think it's meant to soften the blow by forcing you to slow down and work through them.

>>24117903
Thanks anon, I didn’t know that. I always assumed someone like Kant would have read him - and in Greek at that. Anyway the setup in the OP is pretty misleading because Kant is not writing against people of my school, even if he occasionally trots out the ol’ “le schoolmen” strawman. The people he’s really attacking - empiricists and rationalists - are people Aristotelians don’t agree with either. So I was agreeing with him plenty there, and am sympathetic to his attempts to prove that experience depends on cognition and vice versa. And his whole idea of figuring out the relationship between thought and reality to give metaphysics a foundation is very Aristotelian even if his answers are quite different. (Btw annyone insisting Kant knew all about Aristotle, or was deeply influenced by him, etc, does not know either thinker and does not deserve a response.) What makes Kant exciting is that he broke totally free of the old frameworks in a way the other early moderns had not. Even if I don’t agree, he was a bigbrain and anyone into philosophy should read his works. Third Critique is his masterwork imo, he had a more interesting theory of aesthetics than anything any Aristotelian had come up with. I wish you would quit saying I disqualified myself because I didn’t know about 18th century pedagogy, it’s rude and unfair - unless you meant OP in which case ya he needs to read more.

>>24117416
Quine had a self-admittedly circular epistemology, and his justification for doing that was “well Cartesianism didn’t work so let’s try this”. He didn’t show shit.

>>24118592
Honestly, a fair and balanced overview. Thank you for elaborating at length. I always felt that it got murky trying to find one-to-one correspondences between the line and the cave. IIRC, it looks like there should be one, but then you have to take liberties, make choices about what counts as what, etc.

>>24118775
Exactly. The difficulties start almost as soon as you begin with imaging, since, by the line, the lowest objects are visible shadows and reflections of visible beings around us, but in the cave, the examples we're given are shadows of men, animals, and the just, and it would seem strange for the drama of the cave to be so great if everyone's problem was believing that literal visible shadows and reflections were real beings, so there's a very real change in orientation.

>>24118792
>and it would seem strange for the drama of the cave to be so great if everyone's problem was believing that literal visible shadows and reflections were real beings
I'm having a hard time following. Isn't that exactly the problem, that the shadows are not the real beings? Why does that supposedly cheapen the drama of the cave?

>>24118762
(Continuing)
And I am being kind of “nice” to Kant here a lot of what he says seems fairly silly to me. (Kant only even *knows* that math works because of his *experience* of its consistently working, as he says openly, tho not in quite those terms. Then he feels the need to “ground” it in a priori intuition because knowledge can’t come from experience because Hume. See the problem? That’s just one tiny example). I’m trying to read the other idealists now. The Kantanon thinks Kant’s system is in a way a back door into Neoplatonism just starting with the subject. That’s a super cool idea but I don’t know enough yet to be able to say anything about it worth hearing. He’s not crazy though, Fichte so far is backing him up. The OP in particular needs to read the other critiques, cpr is just the start and can give a false impression of what he was up to.

>>24118812
I feel like Kantanon is just LARPing with a few rehashed points over and over. If you try to ask him about the details he either ignores you or repeats the same canned meme phrases. No fruitful engagement whatsoever. If there is a possibility to the idea (and I'm not denying that possibility), he's doing it a great disservice.

>>24118799
In the cave, the shadows are just an analogy for all kinds of things we have beliefs about that may not be true (Men: capable of mating with gods. Animals: birds are signs of the gods. Justice: thunderstrikes are always just.), such as about justice, but in the line, the images are limited to being specifically visual. So the shadows on the line are literal, whereas the shadows in the cave are beliefs about things.

>>24118339
I reject this reading of Plato, as if because he couldn’t say exactly what he meant, and says so, he wasn’t saying anything. Your example of the dyad is especially ironic because it’s one of Plato’s own theories described in depth by A. I’m not going to get my copy of Plato out and go toe to toe with you about Republic and Parmenides but your general approach is very modern and very wrong.

>>24118821
Hmmm. So if I'm following you correctly, the cave seems to jump immediately to doxa. But if we were to try to carve a correspondence with the line, these doxa would also have to be the images. So there's a mixing of linear categories in the cave? Not sure if I'm picking up what you're laying down.

>>24118827
Well, you should pick up that book, because Aristotle's sketch of the dyad is very impressionistic and thus needs to be substantially qualified by Plato's work.

>>24118160
>people have shown you
no one has shown shit lmao
>>24118303
>Plato
Plato isn't "the greeks"
>Aristotle outright says that not everything is demonstrable
yes, people who use infinite regress to establish first principles obviously believe that not everything is demonstrable.
>>24118332
>being shown wrong
shown wrong where? lmao.

>>24118831
Tell me something I don’t know. Why would you think I *didn’t* know that, based on my post? You have a quiver full of factoids and you just can’t wait to shoot them at us lol.

>>24118816
Nta but the esoteric Kantian sometimes takes liberties. There is a strain of thought that attempts a synthesis of Kant with the neoplatonists, Rescher did a treatment on it but I don't know enough about Neoplatonism to comment on whether it is a decent treatment. This view is generally at odds with some of the Spinoza/Kant syntheses. The problems with these 2 synthetics are usually in which pieces of Kant are being sourced, for instance Kant technically took aim at both in the CPR but in his later works there is material that supports reconciliation. From what I have gathered this debate ultimately boils down to the entry point for instantiation, this essentially determines the nature of the sequence and since Kant's system supports what I have arguably found to be the greatest freedom for entry instantiation of any system then I doubt there is actually a cut and dry resolution. So long as the instantiation meets other requirements then the esoteric Kantian can make the claim provided there is a demonstrative claim, and this is also due in part to the other system's laying limits to what a Kantian would view as initial instantiation as well, to simplify all of this the esoteric Kantian need merely verify the switching mechanisms have not been corrupted. This is usually something stoic Kant offers, the sceptic equivalent would be entry points for differing mathematically sceptic schools. The esoteric Kantian skews stoic from what I have noticed, this is not a judgement in and of itself, I tend to skew sceptic so I am less familiar with the offerings.

>>24118461
I see what you’re saying but the whole concept of ‘faith’ is an adherence to dogmatism. If the evidence and philosophy were solid faith wouldn’t be required. Sure a theologian is a cut above your standard Christian on a Facebook post but at the end of the day their allegiance is to a dogma. As much of an irredeemable liberal atheist faggot as Bertrand Russell was he was right that Aquinas didn’t pursue truth wherever it led him but only tried to justify what he already believed.

All this nonsense about infinite regresses and foundationalism… is it worth it to get involved? Should I jump in and explain it to these poor people? What would Aristotle do?

“We should not, therefore, ask every scientist every question, nor should he answer everything he is asked about anything. One should not argue about geometry among non-geometers, for the man who argues badly will escape notice. And the same goes for other sciences too.” (Post An 1.12)

Good advice.

>>24118828
In the cave, at the point where you're looking at the wall, it seems that the kinds of beings represented there could run the gamut of kinds of objects on the line, so that's a big complication, especially since the cave is presented as though there were four movements similar to the line. But even once we're told that there are shadows of justice on the wall, that makes it hard to square with the line, since justice will evidently not be one of the two visible objects, and it would seem that it couldn't be one of the objects of thought, since those are described as mathematicals (and it might be that the equal length of the two middle sections is partly due the mathematical thought having to start out with drawn figures). But that would leave us with an object of intellection as a falsehood on the cave wall, so the line must not be exhaustive, or must contain some kind of falsehood.

>>24118827
Your reading is already at a distance from Plato, since, as I already said, Speusippus and Xenocrates read the creation myth of the Timaeus differently than Aristotle, and all three knew him for long periods as students. Your assumption, in common with many uncareful scholars, is that Plato must've told his students exactly what he thinks, instead of asking them questions in the manner of the dialogues. What's more, the Phaedrus has a discussion, not just a critique of writing, but of what a good piece of writing will be like, and I would think it would be more important to take that into account and read the dialogues that way instead of deciding there's a theology in Parmenides simply because Plotinus ad Proclus took it that way. If you can't connect the second half of Parmenides to the passage exlaining what the second half is going to be, then you simply have a bad reading.

File: IMG_6083.jpg (28 KB, 311x475)

28 KB JPG

Kant is as good as it gets with ontology - because ontology ultimately falls short.

>>24118895
Couldn't there be recursive layers to each stage? e.g. the cave is a line within a line, so each major section has to run the full gamut before progressing to the next major section.

>>24118913
I think that would overcomplicate it, and, if the second move in the cave is seeing the statues, the artificial light from the fire, and the men moving the statues, it doesn't seem as if it would fit the pattern. Plus, it wouldn't be clear what the meaning of such recursion layers would be. In the line, truth is reached at the top simply, whereas this would seem to say that the top isn't the truth. For the Republic, given that these passages are meant to explain who should rule the city, and by what knowledge, I think it's better to notice that the images don't line up 1-to-1, and that they make knowledge appear both very difficult to acquire, and dangerous to pursue or have if you're not within the city being described, for the sake of cooling strong political ambitions.

>>24118895
I’m the anon you respond to second, we’re speaking past each other as often happens here. You’re assuming I’m some kind of “Platonic dogmatist” who thinks he had a complete system we can reconstruct - I’m not; like I said I take what Plato says about philosophical writing seriously. I just don’t think you can say he had no theories in general, which I now realize is not quite what you were saying, but is a common pseud take here. As for Parmenides and republic specifically I think you’re bonkers to say Plato didn’t believe in a first principle, the Good. It’s a historical fact that you are wrong - ever hear of “ On the Good”? But you can just claim “Phaedrus, 7th letter, 4d chess” to that too which is why I normally ignore these sorts of posts. No I’m not going on a quote-Plato autism fest, the fact that none of Plato’s successors thought he rejected the good/one should be enough for most. Speusippus and Aristotle both had a “one” of some sort and thought it was central to Plato’s philosophy, that’s that. If your reading requires that no one understood him but you and other moderns (which is exactly what you’re saying if you think Plato had no idea of the Good) - whatever dude.

>>24117548
>I’m one of the anons that write effortposts like that and I have read most of Kant, I just don’t think he was right.

There were better pre-existing Greek conceptual appellations [spoler]apodicity and its availability[/spoiler] than what he chose, but what he staked out and the way he staked it out delimit the naive 'wordcel' metaphysics he was critiquing. He had the same hestitation as Darwin and the entire system suffers for it.

>>24118339
This is very bad. The anon thinks that because Socrates says he has “doxa” about the good, there is no Idea of the Good after all. Any curious anon can look at the end of Republic 6 for themselves and follow the argument. Socrates is contrasting mere doxa with noesis, and arrives at the Good that way, but this anon is misrepresenting the argument by taking a line out of context. As for Parmenides - not even all neoplatonists
thought it was theological. The only thing I’m sure of is that it isn’t a set of logic exercises or a parody. The deductions are explicitly presented as a way to “save” the Forms, to save the possibility of discourse. You don’t need a kaleidoscopic imagination to see how the deductions could serve that end, imo. But these arguments never end because Plato is not a linear writer. But to say “There is no Good!” or even “Maybe there is no Good!” is completely beyond the pale of acceptability. If you had told Speusippus that maybe Plato didn’t even believe in a first principle, the One/the Good, he would have thought you were insane.

>>24118984
>I just don’t think you can say he had no theories in general, which I now realize is not quite what you were saying, but is a common pseud take here
Sure.

>As for Parmenides and republic specifically I think you’re bonkers to say Plato didn’t believe in a first principle, the Good.
It's not. The Good is a hypothesized idea. Go back and look at 506b-e. His Socrates is depicted saying outright that he has only an opinion about the Good, and being cagey about sharing all of that opinion, so he directs a discussion of the Good at Glaucon that's relevant to discussing what's necessary to rule. Given that an education for understanding it is spelled out very thoroughly, you need to ask yourself whether Socrates actually received such an education, whether Plato received such an education, and if neither did, whether either of them could know the Good otherwise. And I don’t think it's a quibble to point out that the Good isn't a principle discussed in the Parmenides. If you object that it is discussed in the guise of the One, you would still have to address why the One is treated as a hypothesis for a set of exercises that are explicitly said to be able to take any hypothesis the same way, such that you can do all 8 exercises over the Same or Rest.

>It’s a historical fact that you are wrong - ever hear of “ On the Good”?
Sure, and it's related by a man who wasn't there for it. Aristoxenus, who takes every opportunity to criticize Plato, was neither an impartial witness, nor any witness at all, it's contents aren't reported by Aristotle's surviving writings, and gossip that those present of Plato's students wrote reports of it aren't quoted by the Neoplatonists, who were the only ones asserting it was written about by Speusippus, Aristotle, and etc. And again, Aristotle differs with Speusippus and Xenocrates over the interpretation of Plato. That's large evidence that there was disagreement from the beginning about how to understand Plato's positions, and how to understand the dialogues.

>But you can just claim “Phaedrus, 7th letter, 4d chess” to that too which is why I normally ignore these sorts of posts.
If an author writes a lot, and they have passages about how best to write and how to read, then taking those into account is paramount. I don't need to bring in the 7th Letter, because the Phaedrus already says out loud how to go about taking the dialogues as pieces of writing, and, as I said above, you'll just ignore it, even though it's plain as day.

As for the rest, my points remain standing. Either the differences between the early Academicians is explainable by Plato "teaching" by questioning in the manner of his dialogues, leaving room for disagreement and uncertainty, or it's explainable by guessing that he told them straightforwardly without regard for whether they could actually understand it. The latter is less likely than the former.

>>24119069
Too obvious as bait, good parody of >>24118984 though.

>>24118129
>the Greeks clearly base their metaphysics on infinite regress
No, they base it on Being (ousia). You’re thinking of Godproofs. There’s more to metaphysics than Godproofs.

As probably someone already pointed out the arguments Kant attacks are not Aristotelian or Neoplatonist and most would have been rejected by us too. But as for Kant’s claim that we cannot arrive at the unconditioned because everything is conditioned - the argument only works if you think all concepts refer to intuitions (true) but can never step behind them (destroys knowledge). Mathematics itself goes beyond appearances to a non-intuitable ground. The number 3 is not, as Kant would have it, the division of time into segments engendering multiplicity. And so do physics and all sciences. Aristotle agrees with Kant that our concepts can refer to potential intuitions, but would see Kant’s restriction of valid subjects as arbitrary and unjustifiable. Partly this is about different conceptions of metaphysics. Kant thinks it’s the science of what can’t be experienced - of course such a science would be bunk. But *any* science seeks, and presumes the existence of, the *unconditioned* in its genus, the ultimate ground, which is not an intuition because it’s a principle of intuitions - this is the subject of the science itself of course. To us Kant is saying “you can consider anything but thingness” and it’s illogical, and the reason the metaphysics of his day was in trouble is that it was rubbish.

>>24119113
To address just a couple of points - you think our knowledge of On the Good comes only from Aristoxenus and you are wrong. It is well attested and an accepted fact that it happened, Aristotle and at least two other Academicians published transcripts of it. Go on jstor and do a search. You’re also still bizarrely hung up on disagreements in the Academy when I’ve already pointed that they all agree on the One/Good (in a general sense). I can respond to your other points too but I’d rather go for a winter’s walk than argue with a retard all night.

>>24119141
I already addressed that. Aristotle, and etc. were claimed at a later date to have written notes about it, but none of it has ever been quoted by those who claim those writings existed, and those who claim it do so so centuries after the fact.

File: IMG_2111.jpg (25 KB, 333x500)

25 KB JPG

>>24118486
Hmm could it be because Islamic philosophy is from a different culture, heavily insular, mostly untranslated, and even in Islam there’s a strong anti-philosophy streak? You might as well be wondering why most anons don’t read fragments from Babylonian clay tablets.

>>24119203
You (or the anon in that postan) accused Muslims of being dogmatic, but how can you call them dogmatic when you don't know about their philosophical and theological commitments? In my post I spoke of "philosophy" proper but even Islamic theology places a lot of emphasis on rationalism so the accusation just shows the person doesn't know what he is talking about.
>from a different culture
Muslim philosophers routinely engaged with the Greeks, mainly Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus but also presocratics.
>heavily insular
A lot of great introductions and histories of Islamic philosophy are available in western languages.
>mostly untranslated
Some of the most important works of the big names have high quality academic translations into English and French.
>strong anti-philosophy streak
With the exception of wahhabi fundamentalists, who are themselves a minority, this isn't generally true.
>the pic
I don't know what this book is supposed to say but Islamic philosophy (philosophy defined in the Greek sense) is a continuous tradition that have survived into the present day. You can pick any century in Islamic history after Muslims were introduced to the Greeks and I could name a handful of Islamic philosophers from that era with substantial contributions and worthwhile books.

>>24119237
Buddhists engaged with Greek philosophers too, so what? It isn’t part of the Western European tradition. It’s foreign.

Your average muzzie is not engaging with philosophy. In every era and location philosophy is a minority pursuit. You’re seriously pushing shit uphill if you’re trying to claim Islam is not dogmatic.

>>24119272
>It isn’t part of the Western European tradition
Indeed, it's not a part of the Western European tradition, but it's a direct continuation of the Greek tradition.

I'm not trying to say the average Muslim is a full-fledged philosopher. Read the posts above. The post I was responding to said
>If muslims or christians could be honest about philosophy then they wouldn’t be dogmatists, and thus not followers of those religions.
And I pointed out that there are plenty of outstanding Islamic philosophers who engaged with similar ideas to those of European philosophers and for whom being a philosopher did not negate their identity as Muslims.

>>24119300
It continuing the Greek tradition is irrelevant, this is a western forum. The only place it’s not going to be a hyper niche interest is on an Arabic version of /lit/

There have been Christian philosophers too but they always weasel it out of it with an argument for a ‘god of the philosophers’ and then a non sequitur into christianity/islam in their personal life, eg Descartes. Fact is that dogmatism is a well-established tenet of both those religions.