Philosophy before the 17th century

Actually so-called postmodernist philosophy is sometimes seen as having similarities with medieval philosophy in contrast to modern philosophy.

But you haven't read shit in any case so go fuck yourself.

Attached: 1551426148068.jpg (883x563, 68K)

It is not only the Pomo guys. It comes way before they did.
There is actually a pretty famous book on the fall of philosophy called "After Virtue" by Alasdair MacIntyre. From wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to summarize it myself):

>It begins with an allegory suggestive of the premise of the science-fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz: a world where all sciences have been dismantled quickly and almost entirely. MacIntyre asks what the sciences would look like if they were re-assembled from the remnants of scientific knowledge that survived the catastrophe. He claims that the new sciences, though superficially similar to the old, would in fact be devoid of real scientific content, because the key suppositions and attitudes would not be present. "The hypothesis which I wish to advance," he continues, "is that in the actual world which we inhabit the language of morality is in the same state of grave disorder as the language of natural science in the imaginary world which I described."

>Specifically, MacIntyre applies this hypothesis to advance the notion that the moral structures that emerged from the Enlightenment were philosophically doomed from the start because they were formed using the aforementioned incoherent language of morality. MacIntyre claims that this failure encompasses the work of many significant Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment moral philosophers, including Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, Immanuel Kant, and David Hume. These philosophers "fail because of certain shared characteristics deriving from their highly specific historical background."

Attached: 1525463056384.jpg (1080x1349, 125K)

figures

God I love straw men. You reek of someone who watches 5 minute YouTube videos and consider themselves well-read on philosophy.

Attached: 1522499208000.jpg (1280x828, 230K)

Attached: 1523491316208.jpg (4096x3068, 725K)

Is anybody else noticing an increasing influx of /pol/tard brainlets after the shooting? It's worrying and I hope it stops.

philosophy today is pretty much saying why other philosophers are wrong.

its become more about
hegelian dialectics
or neoplatonism
kantian ethics

Attached: 4c682432b73644fc3e3c3a048821c139b67bcbd4b19b9f59756865be968a9781.jpg (1881x1057, 169K)

>postmodernism started with the enlightenment
t. Stephen Hicks

>what went wrong?
The enlightenment followed the industrial revolution, culminating in a rationalist worldview and the scientific advancement of the early 20'th century.
In this modernity era, people extrapolated that humanity can create a utopia (scienticism, communism, etc). This all failed and the disillusioned manifests in what's called postmodernism.
(not to be confused with post-structuralism, which sometimes is just an approach of art-critique).
Today, while a cold (relatively speaking) rationalism is still an underlying base for peoples thinking, nobody really believes in that humanity can turn humanity to the better - as such we are all postmodernist.
Capitalism is just the prevailing system, so it's naturally hated at (rightly so, I'd say). The rest of your issues is just going back to Hegel. We're still advancing scientifically all the time, so it's not like those aspects of modernity are gone, but if there's no war, you can always see Hegelian dialectic tearing down new fronts.

Attached: biztip.jpg (750x428, 61K)

Attached: kek.jpg (500x750, 83K)

this thread only reminds me how inferior the male form is to the female form; men simply can't compete with women for beauty, and i feel kinda bad for gays to only feel attraction for such an unattractive sex

Why must thou tempt me with these jezebeaux

Stephen Hicks likes the enlightenment but thinks everything went wrong with Kant

what makes Kant so dang special, honestly...i don't get it

Nietzsche split the history of philosophy into two. There is a before him, and an after him. No one before had fully espoused "evil", let alone elevated it above "good": not even the daoist sages, not even Heraclitus. But that is only part of it. The other part is that, though he was very good at presenting complex ideas simply, his most valuable ideas were nevertheless terrifically complex. Witness Alain Badiou telling us that doctors create a disease by naming it, then being chased off stage by doctors laughing at his pathetic attempts to explain what that means. The idea is correct, but you have to be a fucking genius to understand it, much less explain it to people, especially to doctors, who will roast your ass over hot coals, as they should, if you are not a complete and total master of the idea. These are such complex conceptions that non-geniuses simply have no hope with them. At best, they grasp one part here, a corollary there, some application to their daily life; but the essence of the idea, and its relationship to all others, remains forever beyond them. Deleuze, Artaud, Bataille: they each grasped some things, and Baudrillard by far the most. The mess of gibberish produced on the continent is the result of their sometimes sincere, sometimes dishonest grasping with these terrifically complex conceptions that Nietzsche bequeathed us, just as the simplistic stupidities of the "analytic" morons is how they dealt with the same stuff. No one would propose that Rorty or Dewey invented their best stuff: it's got N's mark all over it, and they copied it straight off him (and in the instances where they denied him credit, they plagiarized...) Or Adorno and Horkheimer. Or Heidegger. One after another, failed attempts at understanding what N had said. And the HIGHEST ideas of his of all have not even been TOUCHED on. I have yet to read of anyone even MENTIONING his invention of the central ideas of quantum mechanics, decades before the quantum mechanists ran up against them in the lab. Or the Big Bang-Big Crunch cycle decades before the astronomers dreamt it up. I am literally the first person to find these ideas and the beginnings of such ideas in Nietzsche, while everyone else had trouble parsing such simple statements as "men aren't equal". Deleuze was still trying to "deconstruct" that lol (read: convince us that he meant the opposite lol). All this is simply what happens when genius texts fall into the hands of merely above-average intelligences, and the fact that two entire massive traditions — the "analytic", and the "postmodern" — flowed directly from him, is merely a symptom of how vast the power of his intellect was, and therefore, naturally enough, how vast his influence, for better or worse (and in the case of the "analytics" and the "postmoderns", clearly for the worse).

Attached: howinteresting.jpg (426x394, 13K)

Kant says we can't know the things in themselves, Hicks is literally a randian objectivist

i hope this is bait

Hicks' book is full of misquotations and misinterpretations. I'm surprised anyone was willing to publish that glorified toilet paper. The fact that Memerson recommended it tells you all you need to know about him.

Based

Memerson aside, Hicks' book is decent, he doesn't make any outstanding claims and is very conservative in every claim he puts forward, it's more of a history/narrative book than anything too philosophical

what does he refer to by "thing in itself"?

I don't have "theories", fagot: I KNOW, because I have studied, thought about, and comprehended

He literally presents postmodern philosophers as antinatalists/misanthropists and uses quotes where they talk about the destruction of the ideal, Man (not the species human), as justification for this misconception. The only reason I point this out (There are more problems with it) is because the elimination of Man is postmodernism 101 and even goes back to Stirner.

The thing-in-itself is a thing separate from subjective observation

>What went wrong?
Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, a couple world wars back-to-back, and the fear of MAD for about 50 years.

that's literally the object itself. your own body disappears by that very measure, along with all of visual reality. the sun, the moon, the sky, grass and everything else you know of. there's nothing left

Nietzsche strikes me as still falling under OP's first category of advice givers (and not mere system critics)

Source for the whole image set?

The philosophers of today are motivational speakers.

The people that you are referring to are actually in the minority, even on the left. It seems that they are more popular than they are because of the attention people give them. Virtually everyone sees them as insane.

I was was stating the first three as Paul Ricoeur's "Masters of Suspicion".

America happened

>western civilisation starts declining at the exact same time that these contemporary philosophers start spouting their ideas
is that a strange coincidence or what

Attached: 1519631407519.jpg (1021x1027, 71K)

No idea my man, but here are the other pics two that I have

Attached: 1523491120439.jpg (4096x2734, 645K)

Attached: 1523523294089.jpg (720x989, 144K)

The cause isn't the philosophers themselves but the system pushing them and other '68ers into prominence (Anglo-American intelligence agencies).

Does he do nudes?

>You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.

Reads like a teenager who was unfortunately given a writing platform to showcase off his neuroticisms to the world. An overly emotional man, whose every attempt to refute his betters, like Plato, only revealed how void of reason he really was, his every sentence based in sentiment alone. The only value of his work lies in this style and sentiment, and his statements never reached any foundational and irrefutable truths of any kind. People tend to love him for his unrestrained edginess though, somehow later branded as "intellectual genius".

The cliche objection to “relativism” has always been to point out that the statement “everything is relative” is itself an absolute one, so that any relativist necessarily contradicts him/herself. Of course this is a bogus objection: because the argument depends upon separating the assertion “everything is relative” from the contexts of its utterance, in order to turn it into a universal statement.

The moment at which Western civ starts declining is highly variable, depending greatly upon the level of edginess of the individual. Maybe it started with modernism, maybe Darwin, maybe the enlightenment, maybe the renaissance...

Sorry man, I have no idea, I just collect the random shit I see around

Attached: 1359878541955.jpg (750x1000, 242K)

The 1910's imo.
>WW1
>Progressives grabbing power in the US
>Russian Revolution

can someone please respond to this? surely Kant isn't so famous for making such a fundamental error of perception?

what can we do to fix it? if a goodhearted civilian writes a book that contains uplifting life wisdom and reaffirmation of our transcendent natures, can it be of any good?

>maybe the renaissance
yeah i don't think the western world started declining with the renaissance

Attached: annoyed kid.jpg (196x257, 14K)

for christians it did, since their religion was hit

byzantines aren't roman

>neomarxist postmodernism
Stopped reading right there

Moving away from the strongly religious middle age worldview and introducing humanism and the seed of individualism is, for some, the root of our problems.

Don't know why you're asking me - I never said that it has to be fixed. The current situation is a consequence of a great and complex historical chain of events, and at the end of the day it's not significantly better or worse than any previous era. (A good chunk of our "problems", I firmly believe, is just oversimplified fear-mongering by the media and people that live off clickbait and negativity.) I'm afraid that no single book will be able to resolve the deeper contradictions of our culture(s). Who is the good-hearted civilian? Why does life wisdom have to be uplifting? We do have transcendent natures? Isn't all this philosophical talk just going to boil down back to trivial political matters, gendered bathrooms, identity politics and the nonsensical us-vs-them stuff that OP talks about?

Attached: 1518146149987.jpg (1280x1000, 359K)

Continental philosophy is a diverse and fertile range of publication that extends from phenomologists to linguists to marxists to some sparse psycho analytic types, to neo classicists etc.

Analytic philosophy is just a bunch of kids who got rejected from the math program at school

"it makes sense if you're smart :P"

Attached: full_edge.jpg (800x804, 99K)

You should probably read books instead of watching YouTube videos.

Doesn't that presuppose that the greeks were doing morality right? Maybe they invented an incoherent moral language and the Enlightenment rehabilitated it into something useful.

>>all morality is relative! *says as an objective claim*
you are rarted

I know this is bait but the digha nikaya includes "Buddha" touches on both the big crunch and the expansion of the universe along with essentially the entite theory of the big bang, the Tripitaka was written between the 5th century BCE and the 4th century CE. The Tripitaka probably wasn't even the first to include this idea, I just haven't read all the oldest literature yet.

>lumping everyone after the 16th century as a postmodern neomarxist
is this bait?
not even the retard boomers you watch on youtube believe this

Attached: 1541555948771.jpg (307x309, 18K)

People started claiming that it was declining before they were even born.

I know this is bait but no it doesn't you retard. You know why? Because those things are defined mathematically, within the context of a discipline wherein everything else is defined mathematically, all in specific ways. Analogies are not scientific theories nor hypotheses. It's easy to take any bit of language, especially English translations of language that has already lost it's frame, and say that it refers to so and so. In this case, it absolutely doesn't for the above reasons.

god literally died

It sounds like you want everyone to be theist and monocultural. So.... I guess that's what went wrong (for you)?

quote?

both demographics of Yea Forums summed up

nobody is a relativist when it comes to nazis, only when it comes to some shitty tribe or brown people

interesting thread. bump.

what about the statement "most things tend to be relatively relative" ?

At least someone picked up on the writer. As for what you said, I partly disagree. Some of his aphorisms are quite clever, like his idea that "anger is always a symptom of a lack of power", and a few others I don't feel like looking up.
As for him not being irrefutable, isn't that the crux of relativism? Everything is untimately irrefutable. Though with that being said I and many others only read him for his style.

This pic makes me sad.

Relativism is not tenable in the first place, anyone who promotes such notions are not worth reading in that regard, and certainly not profound for it.

I agree about his aphorisms, and said that his sentiment is what made him great. His quote about "he who fights monsters..." one is one of my favorite quotes of all time. He has other memorable ones. But that one's my favorite. It encapsulated the Batman mythos long before Batman was created. His lyrical style has permanently altered literature after him, it seems.

how come i previously didn't like men, but when i saw these i wasn't averse to them? can you please explain?

it's still an absolute statistical claim

I agree 100%. The venerable Plato is the most based philosopher ever. The minute people moved from him their souls went on the track to HELL.

Douche, user. Or makeshift enema.

Because that's a feminine photo.

what a stupid fucking post

continental philosophy gave us death camps, gulags, ww2, 8 year old trans kids at strip clubs, and making it legal to spread aids

analytic philosophy gave us stuff that can't even be turned into science that supports weapons manufacturers

I really hope so. Is there a way to know for sure whether or not you're "into men"? Please no meme answers, I'm genuinely scared these guys are turning me gay...

moron

They're just nice pics and asses, why should you be averse to them? Girls always admire each other's looks, tits and asses, why wouldn't men do the same?
You know if you're into men if you get hard imagining having sex with a guy.

>You know if you're into men if you get hard imagining having sex with a guy
Damn it..

From Hicks' book (page 195):
>Foucault extends his desire for effacement to the entire human species. At the end of The Order of Things, for example, he speaks almost longingly about the coming erasure of mankind: Man is “an invention of recent date” that will soon “be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea.”28 God is dead,
wrote Hegel and Nietzsche. Man too will be dead, Foucault hopes.29

What Foucault actually said:
>One thing in any case is certain: man is neither the oldest nor the most constant problem that has been posed for human knowledge. Taking a relatively short chronological sample within a restricted geographical area – European culture since the sixteenth century – one can be certain that man is a recent invention within it... As the archaeology of our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end.

And a video of Foucault talking about this:
youtube.com/watch?v=Q2tR96SLsNw

To make such an elementary misunderstanding in a book that claims to be explaining postmodernism (it is actually a highly biased and ideologically charged attempt at refuting it) is unacceptable.

Good man

Attached: Kant_and_Rand.jpg (400x290, 40K)

LOL

well thankfully i don't feel that physical arousal, phew. i just found the pictures more "appealing" than before, as if it were previously foreign to me but now not so much. hopefully that's because they are very feminine in nature, and slid into my "female" box. i'm not homophobic man but i just don't want to be gay or bi, it'll make life too difficult for me :( i have nothing against people who are

about preparing for death

Attached: 20190316_144100.jpg (4032x2268, 3.49M)

Well, they haven't invented the gay litmus paper yet, so this is still the best method we have.

I think I might be gay. At least I finally have a proper reason to kill myself.

Why would you do that?
>free oppression points
>can get prostate orgasm
>no pregnancy to worry about
>a male understands you better than any w*man ever could

peterson just hates derrida cuz derrida actually loved western culture so much he devoted his life to studying it while peterson just wants to do psychobabble

gays are almost at the bottom of the progressive stack by this point, you have to take hormones and cut your cock off if you want any serious oppression points

dont meme it bro, take some time and think about it a bit more. try to talk to both a girl and guy u like and see which one attracts you more and not on some goofy metaphysical level like love but rather who awakens in you that primal lust to with all sons of Adam are heir. if it is the man then go ahead but dont meme yourself in homosexuality.

sincerely a friend.

Attached: 1540856631156.jpg (572x800, 96K)

examples?

>muh 68
when will this meme end

Bump

2nded this hits too close to home

bump

I suppose that explains why we're overdoing the meme threads. It should die down in about a week and a half, they have poor short term memory.

Bump

>couldn't get the gf so he became the gf

no, forms

damn, good point

When will I leave this tapestry forum

thread isn't gayer than OP desu

based

most traps are incels gaming the system

if i got a stiffy to this am i gay? or is it just a feminine photo?

You knew that this was a man, you got an erection nonetheless. Many gays are attracted to feminine men, that doesn't make them heterosexual. I regret to inform you that you are homosexual.

What meme? Your mistake was believing the anglo-sphere was relevant for anything intellectual, désolé

Va te faire enculer connard

t. anglo

that is absolutely unfair. he's wearing feminine clothes, in a feminine pose, and has a feminine behind. my brain was just tricked

Whatever helps you sleep at night user.