The ancient greeks were so good at philosophy that some people consider it pointless to read post-greek philosophy

no, it completed philosophy. the questions had been answered.

How do you feel knowing that you're one of them and your life is gonna end eventually. I personally feel like having a panic attack

>paul's autism completed philosophy

Attached: tenor.gif (176x260, 1.28M)

They were pretty smart and spent tons of times thinking about it, so they reached good results. The human condition didn't change, so what they have written still holds.

the Holy Spirit working through Paul, yes.

none of this really answers why the greeks were so great at philosophy despite there being so few of them

Based

That's because he was answering 1 of the 3 questions user.

seems like that's the only one he could answer

Yep. That's why he answered it instead of the other two. Would you have preferred him to answer a question he didn't know the answer to?

>Would you have preferred him to answer a question he didn't know the answer to?
Isn't that what Yea Forums is all about though

That would be /his/

The ancient greeks were for the most part a very aristocratic society which enabled a unlimited amount of dedication by the ancient philosophers without starving. Also beeing a philosopher could lead to quite an amount of prestige if you were in the right polis. And because there was not one big state/ financing monopoly the city states had an open competition in getting philosophers and geniuses in general. The division between the sciences did not exist yet, so a holistic approach was natural which arguably leads to better philosophy. Combine this with an exchange of ideas with india, egypt, persia etc. and you have great philosophers with great material creating great works in great conditions. Why didnt it move in the last 2000 years, well it has but as an articulation of the inner movements already present in greek philosophy but unrealized, think of how hegel believed that the Geist always creates new total Systems articulating itself more and more clearly every time not against its historic totality but rather trough it.

Attached: 1546189661769.jpg (2896x2896, 449K)

>the questions had been answered.
And too bad Nietzsche showed what a farce Christianities answers are.

Friedrich "christianity is for women and islam is for men- oh christianity conquered most of the world and islam didn't? ok well thats your opinion" Nietzsche

user, i... neechy is dead...

Elaboration on what he thought more would be interesting.

How exactly have people lost the art of casual contemplation?

European genetics.
Appreciation of truth.

Greeks worshiped the unknown God. Paul realized who the logos is and made him known. The word became flesh.
It wasn't really Paul who should get the credit though, he simply obeyed. It was all grace. Big step.

user, Islam is the second largest religion in the world and is growing, and staying true to itself while Christianity has been dying and will continue to die, especially in the west.

That's not to mention the fact that Islam conquered many areas that were originally Christian and had medieval Europe constantly shitting itself in fear of conquest.
So is Jesus

Christianity "conquered" because it's designed for weak people, same reason leftism is taking over now.

post body

>countless papers, discussion and books been printing
>dead

so God isn't dead either, then? there are plenty of books being reprinted and new ones being written about Him

i'm not talking about christianity converting people, i'm talking about christian nations conquering nations through violence

It's really because they all had clear and basic ideas. Everything afterward is just posturing and semantics.

The Spirit of the Times.

>Christianity "conquered" because it's designed for weak people

Attached: most powerful image online.jpg (800x960, 93K)

And yet Christcucks constantly seethe about the fact that Islam conquered the Christian heartlands in the middle east.

i don't think i've seen many "christcucks" seethe about that, but hey, israel exists now so who really wins?

the fractured state of israel is a gay-atheist nation.
What are they supposed to win?
The ethnic jews have lost their covenant and spiritual treasure, they might have some money now because they worship mammon.

I think their diet also had a lot to do with it

Fish, wine and olive oil, peak nutrition

he was the end of a magical tradition and not the start. in perspective we are all plebs to what we can only piece together of that timeframe

sometimes I see an image that confuses me completely. This is one of those images. How seriously are we supposed to take it? The shoddy art-work would indicate not too seriously. Then again, placed in the context of the discussion it could be un-ironic. Beyond that, however, what these signifiers are pointing to is beyond me. Are we truly to believe that a Christian life is one that leads to physical and emotional strength? Take the bird on the branch. A clear reference to the more biblical form of peace, perched next to the christian. The Christian's face is near greek, presumably to indicate more knowledge? I don't understand.

Ask Egypt. They taught the Greeks everything

>God is Good solved philosophy

nah it didn't, take your religion away, it's not metaphysics.

Philosophy of ethics isn't complicated and they basically figured everything out.

All of their philosophy of science was wrong and not worth studying.

Ta da.

>Fish, wine and olive oil, peak nutrition
LIGHTWEIGHT BUDDY

kys Muslim mutts

Can Diogenes be defeated?

I Feel fantastic, Because I'm not an atheist brainlet. And even If atheist brainlets where somehow right i wouldn't give a fuck because i wouldn't be there to give a fuck.
So I get to live a life unfettered to Sin, I get true freedom, and either a reward or no punishment for It at the end.
Number is irrelevant, they had an headstart of centuries on everyone else due to their particular circumstances (city states, political freedom, religious caste with very little political power etc) and since as the post you quoted said the fundamental human condition never changes, they are still the basis of philosophy and haven't been equaled yet.

>user, Islam is the second largest religion in the world and is growing, and staying true to itself while Christianity has been dying and will continue to die, especially in the west.
Islam has been in existential crisis since the fucking age of colonies. They are a warrior Faith and cannot fucking contend with being defeated again again and again. Their society is pure appalling degeneration below a pallid veneer of "based thot patrol lol". Paedophia is industrialized, Sufis activelly cuddle transexuals.
Christianity has simply been dethroned from the center of culture. That's almost good. We do our best when We're being persecuted anyway.
Finally Islam is "growing" through intimidación as usual, and about 100 thousands muslims become Christian each year.

>So is Jesus
No, He litteraly defeated death.

Biologically speaking human intelligence peaked around 2500 years ago, so right around the time of the philosophy explosion in ancient Greece. Also around the time of Jesus, the likely time of the composition of the Bhagavad Gita, etc.
Furthermore the independent city-state style setup of ancient Greece, with belief in the aristocracy and the focus on intellectual pursuits probably created the perfect climate for these great teachers.
Also Nietzsche makes an excellent argument that the religious metaphysics of the Greeks lent itself to such creation of philosophy of art.

The egyptians didn't teach anything to neither the greeks nor the jews. Their culture was an autistic ethnic totality and gave ride to the first ever totalitarian state. They had no philosophy nor True religion only a state-cult of the God-Emperor and Why You must obey to him. Like In India, no real philosophy there.

>Biologically speaking human intelligence peaked around 2500 years ago,
Pseudoscience

It's as reliable as any other retro-science we have access to. Human intelligence has been biologically declining for centuries now, its easier than ever for a dumb person to not die before passing genes on and it started getting easier circa 2500 years ago.

>Are we truly to believe that a Christian life is one that leads to physical and emotional strength?
Yes since It's true.
Notice the subhumanity of the thinly-veiled satanists behind.

And yet the demand for intelligence and the median IQ raises.

Look at pic related and tell me that philosophy didn't mess up somewhere along the way.

Attached: images-1.jpg (500x513, 37K)

IQ scores have actually been steadily falling for decades now. There is no increased "demand for intelligence" either, the time in which you might argue that there was a sincere, cultural demand for increased intelligence was around the 1960s. The same cultural force is not at all present today.
>inb4 "but we need more coders!!"

>it started getting easier circa 2500 years ago.

How so?

And cheese

Organization of civilizations developed to such a point that individuals were more able to lean on the collective for their survival than ever before. The benefits of high-intelligence individuals, the fruits of their labor, were being extended to more people than ever. A critical point was reached wherein the proliferation of "bad" genes allowed for a gradual decline in our biological intelligence:
independent.co.uk/news/science/human-intelligence-peaked-thousands-of-years-ago-and-weve-been-on-an-intellectual-and-emotional-8307101.html
>I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas and a clear-sighted view of important issues
Obviously we can't go back in time and take IQ tests, but the recorded intelligence feats of the ancient Greeks for example, are simply goddamn astounding. Greeks used to walk around with the body of Homer's work memorized. Today our average citizen struggles to understand what the three branches of his government are labelled, let alone how they work.

This
FUCK plato

Y

Karl Jaspers claims it was the Axial Age: it’s not just the Greeks but the Chinese, Indians, Persians, and other civilizations that all, around the same time, developed philosophy.

There has been substantial degradation of cities since then as farming has become more efficient more low intellect people have moved from rural areas into the city. This has killed the possibility of there ever being something like ancient Athens again, it being the ultimate breeding ground for intellectual discourse. Imagine walking downtown and just talking to Socrates or Aristotle, or someone near their level. It'd be nuts.

>Greeks used to walk around with the body of Homer's work memorized
That's actually wrong, there was an entire profession(orator) dedicated to memorizing and being able to recite works such as the Iliad on demand though.

That's just SJW revisionism, those other groups had nothing on the level of the Greeks.

The Orator wasn't simply a position defined by the capacity to recite the Iliad, it was also about the artistic ability to do so. The orator was an artist who presented the work, he wasn't just some dude who's point of existence was "oh cool this guy memorized it, wow".
Plato's dialogues show that at least among the intellgentsia, memorization of Homer's works was expected, another Greek smartboy could bring up a line from Homer in conversation and you would be expected to be able to bant with him. That's not true at all in our society today, the closest I've come to finding it is talking with serious Christians who will bring up verses out of thin air to make a point with but even then you're not usually expected to answer the point with another verse and they don't have the entire Bible in their working memory, just selected important verses. If someone even has a passage that would be incredible to us, but Socrates routinely works through passages of Homer with his own commentary interspliced.

The Old Testament is philosophically superior to Greek literature. An argument could also be made on behalf of the Indian offering. I'm not versed enough in Persian or Chinese work to make the comparison for them. It certainly isn't SJW revisionism however, SJW revisionism would be claiming that ooga booga mud scratches in Africa are on the same level as these other works.

As another comparison, think about the Pharisees, Sadduccees, and other scribes in Jewish society. They absolutely would have had the Torah memorized, every single one of them, in addition to other writings - Psalms, major prophets, even some histories - and probably even rabbinic commentary on top of all of that.

Attached: 230114_908223010.png (339x296, 133K)

1/2
These three questions are all interconnected so to strike at the heart of the issue we need to formulate it as a single question: Why were the greeks so disproportionately based and redpilled compared to everyone that came after them?
Any group of bodies acting with agency that possess feedback loops can be seen as an adaptive system. Thus the scope of the system you define is contingent on the traits you are looking to examine within that system, were we to discuss homo sapiens we would look at the primary conditions that homo sapiens in distinction to other mammals were evolving, were we to examine mammals we would do the same with a larger group. It is important to establish this point because I am about to examine a lot about what made the Greeks different from the other cultural groups and thus I want to preempt any semantic debates about how I am defining Greek, let it suffice that a group of people living in a certain geographical area (the exact limits of which are debatable) shared a language and culture which led to their scientific and philosophic achievements.
Most societies through history, like all biological groupings, evolve through positive and negative feedback, in the case of a biological organism it is usually sexual selection and nutritional competition. In the case of a cultural grouping these feedback systems are military selection and trade competition. If you examine Greece you will be struck by one very obvious geographic factor, it is a very dense grouping of islands.

Attached: 2C452441-6FB8-4A8D-94A5-B24A78D355C0.jpg (1280x1271, 195K)

2/2
This is important because one of the very first complex intersectional sciences humans ever discovered was seafaring. Greece started out as a seafaring civilisation, the nature of the geography meant that the better you were at seafaring the more effectively you could defeat neighbouring tribes/groups and the more efficiently you could engage in trade. Thus greece became a pressure cooker for the development of astronomy, engineering, geometry, etc because all of these traits are HIGHLY rewarded in navigation and shipbuilding. This coupled with a very central position between numerous other civilisations made the acquisition and dissemination of information very rapid. Ships and water were also the most effective methods of transport available before the 20th century. This is why cities are usually built near rivers (that and free sewage treatment), so the spread of information internally was also far more efficient than in other countries. The greeks had broadband while mainland europeans were stuck on dial-up having to trek through forests and mountains just to transmit a message from one major population center to another. But a seafaring culture lends itself to another quality, it is incredibly good for your physique. Greeks were absolutely shredded and living on the best possible diet in a very temperate climate. All of this culminated in one of the most masculine and patriarchal societies ever, they basically worshipped all masculine traits and this is partly why they saw man as being made in gods image, a very important distinction between other pagan societies of the time. While the phoeniciancs were worshipping bulls and other abstract nonsense the greeks saw god as man and man as god. This meant that their culture already believed that the universe was 'solvable' or understandable by mans mind. So they turned their sharpened analytical minds towards problems other civilisations would not have.

It's true, the beauty of the Old Testament is not diminished just because you're a fedora tipper.

3/2
This turned out to be longer than I thought, the reason that philosophy peaked under ancient greece is because ancient greece was the most 'masculine' society ever. Every society since then has had, to varying degrees, more feminine energy. Women can't into philosophy because women have an innate dislike to novelty that arises from thousands of years of biological heuristics. Once a woman accept a set of ideas from her chosen in-group, she will become borderline hysterical at having those ideas questioned. What set of ideals she subscribes to is irrelevant, it could be christian, feminist, marxist, anarchist, etc. Women distrust new ideas. Most philosophy post medieval era is academic in nature, academia is full of effeminate men sitting around engaging in various social triangulation, it's narcissistic in nature and is often done for reputation (in the past) and profit (in the present). In ancient greece you were a grecian man you'd be in excellent physical shape, you'd have a plot of land, animals, and slaves, so there was, even if only a little, more emphasis on merit. Sure it was still prone to corruption and vanity, there were still rich lazy assholes etc. but it was ever so slightly less pozzed than basically all of post-revolutionary europe and that is enough. All continental philosophy is just an endless rehash of subjectivity vs objectivity with a 'twist' whether you're reading Nietzsche, Lacan, or Deleuze, they have nothing to contribute but endless navel gazing analysis of culture and history by attempting to derive some psychological pattern in how or why people did or do X. Then you have the british philosopher who are riddled with anxiety and autism and have mental breakdowns when they inevitably discover the circular reasoning behind virtually all systems of logic.

If you go ahead only considering strawmen sure philosophy is waste.

>IQ scores have actually been steadily falling for decades now.
No they haven't, Flynn effect. Well documented. Read a book every once in a while.

>Karl
Mark Jaspers is wrong Because chinese, egyptians, indians etc have no philosophy only Divine King worship masquerading for philosophy.

>Plato's dialogues show that at least among the intellgentsia, memorization of Homer's works was expected,
You haven't actually read shit.

>cultural demand for increased intelligence was around the 1960s.
>If I say a date it will look like i know wtf I'm talking about!

So you have no argument then? I've read most of the dialogues. The one I'm thinking of in particular is Cratylus.

Lmao you're getting pretty butthurt huh? I'm referring to the era of the Kennedy space exploration moron.

The Flynn effect reversed itself a long time ago retard.
sciencealert.com/iq-scores-falling-in-worrying-reversal-20th-century-intelligence-boom-flynn-effect-intelligence
slate.com/technology/2018/09/iq-scores-going-down-research-flynn-effect.html
weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/iq-scores-have-been-falling-for-decades-new-study-finds/
2 seconds on google. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about and can be easily disproved on, makes you look stupid. Although if honesty is your goal...

I have an argument, and have explained it. You only have pseudoscience and pretension. Therefore I'm not interested in this conversation anymore.

No it fuvking didn't drooling imbecile.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/
>but not consistent with the hypothesis that the Flynn effect is diminishing.
Learn how to statistics, But more importantly learn how to life.

Concession accepted brainlet, thanks for playing

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4152423/
>shit statisical analysis
Here's a meta-analysis for the opposite conclusion
sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289615001336
Why don't you actually argue?

>to be able to look up at the moon and the stars at night and genuinely have no fucking clue what they are, it really must have filled a person with such wonder.
They literally thought that they were the Gods. That was the MSM of the time. Anyone who said otherwise would have thought of as some kind of wierdo who disavowed common sense and who an edgy AF nonconformist.

Mad because bad.
>sciencedirect!
>SCIENCEDIRECT!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY GOD WHO BROUGHT YOU UP THIS RETARDED.
MINE IS AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE YOURS IS A BRAINLET JOURNALIST BAAA BAAA BAAAAAAING LIKE THE AUTIST HE IS.
>w-why don't y-you actually argue a-senpai ;_;
I did and You proved me that's impossible argue with retards.

Attached: IMG_1430.png (378x357, 64K)

The link is to a formal journal article lmfao, you are sperging out hard as possible
I knew you were the same dude posting all three idiot attempts at a rebuke because of your brainlet posting style, post your IQ mate!

>I did and You proved me that's
Did your brain short-circuit?

Reading the abstract makes you even more retarded son.
1) yours pertains studies from 1977 on, mine from 1951 on.
2) yours doesn't even fucking say How many studies have been considered
3) yours only considers german speaking countries; we might hypotesize as to WHY In "german speaking countries" IQs is going down in the last years. May I venture the hypotesys That's the fucking turks?
There's Nothing as funny as a brainlet that really honestly believes He's not a brainlet.

Attached: IMG_2893.jpg (258x245, 12K)

>HE WROTE SOMETHING WRONG! I'M FUCKING SAVED I CAN JUST INVALIDATE EVERYTHING BY SAYING THAT HE WROTE SOMETHING WRONG THANK YOU GOD!
The day of the Rope comes closer and closer.

Attached: IMG_7710.jpg (618x692, 104K)

>The link is to a formal journal article lmfao,
>science direct!
Dont reproduce lmao

Attached: IMG_1461.jpg (225x225, 5K)

Jesus you are fucking mad lmao

Sure believe as you choose

Attached: IMG_2985.jpg (248x189, 18K)

Here's the precious (you) you have been repeatedly refreshing the thread looking for over the course of minutes now.

Thank you for these quality posts.

I would like to thank you for these quality posts.

kek

>then, God revealed Himself to the world and those questions were answered, for the most part
Christcucks like yourself should be deported back to your ME desert

To add to what this user said, religion is a very important factor. The greeks had the perfect balance of a religious that was anthropocentric but also not dogmatic. All post 18th century philosophy is poisoned by nihilism and atheism, so it ultimately revolves around society and social issues and language, as it deems metaphysical issue moot. All pre-Greek literature was a mythological deified fear of nature itself. And Christianity/Islam was dogmatic, i.e. purported to know all the answers.
In short ancient Greece was perhaps the only period in history where you had the ideal combination of healthy skepticism mixed with spirituality/religion. A belief in gods, but the idea that the actions of gods could be understand using reason and logic.
Now all we have is pic related.

Attached: mf.jpg (538x864, 416K)

We're the ones who have no clue what it 'means.' They looked into the sky and saw arche, the order of the gods, the mainfestation of primordial dieties. Their view of life was totalising--you may know the distance between the earth and the moon or what mix of gases make up a given nebulae, but you probably have no coherent concept of what it 'means.'

This is the most pseud opinion. Nobody has any idea what it felt like to have the consciousness of an ancient person. They saw and felt the world most likely very differently though, going by the record of their deeds read without the humanist homogenising that has come to dominate consensus thinking in the late-20th century to today--yes, even among such learned non-sheep as you.

>it really must have been strange to live in the world before the time of Christ, to be able to look up at the moon and the stars at night and genuinely have no fucking clue what they are
weren't babylonians or egyptians or something excellent at astronomy though?

>reads first chapter of The Republic while daydreaming about power and blocking out mom's nagging

Attached: neetch fedora.jpg (474x528, 21K)

This. There's a great irony in your post Perhaps you can explain the value of a theology of meta-meaning?
I won't bother to ask how you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that earlier people had explanations for the stars, and much better than GOD CREATES EVERYTHING BECAUSE HE IS EVERYTHING.

How is this relevant? What is the logos? What does it do as flesh?

Yes and not only that but the kikes were inspired after them to write their book which the chriscucks think it's the revelation of truth

Enlightenment view.
The Greeks were the greatest because their myths were the best understanding of the gods and divine law. The literary culture, and many other aspects in the same period, were a falling away from this, not its peak. Although even then they remained superior to most other civilisations.

Isn't it BABY?

>The Greeks were the greatest because their myths were the best understanding of the gods and divine law

any books/papers on this view?

>we're just chemical reactions of goo
The absolute state of ASS-modernity.

yeah

Their religion is pretty cool. But they weren't the same as the Greeks.

>muh quantified info

Attached: Science is Quickest.jpg (1950x1152, 413K)

Bump for an answer to this.

>Greeks worshiped the unknown God.
Source: Paul

could you elaborate on the Indian influences in Greek philosophy?

You're welcome!

Attached: IMG_0421.png (434x300, 24K)

>implying (You) know what it means to defeat death

I haven't found anything close really, everything modern I have found is distorted quite heavily. In short, they viewed the gods in terms of a totality and overwhelming force which in turn reflected itself in the vital form of their wars, architecture, celebrations, and daily life. Proximity to Form allows for amicable relations between dominions, a diplomacy between natural and divine law much in the same way that good relations between neighbouring tribes allows them to barter without fear of violence. And it was these close relations which gave a sense of strength, an eternal quality, to the Greeks. They both faced the gods in their wars and stood naked before them in judgement.
I wrote a longer post than this if you are interested, effortposts sometimes get ignored. It basically describes the opposite side of myth, both the hyperreal and its functioning as a concept.

Post it. Very interested. I'm not at all a specialist, just someone who is interested. I've been re-reading Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns (in translation), as well as Gantz's work on Greek Myth, before I do another re-read of Homer. All the stuff about the gods' influence on greek thought and society is fascinating to me. E.g. recently learned about the influence of Eris/Strife on eristic debate that led to elenchus and the dialectic. Also recently been reading Ustinova's works on divine madness and cave rituals in the Greeks. She takes a naturalistic approach to it (as you say, it's kind of distorted to modern science), but has all sorts of chapters like this (supernatural influence on creativity). Your post above piqued my interest.

And these are my own thoughts on it, similar to my summary on how myth clarifies our relation towards dominion. From a writing on Euthyphro:
"Such laws may appear as a contradiction, but what we see in the myths and mysteries is a singularity of essence, the pure form of the gods: clearly a part of a hierarchy, and yet undiminished—complete of their own world. Even in lesser myths we can sense this irreducible quality, as if the whole cosmology exists within a single god as a force, in opposition to laws of reductionism. Such power is what is referred to as Dominion, the absolutely sovereign quality of the gods which is retained even in exile or destruction—so prominent in the figure of Dionysus.

One might say that we humans are a reflection of this, our piety and sacrifice is also subordinate to something beyond us, something which raises us up within its territory. Our being is diffused into and through a much more powerful force. And it is in this sense that the sacrifice acts as an offering, not to any one god, but their entire realm. Our offering must include reconciliation of one divine law with the dominion as a whole. Perhaps the most clear example of this is the false offerings to Zeus - the bones covered in fat first offered by Prometheus as a trick - a subtle recognition that there is something even more powerful than the King of Olympus. It is a tentative agreement between god and man, for even a sacrifice is never enough to maintain the boundaries between heaven and earth. There must be something more, and in this we see that our greatest states, and our acts of justice, must retain a sense of their ephemeral nature: they exist as a client state to an unknown sovereign, and to wage war within a solely human territory risks the betrayal of greater alliances."

Thanks.

>how were they so fucking good at it?
They were focused on improving the lives of the people. They tried to figure out how to live. And those are the parts of ancient philosophy that still ring true today.
Later philosophers were too busy with spirituality and modern ones mostly do it for masturbatory reasons.

Read better history books.

dumb post

this. Practical philosophy is the only relevant kind of philosophy.

They asked the most important questions, gave the most plausible answers, and not a step has been taken since.

>And too bad Nietzsche showed
What did Nietzsche show? He didn't have any new objections. Wait a second, you're not a pseud who reads Nietzsche rather than his influences because its easy and edgy right?

>Christianity "conquered" because it's designed for weak people
>you win because you're inferior
oh my sides

The superiority is in numbers only.

You could say this about almost any war. Numbers and logistics. But why bother? We've all hear these moth-eaten cliches before.

>You could say this about almost any war.
Besides philosophy, which is a war between individuals.

>Christianity has simply been dethroned from the center of culture.
No, it's pretty much dead in the west, especially in Europe. What you have left is some low IQ Sudacas and Africans who still genuinely believe. You might argue that it's growing big in China but Christians there are a proportionally tiny part of the population and you know the CCP won't tolerate that shit if it blows up.

Except the philosophy with the most adherent wins I guess. This is retarded

>Wars are fought, and documented in the historical record.
Kek

>Theory of forms
>Plausible answers

>No, it's pretty much dead in the west, especially in Europe. What you have left is some low IQ Sudacas and Africans who still genuinely believe
I like this optimistic interpretation that some great piece of progress has occurred. Really, life has just gotten extremely easy and iq averages have gone down.

>brainlet tries philosophy

This is it. Also ancient greece was in contact with eastern metaphysical doctrines. Nothing inherently "eastern" about them by the way, it's just that contemplation is the prerequisite for metaphysicial inquiry, which is absent in the western world. The college graduates who started reading two years ago to impress their friends will seethe when I recommend Guénon, but those inclined to understand and interested by what is true will not lose anything by reading some of the man's works.

Well Jaspers is a dumb perennialist and one of the lame existentialists so we should ignore his opinion

You're projecting. I was stating it as an observation, not as positive.

When you say low iq people are the ones who still believe it sounds like a reddit march of history comment. But the truth is we're all getting dumber and more comfortable.

Shut up fag

He just was making social engineering, you got 'noble lied', there's your philosophy

A lifetime of delusion for an eternity of hell. This is why I will never be a Christcuck. Heaven sounds like a bad place to be.

Okay, here is the rest of this post. It is fairly long, exploring myth and modernity through questions of Plato's Forms, hyperreality, technology, and modern law. I didn't really go over it so it is probably a bit broad and not as clear as I'd like, but hopefully it makes sense, or is in some way useful.

Loss of Form, a falling away from dominion, results in distortion, or pollution, of the human relation to eternal laws. Man begins to confuse the form with the thing in itself, and so loses sight of its being. The Form as a relation between natural and divine law is essentially replaced with a series of reflections, until the Allegory of the Cave becomes the whole of the law from within its inner depths. Essentially, the shadows on the cave wall are constructed into a firmament, and to the extent that they dig further in they must produce their own lines of creation. This is akin to the isolated tribe which can no longer trade without the risk of violence - either they must go to war with all surrounding tribes or subsist on tree bark.

This explains the obsession with that which lies outside the world, of building a technology which allows for our escape, and yet also causes us to dig deeper into the earth. We are the precise inversion of everything Greek, hence the ugliness of our societies: the hegelianism of the coprophage. The strip mine of dominion creates a second form of production, as that which must be pumped out of the depths doubles waste and the distance from our origin. But this is not the whole of reality itself, as there remains a clean up operation on the surface.

Attached: Autochthon.jpg (1998x1398, 1.02M)

>But the truth is we're all getting dumber
Proofs?

)
In hyperreality what we see is a fear of the real, of an empirical being which the human can adapt to and reform. In its very conception the real and ideal realms have been confused, as the waking up to reality is not itself an experience of the real, only its material representation. Hyperreality, as an idea, creates its own problem, even deepens it, as the distorted and horrifying reality is not itself the real, only its material effects. In other words, what creates this destroyed landscape is enframed by a specific technical rationalisation - a determined recreation of human dominion as isolated from all others - while the critique of the hyperreal is just another form of technical rationalisation. The idea that a specific relation towards a material totality can reverse the trajectory of a materialist vision is confused, they are enmeshed into a single image of an era. Without a total vision the critique is trapped within the same way of seeing of its time, and sees itself as removed without being removed - the aesthete leaves his decadent cave as a philosopher king but nothing has changed. The necessity for the tall tale, the technicalised myth, only appears greater. This possibly explains why Baudrillard, the great theorist of hyperreality, was incapable of viewing the significance of the events surrounding him, his analysis only placed September 11th back within the realm of the hyperreal at war with itself - while its significance remained within the immaterial realm rather than being a temporary carving out of shocked eyes before the dominion of material.
The metaphor and reality are now confused, something terrible has happened in which the metaphor now acts almost as a technical ritual, situating us back within material reality. But this was never its real purpose, its intention was originally to unite forms of being, as if cutting a trail through the immaterial, connecting roads between disconnected worlds as a way of reflecting how divine laws and unseen forces crop up within a territory. What is truly horrifying in our age is the unseen, the invisible, and the power that humanity has unleashed through our actions upon it. What we experience is a lack of spectacle, just as there is an excess of meaning: neither the technical representation of the Enlightenment nor the theological laws of Christianity could explain it. The modern way of seeing the world is of an unfinished quality, it captures the abstract and materialising effects but this technical enclosure of the ephemeral is the precise opposite of the ancient way of seeing, of an enduring form of human society that exists on the borders of divine and natural dominion. This is where the elemental thrives, where men forge not simply the material forms of the metals but also their metaphysical properties. Socrates existed in an age of decay, and he was trying to hammer out an image of this dominion which must be maintained.

That study comparing us to the victorians in iq.

As humans the 'hyperreal' is natural for us, it is part of our being, and what matters is how we navigate this space between the unreal and reality, not that it exists. It can never be excised, and its great paradox is that trying to heave it out into the abyss. Modernity is at its very core the attempt to form a completely material reality in which a deeper form of hyperreality has been imploded within law, but as we have seen in each one of its great events the eruption of unseen forces takes on a greater density. It is only fitting that modernity ends as a myth of Epimetheus in which Pandora holds a box within which only world-weariness is enclosed. The critics of hyperreality have no idea what to do with such a gift, and so attempt to find all new methods of escape.

Another way of seeing this is that the eyes of the Janus-faced god have been turned inwards. We do not worship the god, and yet we are totally willing to obey its laws - this would explain the descent of atheism into a religious form as well as the tendency of illiberalism to descend into something like ironic humanism. They cannot explain what is occurring, nor give sense to it, apart from a deepened form of superficial irony. This has an effect similar to the myth of Narcissus, just without any of the images of beauty. In this we once again see a complete inversion dividing our age from the ancients, as in this retelling of the myth Narcissus turns away from the pool, embarks on an odyssey to find a love worthy of his beautiful heritage - but in a world completely cut off from divine and elemental laws. The primordial world is eliminated, so there is neither the possibility of a black pool nor Echo's call. He must create it of himself.

Self-obsession is merely the fulcrum, that which endures in both stories, suggesting that it is merely an effect that exists beyond mythic territory, a means of transition. What must be kept in mind here is that what endures is not necessarily eternal, especially when the destructive devce is placed before that which only obeys material laws - in the realm of technicity a romanticisation of emotions does not evade the empirical enclosure, they expand it or cut it off from the world. In other words, the inessential quality remains intact while the rest of the story disappears into the background, or is distorted into a form of unknowing. All immaterial laws may even be deepened in a civil war of material.

It is not the essence of the mythical dominion that is impacted by the detonation, but instead the moment of capture of human emotion intensifies its gaze upon that which it has set as its object. One should note the clear division of territory in this, as if the finite and ephemeral are reformed as the infinite and eternal - a total inversion of the laws of space and time occur within the metaphysical, but without ever recognising this territory, without explicitly stating its laws or attempting to reform them. Totalisation of human perception - the bare symbol or minor event becoming an archetype all its own - suggests escape and the transition of society towards a territory that will once again experience its limit. This is akin to seeing a predator in an open field, we anticipate the possibility of a a fight we cannot escape from, and for a moment all other sensations are halted as they shift between passivity and a struggle for survival.

The symbol is the vision of the metaphysical realm, or, more precisely, the outline of what it perceives. It is not the god, and yet the prohibition of idols may bring to the surface all those that, up until this point, have remained hidden - whether idols or gods. In order to retain this new relation to divine law they must be corrupted by the dominant religion or erected in secret, while the monstrous gods must be appeased. More clearly, the repressed is not itself a law, but a law of laws, the return of justice against it. Christianity is Echo's call towards materialism, the intractable relation of man to the most powerful gods, and the ritualisation of its war against minor ones.

(Final)
The modern focus on metal reformation, into the total transformation in plastics, can be seen as the material need to distort every metaphysical and elemental law of history. It is an image, a realist symbol, of our triumph over subterranean and heavenly realms - until they begin to reveal their innate qualities from within the deformed materials. We are hollowing out Mount Helicon as a doomsday bunker, agricultural heritage is stored away in the Global Seed Vault while scientists inject animals and plants with their microscopic theories of primitive accumulation. It is here that we may catch a glimpse of technology as a means of enduring all material destruction - as a materialisation, or crystallisation, of the modern struggle technology appears as the mechanisation of statues, rituals, and temples all while creating a new enclosure of human metaphysical territory. It is the Janus-faced, and the ability to perceive this transition between a tool in the hands of man and the release of an unrelenting force of destruction is the key to understanding it, just as a sense of the transition between its mythic association with fire and the elements to one of subterranean portals allows us to enter a path to understand religion and divine laws in our time. For technology has opened up a second dimension of time, its duality, and so its self-refining into inessential elements suggests that it is itself a tool - one we have wielded with invisible smith's aprons and gloves, and we will soon arrive in a territory to receive the limit of its judgement.
This is what is different in a mythic form of thought. And one must be careful here in confusing myths and divine laws: the Jewish God prays for his people; the Christian sacrifices himself; while the Greek gods cast them off into mysteries. Perhaps what is essential in modern times, the essence of man, is that which exists in all religions, but is inessential in them and shall endure in human territories until mythic and metaphysical laws once again erupt.

The following Book shows how India Egypt and the West were intertwined in thought.
The Shape of ancient thought by Thomas Mcevilley
An example would be that in Buddhist book the middle way madhyiamaka references Aristotle's substance concept and neoplatonic thought with the upinishads

... Tinkle son of Finkle, son of Wrinkle, son of ...

Tolkein's elf poems were better fantasy writing.

Diminishing returns, this affects every field of study, not just philosophy.

Greek philosophy was founded on a rejection of the bullshit the poets spewed though, so an understanding that gods used reason and logic was irrelevant.

The fragmented and weak nature of polytheism is a better cause, which allowed philosophers to reject Greek myths altogether.

The philosophers did not reject religion. Hardly any of them were atheist and most of the teachings are based on an understanding of myths.

Xenocrates and Plato both rejected the Greek gods, even if Plato pretended not to.

>Practical philosophy is the only relevant kind of philosophy

Attached: they hated him because he told them the truth.jpg (447x447, 156K)

Hahaha. That is not true. That is so far from true.

We know very little about most philosophers personal beliefs. Simply not enough has survived.

What we do know about their theories is that they are very different to the work of the poets and their myths and crap.

Its what set apart Greek thought from all other classical era civilizations at the time, and why we're still talking about them today. Their rejection of religious explanations for the origin of the world and explanations for natural phenomena is why this thread exists.

The construction of explanations not from revelation, prophecy, or myths; but from selecting axioms and then arguing from them, or against them. Ironically, this was such an attractive way of reasoning that it changed all the major religions that would arise in all neighboring regions of the world. The very explanation for the universe, that God is a first mover and created the universe supplanted earlier beliefs that God merely ordered the universe from preexisting chaos in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and this was originated from Greek arguments that rejected the mythological explanations for the universe.

Literally who?
And Plato wrote many of his best ideas based on myth. He clearly believed it.

>not true
>We know very little
Nice job, ASS.

>Greek arguments that rejected the mythological explanations
Such as?

Wasn't his teacher accused of atheism, and then had to kill himself over that? That one guy, uh, forget his name. Ah well, I'm sure that little incident had no effect on how Plato presented his ideas.

>corrupt government accuses someone
>i won't read him
>must be true
Retard.

Attached: Not a JUST.png (414x441, 184K)

Cosmology in the four elements, attraction and repulsion. Thales' water thing.

Atoms vs. everything being one indivisible thing, which would later be inspire the argument from the first mover.

Not your interpretation, faggot. Quotes.
Even many of the scientists today believe in god(s), while greeks sometimes believed that atoms were controlled by gods. So your examples don't mean shit.

Wait, you think I haven't read Socrates because he was accused of atheism?

How the fuck did you get from that to post to there?

Plato had good reason to sprinkle in myths. Like, avoiding death. That was the point of that post. Was that not clear?

I meant Xenophanes btw, not Xenocrates

.

Attached: achilles.jpg (1920x800, 236K)

>blaspheming against the Holy Spirit
not gonna make it.

Attached: eternalsin.png (2038x317, 25K)

Atheism was a tack-on charge, the main charge was corrupting the youth. And Socrates was clearly not an atheist, he wrote out a hymn to Apollo while he was in prison awaiting death.

That face is clearly meant to be Slavic, all that high school tier analysis and l you missed the Orthodox cross

>eternal sins are sins which will not be forgiven by god
>1. despair (believing that one's evil is beyond god's forgiveness)
did ancient greek religion have this many contradictions?

Attached: what the fuck is going on.jpg (351x359, 41K)

>how were they so fucking good at it?
They may have had average IQ of 120.

What was that thing Plato said about it being better to remain silent and thought a fool?

schopenhauer is not antinatalist.

Christianity is a fake religion so this isn't a problem.

Not my interpretation. Also, calm down. Complaints about the poets have survived.

Greeks did not believe Zeus and company were pushing around atoms. That's ridiculous.

Most scientists don't believe. More learned scientists believe less than most. Scientists that do believe either compartmentalize their beliefs, or more popularly, believe in a god that set things in motion. Ala the Greeks.

But we're discussing philosophy, not science. Back then of course there wasn't a stark difference, but today there is so keep talk of modern science or modern scientists out of this thread. You're still wrong though, but just don't mention that topic again. Okay? It's off topic. I'm right you're wrong, and leave it at that. It's also troll bait.

Don't know, what?

>he makes fun of despairing
>he goes on to impugn the known truth: "did ancient greek religion have this many contradictions?"
sorry buddy you are beyond my assistance i can only recommend you read the catechism and/or talk to a priest

Nope, one of the great advantages of greek religion is that it doesn't need to create a library of babel to answer theological questions from a child.
The Christian conception of God is hubris, it believes it can know the laws of heaven as if they exist in the human realm.

>" it believes it can know the laws of heaven as if they exist in the human realm"
>he doesn't believe the Bible is divinely inspired, or the words spoken by Jesus Christ recorded therein
DEFINITELY not going to make it

Can I have your stuff when you get raptured prottie?

I'd rather hang out with the cool pagans in Hell than be with your lame ass g*d anyway.

Fuck off, rdt. Read a book.

If your god is a moralfag then he's lame as shit.
Why would you trust a god who can't even comprehend human affairs? If he doesn't understand that no wonder all the other gods thought he was an autist.

Based Greek gods tricking men into war and then watching from the mountains to have a laugh.

xd

Most reddit response of all time
You won't be hanging out you will be excruciatingly tortured for all eternity, the Christians will be the ones hanging out, laughing, relaxing all cool

What you're saying might have been true of scientists 150 years ago, but not of scientists in the quantum era. The god who "set things in motion", just lmao

Christianity is literally the most reddit religion

>YOU'RE REDDIT NOT ME
>I'LL TELL THE MODS AND YOU'LL GET PERMABANNED

Attached: have sex.png (467x467, 232K)

don't respond about scientists

also this is wrong

trolled

They copied the Egyptians

Attached: 30D3EABB-C9D4-4D8D-97DF-98CF437CBA7B.jpg (500x519, 35K)

...

They were just the first ones to elucidate the ideas

>ayo we taught the greeks an shit

>how were they so fucking good at it

because they lived in a society where people would murder each other on the street

in a kettle chamber of murderers only rational thought stops you from being killed

T. Aristotle

On the exact contrary, the only pseud opinion here is yours. No, the Greeks weren't some mystical, nostalgic Other with irreducible subjectivity on account of their time and place. They were born, lived a bit, loved a bit, fought a bit, thought a bit, and died-just like everyone else, as I've said. This observation doesn't even require that I accept your "homogenising" historiographical projection-frame, done by you in a misguided effort to dismiss what I'd said. Rather, one can simply read them to see their basic kindred humanity. And this is no misreading-the language (yes, the original Greek) is usually quite plain, if detailed in spots.

the ancient greek perception of time passed is different to our perception today

>uhhh... sweetie No??

Prove it.

Christianity is a political program, that was very successful in a certain context. It also had a 600 year head start on Islam, and Islam is already overtaking Christianity worldwide.

hmm

You are an atheist brainlet. Would you pour a libation to Zeus? Why not?

That image is amusing

>Obviously we can't go back in time and take IQ tests

Michael Woodley is doing archaeogenetics studies on the ancients greeks by using their DNA to try and find their intelligence. I think he said somewhere that from what little they have, the average Athenian IQ may have been 125.
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1428&v=UES_tpDxz9A

they weren't good or bad (i guess they were better than bronze age people), but the whole tradition that comes after it takes them as a starting point so their relevance is to be expected
>some people consider it pointless to read post-greek philosophy
that's a pathological condition, it doesn't say much about the greeks themselves

I think the anons point was that they could not have rejected those beliefs in the first place if those beliefs were as dogmatic as say islam. The flexibility of greek mythology allowed for the slow development of a more rational worldview.

does anybody else feel like the world changed for the worse after antiquity?

Attached: wojak toilet cleaner.jpg (960x717, 51K)

Plato set the basis for all philosophy afterwards, so all philosophy coming after is trying to essentially answer or account for Platonic ontology and metaphysics, either by eschewing it or taking it further. Philosophy is a tradition and discipline that wasn't born separately from the other arts and disciplines. The Greeks developed before philosophy mathematics, geometry, and astronomy as distinct areas of scientific research based on principles of reason. pre-socratic Greek philosophy tries to account basically for the scientific revolution that came before that by positing Logos (reason) as the basis of understanding the world and knowledge. Everyone this to follow this trajectory ever since because the Greeks developed it therefore you can historicize the development of philosophy and science like Heidegger did. So if you learn philosophy you have to understand it as a tradition.

Therefore, there is no such thing as philosophy or science in the way we understand it, in other cultures, whether Chinese, Egyptian or Indian. Confucius is a legal scholaar and Buddha is a sage in their particular cultural environment. Avicena on the other hand because he does engage in with this tradition can be considered as part of the philosophical tradition. The importance of the Greeks wrests therefore in how you value and engage with Greek philosophy and science. If you don't , the Greeks have zero importance in the grand scale of things, because philosophy and science could not develop separately from them.

Haplogroup e-v13. Look it up. This line has produced nearly all great thinkers. Egyptian-greek nobility.

Don't forget it wasn't even all of the The Greece. But a specific region - the Ionian coast, then the Ionian colonies in Sicily and South Italy, then Athens, then Alexandria. And like 70% of the time it was all Ionians - not Aetolians, not Achaens, not Zeus forbid Dorians.

My hypothesis for the OP and the "This was the best period in history" :
They had slaves. When you have people working their asses to bring and cook you food, clean your house and even teach the kids you have plenty of time to live your life as you want : be a scientist, think about meaning of life, party in orgies. Often a bit of all that.
Majority of th epopulation then is just as we are now, most of them don't ask themselves The Questions, those who do struggle till they die.
These may write a book or make something that makes them durable in human history, maybe we will be remembered as we remember the Greeks : in a biased, deformed way

90 iq poster

Embarrassing.
Even more embarrassing.

Attached: Albanian Secret Service.png (1200x1200, 263K)

>Live. Laugh. Love. - Aristotle

Not really. This is a meme. Most philosophers are anti-platonic and modern society is basically a corruption of and opposition to everything Plato believed.
Hardly anyone is trying to grasp with Platonic questions.

>Greeks have zero importance in the grand scale of things, because philosophy and science could not develop separately from them.
w0t

A certain percentage of white people are very deep, individualistic thinkers. Our cultures have been infected with jews and marred by jewish slave religions for 2000 years, but we broke out of it briefly during the Enlightenment and are beginning to now again with the rise of the internet and decentralized information that isn't filtered through jewish institutions like the church and modern media apparatus.

Did you even read that dialogue? Plato discusses the immortality of the soul in it.

>that's a pathological condition, it doesn't say much about the greeks themselves
Read the Greeks and you learn about virtue. How to be a better, happier person.
Learn post-Enlightenment philosophy and you learn how to be a miserable fucker like Russell or to become someone like those people here
theamericanconservative.com/dreher/philosophy-jason-stanley/

Nothing Plato says is convincing in the slightest. It's funny to me that people often say that Nietzsche doesn't provide convincing arguments for what he says when it's even less the case for Plato.

>Nothing Plato says is convincing in the slightest.
Plato is too deep for you.

Plato is too dumb for me.

Zuckerberg memorised the classics

Refute one argument.

>diet has no effect on mental state

this post sponsored by the corn syrup industry

>t. has never read the greeks

He has no arguments to refute is the problem.

you should incorporate cyanide into your diet

try logic

Part of this great philosophy was trying to find answers to wmquestions we have aswered like what constitutes matter. They were "better" because they had more questions to answer.

Ancient Greece perished though

Yikes.

Attached: 2032.jpg (300x300, 13K)