the more I read greek, and specifically Platonist, philosophy, the more I realize that everything the Germans said had already been said in clearer language by the Greeks and Latins. In fact, I'm starting to believe that the developments in Logic by Leibniz, Wolff, Frege, and Gödel are the only things the Germans have actually added to philosophy. All the concepts in the the German continentals, on the other hand, already existed and were better thought out. The ding an sich is literally just the incomprehensible non-existent God/One of people like Plotinus and John Scotus Eriugena, except they actually gained knowledge about the ding an sich and gave it its proper place whereas Kant just said 'it's the cause of perceptions lol' and left it at that. And Schopenhauer thought that the hindus were some kind of geniuses, but all the ideas of eastern Philosophy are actually much more complete and far better embodied in Greek philosophy. When I read eastern Philosophy, it just feels like they are saying some things that are true and good on them for figuring out the basics but they are woefully incomplete and one sided, whereas a Greek text like the Hermetica contains all their ideas and more. Hegel basically ripped of the neoplatonists and I find his whole dialectic summarized neatly in every other ancient text I read dating all the way back to Plato. Were they retarded? I know these people, especially Schopenhauer, were definitely well read in Greek Philosophy, so why did they try to pass of their shit as their own original ideas? Why did they abandon the framework and in large part even the vocabulary of Greek philosophy and insist on starting their own traditions? Even the things that they did say that were new could easily have been stated in the long established lexicon of the Greeks, but instead they insisted upon jerking themselves off and introducing new terms and models unnecessarily.
Were the germans retarded?
There's a reason why people say that you start and end with the Greeks.
Himmler thought the Tibetans were a master race
That is all
Almost everyone who talks like you can't argue worth shit in a real philosophical debate. You're like a second-rate historian full of hubris. Come, let's have an actual philosophical debate, so I can show you how full of shit you are.
People like you can only truly learn when your hair is clutched and your face smashed into the dirt. The process of eating dirt would provide you more wisdom than your pitiful attempts of talking shit.
germoid who skipped almost two thousand years of philosophy after reading plato and aristotle detected
>all the ideas of eastern Philosophy are actually much more complete and far better embodied in Greek philosophy
bizarre claim
they seem different because they go in different directions in terms of praxis maybe due to culture but to me it seems it's because they have only fragments
that's too much text to say: I'm so retarded to realize that after greeks philosofy it's just an endless iteration which change according to the contextual "zeitgeist" of a determined social group
Congratulations. You got the joke.
You're gonna flip when you realize that Greek philosophy is just a degenerated attempt to rationalise Egyptian Religion because it's easier to teach that way.
schopenhauer broke a lot of barriers in his godlessness, something that greeks approached but didn't succeed well in. nietzsche pushed that boundary much further. german phenomenologists were incredibly original as the greeks never scraped epistemology and ontology from that direction. the man in your picture himself introduced the concept of noumena which is extremely important, among other original contributions.
I would actually go as far to say that philosophy peaked in 19th and early 20th century germany, and has been struggling ever since due to cultural taboos in the west that are a result of WWII that prevent discussion on natural selection pertaining to humans right as it was beginning to be fully understood as a fundamental aspect of the social human experience. in its place we have trash like pragmatism that is just an excuse to design slave societies and a bunch of socially approved geopolitical mumblers that won't risk discussing anything taboo including the increasingly swollen elephants like feminism or jews. quine made a few objective contributions to epistemology but that was almost a century ago. shit is stagnant.
yes the greeks were impressive but claiming germans didn't significantly push forward philosophy a couple centuries ago is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Nice OP. Nietzsche is the biggest lol
>raised Christian, masters Greek and Latin classics
>ends up restating the sophistical arguments from the Gorgias and Protagoras practically verbatim
>goes insane, probably deserved it
>the man in your picture himself introduced the concept of noumena which is extremely important
this is what sparked me to make this thread because I was reading the Periphyseon when Eriugena said this
>Gregory the Theologian too proves by many arguments that no substance or essence of any creature, whether visible or invisible, can be comprehended by the intellect or by reason as to what it is. For just as God as He is in Himself beyond every creature is comprehended by no intellect, so is He equally incomprehensible when considered in the innermost depths of the creature which was made by Him and which exists in Him ; while whatsoever in every creature is either perceived by the bodily sense or contemplated by the intellect is merely some accident to each creature’s essence which, as has been said, by itself is incomprehensible, but which, either by quality or by quantity or by form or by matter or by some difference or by place or by time, is known not as to what it is but as to that it is.
This horrifying pile of words means "a creature cannot comprehend its own perception" AT BEST as far as relevance to the concept of noumena goes, and I'm being generous here, in which case it is oxymoron as it immediately becomes an example of a creature describing the way its self functions in this matter, requiring functional comprehension to do so.
"noumena" in dichotomy to phenomena is an extremely important concept in ontology that does not exist in your block of text.
>Himmler thought the Tibetans were a master race
My great uncle was a very rich author who traveled the world in the 1920s 30s, was one of the first European let into Tibet. Tibetans were the only people he ever only had bad things to say about them. Even the mongols who literally tried to have him murdered, he liked and thought were badass, but Tibetans he thought off as fucking rats.
their substance is identical. it literally says the essence by itself is incomprehensible, i.e. noumena, and that what is contemplated by intellect is merely some accident, i.e. phenomena.
>in which case it is oxymoron as it immediately becomes an example of a creature describing the way its self functions in this matter, requiring functional comprehension to do so.
literally wtf are you talking about?
>"noumena" in dichotomy to phenomena is an extremely important concept in ontology that does not exist in your block of text.
to me it only sounds like you are prioritizing the German model for being more explicit and not realizing that the phraseology is the only difference.
i would only argue that kant might be worth reading, but i agree that generally plato begins and ends western philosophy
you've omitted the "creature's" before the "essence", because this theologian is talking about the soul as is typical of theologians. you have to alter the meaning of these words to make them synonymous with the concept of noumena.
>to me it only sounds like you are prioritizing the German model for being more explicit
I don't have to project meaning that isn't there onto the german model because it is not only explicit but original.
>doesn’t explain why
Fuck off attention whore
I've read works from most major western philosophers from the 5th century BC up to the mid 20th century. if that's any merit I consider kant, schopenhauer, husserl, heidegger, hegel, and nietzsche all to be worth the time for people with time. all of these people made contributions. all made mistakes as well.
hey nigger, "creatura" in latin is from the participle of creo (to create), i.e. "creatus" which means "having been created". he's not just talking about animals here, he's talking about all of creation
i agree that all of them, and most philosophy generally, is worth reading if time allows.
to add nuance to my argument, i would say that kant has the most universal application, and that the others you’ve listed are valuable for understanding 1) the general conversation of thought in the west after the enlightenment, and 2) for understanding literary and artistic movements through the same time period
but to iterate, i think that whether or not someone is “right” or whatever shouldnt actuallyninform whether someone reads them
>products of the atheism revolution are worth reading
no bias here of course, teehee i'm an atheist btw
kant requires there to be a deity you goomba
pretending that you are simply dealing with a bad translation, which I doubt because he ends by saying that creatures know that they are, we still have the problem that phenomena would be oxymoronically declared unknowable by this clear expression in the last sentence. the noumena/phenomena dichotomy is not expressed here, what is expressed is an inability to comprehend god's creation and what is left over is, once again oxymoronically if you are projecting these concepts onto these claims, an "accident", declaring either an essential designer in the realm of noumena or at the very least separate phenomena in the realm of noumena which is not possible to be confirmed, as you are only capable of perceiving your own phenomena and not a hypothetical others. this is not a description of the concepts of noumena and phenomena. this reeks of soul talk.
I'll admit the greeks don't get credited with as much as they should, I remember aristotle referring(in criticism) to another philosopher who had a fairly accurate natural selection hypothesis. but in this instance you are reaching.
while I'm claiming a lack of bias and atheism, I can equally say that you claim to eat your own poop and fuck stray cats. this is the level of discussion you are offering me. no thanks.
There was an entire chapter in one of his books.
Basically, he was shocked by how every Tibetan women were ugly, missed teeth and look beaten up, which obviously went against how he understood they should act. Upon asking about it, he found out that in order to avoid getting raided, which they were forbidden to defend themselves against, they had started the practice of beating their women, breaking their teeth, covering them in manure in order to discourage would-be attackers.
This sort of perverse logic apparently permeated their entire social life.
how is it bizarre, it has been said hundreds of times
Holy fucking shit. Link me up.
it's bizarre in content, i dont care about the frequency of repetition
Tibetans thread?
Tibetans thread.
>The ding an sich is literally just the incomprehensible non-existent God/One of people like Plotinus
It's not this simple. The thing in itself is more like remote matter in Aristotle, which is that it only exists problematically in the intellect as a subject, and does not actually exist in the way that concrete objects of perception exist. It's typical of Kant to basically restate things already stated problematically by Aristotle, with the categories it's apparent that he simply got rid of the ones that couldn't be abstracted from sense perception, due to Kant's natural bias against the senses, unlike Aristotle. That doesn't make "the thing in itself" God or the One. You can take a hint from early Neoplatonists Christians who used the symbolic "upper" and "lower" waters, the lower being sensible remote matter and incomprehensible and the upper being intelligible matter (the universals, which translate in a secular way to the categories and its derivatives).
You didn't actually read the germans, did you?
Only the translated ones, the rest will have to wait.
Not him but he's obviously still a product of the "atheist revolution" as that user put it or, more accurately, the enlightenment.
NTA but you clearly don't know what bizarre means.
>Enlightenment = Atheist Revolution
Fundamental Christfags are so fucking annoying. They don't know shit but think they can judge everything based on the prejudices their televangelists indocrinated them with.
Basically every single one of the protagonists of enlightenment was a devout Christian. But being a Christian doesn't forbid you to think on your own. The only ones that want to stop you are your cult leaders because it guarantees them their power over you. And you can stay a lazy sheep that follows the orders of your shepherds no matter if they're in accordance with the ideas behind the teachings of Christ or not.
Kant's ethics are explicitly rooted in the existance of god and an afterlife. Without them - and he explicitly states that - the moral law is of no use for human beings. Moreover, the very existance of the moral law "in the heart" of human beings is a hint for (or maybe even a proof of) the existance of god according to Kant. That's what his famous quote is all about:
>Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
The "starry heavens" refer to the "perfect order of the universe" which people assumed at Kant's times. They are the cosmological hint for the existance of god according to Kant.
The "moral law within me" (in original: "in meinem Herzen"/"in my heart") is the moral-theological hint or even proof (Kant isn't clear here) for the existance of god.
But go on: fight the spooky bogeymen your leaders set up. It enhances the group cohesion and spares you the oh so hard effort of thinking on your own. Why should you rule over yourself when you can let others rule over you?
I'm another guy but I'm going to give you my opinion. It is to be known that I haven't read Kant neither Eriugena, so I'm speaking from ignorance or wikipedia information.
First I'm going to clean up the quote from (I'm keeping essence, ditching substance, and intellect, ditching reason)
>No essence of any creature can be comprehended by the intellect as to what it is. For just as God, as He is in Himself beyond every creature, is comprehended by no intellect, so is He equally incomprehensible when considered in the innermost depths of the creature which was made by Him and which exists in Him; while whatsoever in every creature is either perceived by the bodily sense or contemplated by the intellect is merely some accident to each creature’s essence which by itself is incomprehensible, but which is known not as to what it is but as to that it is.
In you said
>This horrifying pile of words means "a creature cannot comprehend its own perception" AT BEST
which I think is wrong. What Eriugena says is that a creature (whatever what that means, though it seems to mean something created by God, “...creature which was made by Him...”) can’t know its essence because that essence is God: “...is He equally incomprehensible when considered in the innermost depths of the creature…” ie the essence of a creature is God within that creature. But perception and essence are two different things.
>in which case it is oxymoron as it immediately becomes an example of a creature describing the way its self functions in this matter, requiring functional comprehension to do so.
That is where the debate comes in, due to Eriugena lack of clarity in expressing his arguments. He says at the end of the quote “creature’s essence which by itself is incomprehensible, but which is known not as to what it is but as to that it is.”, now, what does he mean with “know what it is”? What I think he means is to fully understand the essence, to know every aspect of it or, at least, the fundamental ones. So knowing that it is incomprehensible wouldn’t be a contradiction because it is just a aspect of it, what we could call “accident”. But if by “know what it is” he means to know something about it, there it is a contradiction. I doubt this is the case because the contradiction would be very evident therefore he would notice it. In any case, he should have expressed himself better.
involving incongruities. sorry to ruin your transparent seething lol
You completely misunderstand either the passage you're quoting or Kant or both.
What is written here means: we cannot comprehend the substance (the [unchangeable] what-it-is) of a creature since it's the godly part of it and God isn't comprehendible. What we can perceive, nevertheless, are the accidents (the non-essential, the changing things) which are attached to the uncomprehendible essence.
But - and that's the buttom line - substance as well as accidents are "properties" of the object that is perceived by a subject. And the subject perceives the accidents because they are "properties" of said outer object.
In Kant's epistemology the "outer objects" are the thing in itself and you can't perceive anything about it: neither its substance nor its accidents. Everything that constitutes the object of perception (the inner object, the object as it is perceived by the subject) has been put into it by the subject itself. The object of perception doesn't even exist outside of the mind of the subject of perception.
sorry i forgot to talk about noumena. I consider that Kant has merit in coining that term and to explain it because it isn't exactly the same as Eriugena says: it is a generalization. Eurigena speaks only about God, Kant abstract the concept so we can say that the eurigena argument is an example of Kant concept.
All philosophy is made-up hoo-ha so I don't see why it matters who was smarter.
>There was an entire chapter in one of his books.
can you share the title?
the grandiloquent jargon and linguistic elitism of the germans is their contribution to philosophy. if knowledge is power, then making that knowledge (as simple as it may be) inaccessible keeps the idiots powerless and the powerless idiots
>I made up a word for a concept I made up that isn't real neener neener
No one cares
it's elitist code. in a post-enlightenment europe where every peasant can now read, how else can you retain power and share information to your auxiliaries?
What edition is this?
Take! Your! Meds!
You don't even realize Kant is one of the first academic philosophers who wrote in German instead of Latin and therefore could be - at least theoretically - understood by "every peasant". He's simply so used to Latin he adopts the way Latin was written and uses it in German.
The poison pill on women
Blackpill of a blackpill
Guessing Scriptores Latini Hiberniae but cant find a preview. Please let me know if you do, will definitely get the full set in the near future
...and what will the next Kant threads on be like?
>Maieutics: why do all philosophers support the abortion of thoughts? And why especially Kant?
>Kant is wrong. That's why he's called Cunt. Discuss!
>The categorial imperative is the globohomo infiltration of philosophy. Was the german goblin a jew?
>Why was Kant so critical of everything? Dude should have just chilled out!
And Hegel?
>devolved into a bunch of /pol/ mumbo jumbo and nignog speak like "shit is stagnant".
Fuck off.
niggers like nietzsche, patricians like Kant
brainlets seethe at this.
Hegel just translated to german the divine revelations bestowed upon him.
>first westerner allowed into Tibet
wait, I think I've heard this one before
...only important if you want to study the history of biology.
How can one culture be so cucked.
least the women can't bite when they are sucking.