[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 151 KB, 817x1000, frog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17665485 No.17665485 [Reply] [Original]

A containment thread for the discussion of analytic autism, continental claptrap, ethical dilemmas, and oriental LARPing. Today's topic: whomst do you prefer between Plato and Aristotle, and why?

>> No.17665554
File: 69 KB, 640x786, 72606918a93e2e4739a5bcadae64afdd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17665554

>>17665485
There was a thread earlier this week, "Has anyone here meditated starting from first principles?" where I gave an answer, looking for feedback, pls, no bully.

> There is a "given"
> The "given" is subject to local autopoiesis, leading to the emergence of interiority/exteriority.
> Thus part of this "given" can be put in position relative to other parts based on this dichotomy.
> The conjunction of the particularities of the autopoeisis of two given and their relationship based on their relative position to one another constitute the relational point-of-view of those givens.
> Objectivity constitutes itself from a comprehensive systematization of point-of-views.

>> No.17665566

can someone explain what lead plato to think there were ideas? it sounds like logos and intuitive mystical thinking rather than reasoning

>> No.17665603

>>17665566
An example he gives is mathematics. With only a little help from him a slave he teaches is able to gain new mathematical insights about the triangle. Because the slave didn't "know" anything about maths, and didn't use empirical methods he concludes that he must've always "known" it in someway.

>> No.17665630
File: 44 KB, 657x527, apu-apustaja-59eda0c797870.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17665630

I don't hate spirituality but I am tired of all of these threads about reaching some deep inner meaning. What are the best books/authors/philosophers who valued external reality or action over the internal? Especially ones that had a moral/duty angle and preferred sobriety or clarity of thought.

>> No.17665642

>>17665603
But the slave knew the triangle. Why couldn't he have learned something about the triangle? It seems as if knowledge, in the second sense you used it, is meaningless. Knowledge that you dont know isnt knowledge.

>> No.17665718

>>17665485
I prefer Plato because the dialogue and the myth are features of philosophy too important to easily dismiss.

>>17665554
I don't know about you, but I've never meditated and felt words like autopoiesis coming in through my head.

Another thing: I don't think you've solved the problem of objectivity, but to be fair, I also don't think I understand how you're using the term "given", especially not in the 4th step.

Your last step sounds more like what the pseuds call inter-subjectivity, a.k.a. what is common among all or most subjective experiences. To prove that there is an objective reality you have to prove that some fact about reality is true regardless of anyone's point-of-view. For example you could say the fact that we use language to communicate is true regardless of whether we are being heard or not, whether we are speaking at the time we think about this fact, or what language we think it in.

>>17665566
First of all, fuck you. One of the meanings of logos is "reason", so you'll have to clarify your use of the term "reasoning". I'm going to have to assume by "ideas" you mean "Ideas" as in "Plato's Ideas" or "Kant's Ideas".

Think of the proposition that reptiles are animals, or that chairs do exist. If these propositions are literally true, it means that the objects referred to by its terms do, in fact, exist. So, a chair does, in fact, exist.

There are literally true propositions containing terms that could only refer to Ideas. You see a criminal getting punishment for his crimes, and you think, "Justice is real." This implies that the object referred to by the term "justice" is literally real. But "justice" is an abstract object.

Therefore abstract objects exist.

Read more: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/#4

>> No.17665821

>>17665566
The core argument for the existence of universals (a variant of which is Platonic Realism) is the One Over Many: How could it be that two spatially distinct things are nontheless 'the same' in certain respects? For example two particular triangles, while they are distinct entities they are both triangular - what is the ontology behind this relation?
One answer to the question is Realism. According to Realism, common properties are a peculiar type of entity that can be present in multiple locations simultaneously. It comes in two main versions, Platonic and Aristotelian (or 'moderate' and 'extreme'). The former asserts that Universals (ie common properties) exist outside space and time. The later asserts that Universals exist in the particular things that instantiate them.
Now both of these views face certain difficulties. It is not easy to explain how instantiation works. If Universals are not spatiotemporal, how are they related to the particular things that examplify them? And if we go with Aristotle, how could something be wholly present in two distinct locations and still remain a single entity? These views can be discussed in much more detail, but that would do for an introduction.

>> No.17665984

>>17665821
>>17665718
>>17665603
it sounds like what he was talking about was just a quirk of language and not interesting at all

>> No.17665993

brute facts VS principle of sufficient reason

who wins?

>> No.17665994
File: 57 KB, 426x960, 1610143942575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17665994

>>17665485
WHERE do I start with analytic philosophy?

>> No.17666066

>>17665984
It superficially sounds like a semantics issue, but it is a genuine philosophical issue with massive impact in other areas of philosophy. Eg. some arguments for the immortality of the soul work or break with the theory you adopt.

>> No.17666073

>>17665630
Kant and Fichte fit the moral/duty point, but they are idealists and Fichte isn't sober. I would say If you want sobriety also look at Aristotle, the guy was very down to earth and was the clearest thinker that ever lived. Go with the Nicomachian Ethics

>> No.17666114
File: 313 KB, 494x1622, B37287DF-971C-4D3E-A953-DBCA3771CA71.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17666114

>>17665554
Full blast schizo rant incoming, no holding back, full force.

The Aporiatic Terza rima of Sosein and Dasein, the emergence-recapitulation of universality cycle, multiplicity of the same repeated through difference as the key to the entirety:

Line one Y rhyme 1

Line two H rhyme 2

Line three V rhyme 1

Line four H rhyme 2

Line five Y rhyme 3

Particulars emerge as a multiplicity of universals which then recapitulate their universality, this re-universalization process occurs through a rationalization Division identical to the process by which the Begriff becomes the Idea. In this regard each category is filled with a multiplicity of objects and each object is itself a category which repeats different the same previous category and this repetition causes the emergence of new qualities from the same by rational unfolding of the same. This is because the recapitulated universal is an auto-position of the previous universal thus its revealing and its concealing are an identical movement.

If this is applied to the sosein database model we may analyze the sum of our model thus far

Line 1 Sosein as Begriff

Line 2 Dasein as the idea of Sosein

Line 3 Dasein as auto-position of Sosein as Begriff

Line 4 auto-positioned Dasein acting as Sosein

Line 5 Dasein of auto-positioned Sosein

line 6 Auto-position of the dasein of the autopositioned sosein

Etc

This schema can be used in reverse in order to extend phenomenological reduction to an even further extreme than previously attained in the following way.

Line 10=the Giveness of the Arcane logos as the particular idea of

Line 9 the Sum of all possible giveness of all logoi as the universal concept of logos

Line 8 the sum of all giveness of all logoi as the particular dasein of all sides of the gives-without giveness

Line 7 the gives-without-giveness as the most abstract category

Line 6 the gives-without-giveness as the particular dasein of Pure sosein in itself (The Real=totality of properties, note this is where Laruelle’s model reaches Aporia)

Line 5 sosein as the most abstract category(The Holy Aporia, The jewel of contradiction) the sum of the without-giveness which need or needn’t give

Line 4 sosein as the particular dasein of the purely Ungiven

Line 3 The Purely Ungiven as the most abstract category (that which is not in phenomena, that which is neither self nor not self, neither noumena nor Soma, the vast regions of darkness Beyond the Jewel, the mirror and abyss of the trinity) which neither philosophy nor non-philosophy can communicate due to the bondage of the jewel of contradiction and gives-without-giveness

Line 2 the Purely Ungiven as the particular nature of the darkness of Godhead(not necessarily Godhead, it can be the void prior to the Big Bang, the outside of the range of the universe which the universe unfolds into but is not ever, that which no consciousness can perceive and shall not ever perceive)

Cont

>> No.17666122

>>17666114

Line 1 The Godhead as ultimate category but also the break down of universality and particularity

Line 0 the universality of the most universal is its particular nature, the particular nature of it is its universality, by extension the most particular of the particular is the universal most and vice versa. This is the Person of the Godhead, this contradiction creates the entirety of the schema and is the entire schema

Demonstration through phenomenological-ontological-theological reduction.

Beginning with the Normative perception of the world as the process of the intermingling of various empirical-eidetic constructs

These root in the relations/dasein of eidetic structures

This itself roots out of the sosein of eidetic structure, the capacity to have eidetic structures.

The eidetic structure capacity is the capacity to have processes of rectification/solidification of the various elements that arise by the intermingling of perceptions of self and other

These root in the rectification/solidification of self and other

Both of these arise at once through perception of phenomena, otherness arising out of perception of gross external matter and perception of self from a subtle sense of self which pervades experience. The self conception and conception of other arise at once, designing each other, the self knows it is self by seeing it is not-self by seeing the other. The sense of other knows otherness by sense of self. These occur at once.

Both of the sense of self and other root out of the phenomenological experience of experience itself

Experience arises as particular and solidified elements of the capacity called perception, perception is general, the particular being of perception is experience, the substance of experience is perception.

Perception is a product of and arises at once with consciousness, this is because perception is the capacity of the consciousness to perceive. However consciousness must always be conscious of something.

Consciousness then is the substance/determination/sosein of perception and perception is the dasein of consciousness

Consciousness and being are for all practical purposes from the phenomenological perspective identical, to be is to be consciousness and to be conscious is to be conscious of something. (Thus being=consciousness and consciousness=perception of being)

That which pervades consciousness/ones being is the transcendental ego, this is simply that which determines that this being is this particular being, this consciousness is this particular consciousness.

Thus the substance/determination/sosein of the consciousness is Transcendental ego (the true self, absolute I.)


Cont

>> No.17666129

>>17666122

The consciousness(and by extension being) can only know being by dividing its own being from its perception of other things, thus the process of intentionality is identical to the process of emptying being of its harmonious self-unity, which is the birth of self-other, perception is consciousness emptying/blinding itself of its singular substance of being in order to perceive a multiplicity of beings and thus experience its own being and the aspects of these beings through experience.

The transcendental ego likewise is the determinant of the consciousness which can only know itself by such a process of division, by this I mean to say, prior to consciousness there is no substantial difference between the material substance/determination of the transcendental ego and all that is not one’s own being, as the transcendental Ego in itself is the determinant of Particular beings and not particular beings, we can thus say that the multiplicity of Being is identical to the unity which we refer to by the term transcendental Ego.

The transcendental ego however does not exist within itself without relation to being, prior to the multiplicity of being it is simply the Real, it only becomes the transcendental ego when it becomes a determinant of being.

The Transcendental ego then is the process by which the Real becomes being, thus the transcendental ego is identical to the becoming/manifesting of Being

But the same pattern exists here also, the Being gains determination from the transcendental ego, the transcendental ego gains determination from the field of all determinants/real substances known as the Real, but is not divided from the real within itself. Rather it knows itself as being Through the process of auto-position.

The Real by mirroring itself, recognizing itself, the one by seeing itself as one, creates the process of becoming-one which is the transcendental ego which is by its nature necessarily arising with consciousness.

Thus auto-position is consciousness.

The determinants of the real undergo auto-position which necessarily must induce intentionality, or to word it without jargon, the Real by realizing it is the Real loses its reality as the real and thus becomes consciousness of its reality by its lack of reality which necessarily must be consciousness of itself and others.

The Real therefore determines/gives but is itself is not given, it is thus the gives-without-giveness, the Determines-without-being-determined, which is to say, the Nondual unity which is called Sunyata and Ain.


Cont

>> No.17666133

>discussing philosophy after it's thorough refutation by wittegenstein and krishnamurti
Yikes.

>> No.17666135

What are Plato's more mystical dialogues aside from Phaedo?

>> No.17666141

>>17666129
However this nature of giving without being given/giving data determinants without being determined itself once more reveals our same process, the determining without being determined/gives-without-giveness must logically be the particular determination/dasein of its own higher substance, its own higher substance is logically the Ungiven, that purely undetermined of which all that is and is not determined is but a particular fragment and by no means the entire genus.

Beyond this I can think of nothing higher than the ungiven than the root of the ungiven, which must be the divine darkness, the unknowability of Godhead, and by this I mean to say, the Ungiven must be the membrane through which the power of God(which due to divine simplicity is Nondual to all of his other ineffable attributes) manifests into the totality of reality and by reality I mean that dasein nature of gives-without-giveness

Thus the ungiven is a boundless database, a genus, whereas the entirety of the gives-without-giveness is but a singular particular within that broader category.

The broader category of the Ungiven being the membrane through which the ineffable godhead interacts with the Real.

>> No.17666151

>>17666135
Parmenides and timaeus

>> No.17666158

>>17666151
Thanks

>> No.17666205

>>17665994
frege

>> No.17666209
File: 48 KB, 728x410, actresses-shin-se-kyung-sin-se-kyeong-wallpaper-preview.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17666209

>>17665718
>I don't know about you, but I've never meditated and felt words like autopoiesis coming in through my head.
Admitting to be a midwit is a bold move, especially right from the beginning.
>I also don't think I understand how you're using the term "given", especially not in the 4th step.
The French term 'donné' is better because it refers simultaneously to 'data' and 'given'.
>Your last step sounds more like what the pseuds call inter-subjectivity
My intuition is more that objectivity isn't a pole in a binary dichotomy but rather the very process of the given being shaped into the world by contact to that specific object which is a subjectivity.

>> No.17666227

>>17665718
He’s using meditation in the sense Descartes or Husserl would, not meditation in the sense of single pointed awareness, silent illumination, zazen or the like. The best analysis of the given is Probably (after reading your Husserl and Heidegger ) the works of Luc-Marion and laruelle, especially Marion.

>> No.17666233

>>17666129
>>17666122
>>17666114

Teach me what I must know to attain this power level, please.

>> No.17666240
File: 697 KB, 828x811, 91F7E0C8-2399-461B-A188-27C9A1FB8C75.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17666240

>>17666233
Mostly a synthesis of pic-related.

These are husserl, hegel, meinong, agrippa, boehme, John Dee, Kenneth grant, Iamblichus, Bertiaux, Abhinavagupta, Deleuze, gikatila, Linji, abulafia, merleu-ponty and Ge-Hong

>> No.17666244

>>17665993
every horn of the agrippan trilemma undermines the PSR

>> No.17666261

>>17666233
Just be autistic and never have sex and use "philosophy" (actually religion) as a coping mechanism for your mental disorder and virginity.

>> No.17666292

>>17666209
>>17666227
Midwit or not, I would hate to get to that level

>> No.17666293

>>17666261
I have three children and have no mental illnesses whatsoever.

>> No.17666310

>>17665984
The problem of universals is a foundational issue in metaphysics. Your position on universals, like >>17666066 said, will help you determine whether or not minds/souls exist, whether virtues exist, whether people can choose to be virtuous, and much more

>> No.17666332
File: 618 KB, 708x547, tumblr_n346r1s9yh1toa0nco1_1280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17666332

>>17665485
Cringe
Go back

>> No.17666381

>>17666066
>>17666310
those still sound like semantic issues

>> No.17666487

>>17666244
i agree. but there are infinitists who believe that infinite regress is acceptable and it is what reality abides by. is there any reason why everything having a reason isnt possible or is unnacceptable? what if that was how reality was? is there even any point in arguing since we cant see if reality has brute facts or just regressess forever?

>> No.17667287
File: 170 KB, 1080x1055, 05a7123e099ade302b05330cd9891563.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17667287

>>17665485

Humble introspective bump.

>> No.17667388
File: 964 KB, 1200x900, red room 3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17667388

>>17650793
>What's the physicalist response to color?
The Acquaintance Hypothesis, which states that Mary’s experience of red involves a different form of knowledge than what Mary encountered in her studies, called ‘knowledge-by-acquaintance’. It denies that her experience of red was propositional, and therefore factual, and so it would not come under the purview of Physicalism, which again is just a collection of all the facts. This is to say nothing about its physicality—only that its absence from the collection of all facts does not constitute a threat to the collection’s truth.

If Physicalism is true, then Mary had learned and knows all the facts, and all the facts are physical facts. The way Mary came to know the facts was through knowledge-by-description. This covers all the discursive knowledge, whatever can be conveyed through propositions.

What Mary does not possess is all knowledge of the form knowledge-by-acquaintance. This can be described as “knowing what it is like” as applied to experiences. Hear Earl Conee, who wrote that
>“learning what an experience is like is identical to becoming acquainted with the experience… This suggests the more specific acquaintance hypothesis that becoming acquainted with a phenomenal quality consists in experiencing the quality”.

So, to know what it is like to have an experience is to have actually had the experience, and having had an experience with “a maximally direct cognitive relation” (i.e. awareness) to it constitutes knowledge-by-acquaintance. So it is true that Mary lacks knowledge-by-acquaintance of the experience red, for she has never had the experience of red prior to being shown the color; it is also true that Mary lacks knowledge of many other experiences, such as the experience of living in Paris, on account of having never been to Paris.

What qualifies knowledge-by-acquaintance as different is that experiences are not factual, and do not take a propositional form. There can be facts about experiences, and propositions can be arranged to express some experience, but experiences themselves are “irreducible to factual knowledge”.

>> No.17667420

>>17667388
Quick aside, once had to clean a room like that when I was working for a hotel and the electricity went off, and I had to keep working. I swear I've never felt more anxious in my life than during that hour or so.

>> No.17668016
File: 152 KB, 1024x768, Théti-chéri (papyrus).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17668016

>>17665554
Unfolding these thoughts further

> There is a "given" [the given is not (yet) object]
> The "given" is subject to local autopoiesis, leading to the emergence of interiority/exteriority.
> Thus part of this "given" can be put in position relative to other parts based on this dichotomy.
> The conjunction of the particularities of the autopoeisis of two given and their relationship based on their relative position to one another constitute the relational point-of-view of those givens.
> Objectivity constitutes itself from a comprehensive systematization of point-of-views. [Objectivity is not a pole in a dichotomy with subjectivity, but an early (earlier) step of the process of the given being shaped into the world]
-> Objectivity is not the system of facts, but the system of givens as given to each other and maintained as such. Particulars, Universals, difference and iteration (etc.) emerges from the holistic state-of-affairs of the given. [The given is (now) an object)
-> There is a 'not-given'. [We must here distinguish between the given and both the not-given as hidden and the not-given as taken]
-> The not-given, subject to the same local autopoiesis as the given, the the same relational point-of-views system of positioning (although here as 'point-of-concealments) Mark's the limits of objectivity, neither as outside or inside of it.
-> The conjunction of the given and not-given as hidden of an object and its relationship based on the point-of-views and points-of-concealments of other objects relative to it constitutes the eidetic relativity of the given for (parts of) itself.
-> Subjectivity constitutes itself from the system of point-of-views and that of the eidetic relativity of the given.

>> No.17668064
File: 9 KB, 198x264, Maimonides-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17668064

>>17665485
Where do I start with him?

>> No.17668149

I am a philosophy brainlet, but otherwise a humble midwit. If you had to recommend one piece of literature to help me get started what would it be?

I hear starting from the Greeks is a good idea, where would you recommend starting with the Greeks?

>> No.17668504
File: 32 KB, 480x447, 1586111845863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17668504

>>17668149

What interests you. Politics, ethics, metaphysics...? The important part early on is to get something which is both serious and able to hold your interest.