/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20357222]

Modern philosophy feels like a downgrade from Medieval Philosophy

[Anonymous No.20357668]

>>20357222
Read more. Not every single thinker from the early modern era had a system as small and simple as Descartes'.

[Anonymous No.20357752]

>>20357222
That's because it is

[Anonymous No.20357792]

In what way? I don't think there's anything worthwhile in the Aristotelian theology produced by Christians and Muslims during that period. Descartes recognizing the need to restart from scratch was a much needed de development.

[Anonymous No.20357808]

Philoosophy peaked with late antiquity and the early medieval period.

[Anonymous No.20357817]

was Aristotle even right about anything?

[Anonymous No.20357827]

Modern philosophy is just a rationalists trying to justify existence.
Of course it’s trash

[Anonymous No.20357841]

>>20357817
Aristotle was right that art had more importance than just being propagandistic at best and outright nefarious at worst like Plato thought. Other than that Plato absolutely mogs Aristotle.

I feel like it was a mistake that Scholasticism/Thomism overemphasized Aristotle and basically forgot about Plato even though it was Platonism that, ironically, was the most influential in shaping Christian philosophy through late-Classical figures like Pseudo-Dionysius and Augustine.

[Anonymous No.20357850]

>>20357222
You just arent reading the right one.

[Anonymous No.20357934]

>>20357817
Imbecile. Aristotle practically invented logic on his own.

[Anonymous No.20357943]

>>20357222
>Obnoxious Scholasticism vs obnoxious language analytics.
>is all of philosophy
You really don’t want to read real books and have fun?

[Anonymous No.20357949]

>>20357943
I'm a midwit. I can't dive deep into literature like you guys

[Anonymous No.20357960]

>>20357792
Descartes epistemology is basically the epistemology of Thomism.

>>20357934
Aristotle didn't invent logic, he and Plato discovered logic, which it's different.

[Anonymous No.20357970]

>>20357222
>t. Catholic, maybe Protestant or Muslim
There's literally no great merit to it. It's not very initially convincing: you have to basically be coached into the medieval system by first being taught Aristotle and then you go forth. I don't see why some random person should believe in hylomorphism to start. The early moderns make recourse to divisible sense experiences on the one hand, and material atoms on the other. Both of which are pretty available to our scrutiny. Actually I take it back, if you read only Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz I can see how those guys feel like downgraded medievalism since they practically are just that, given their rationalism. But that's just them. Most early modern philosophy wasn't like that: not just the well-known British empiricists, but later 18th century French philosophy as well. I assume by "modern" you mean "before Kant died."

[Anonymous No.20357993]

>>20357970
Modern philosophy like empiricism basically relies on common sense and not reflecting too hard on principles and logical criteria, in other words it relies on a lack of deep cognitive power or effort, the laziness which prefers to just settle with appearances and other simplifications which appear more obvious to everyday experience. The reason Aristotelianism does not appear initially convincing is because it is the result of decades of deep thought by its founder, Aristotle, and then subsequent lifetimes of development by other deep thinkers. Powerful contemplation does not catch on well with beginners who have dipped their toes into the water, for them what catches on is the path of least resistance ("I'll just believe what I see and ignore anything that can't be easily induced from that experience; there is too much contention in logical argument, so surely there must be something wrong with it"). Modern philosophy is actually less scientific than the Medieval and Classical equivalents, which is why there is so much contempt for it today. Nothing patches together, everything is vague hogwash, there is no refuting or understanding anything meaningful, so much of it rests in the beloved "subjectivity" of Descartes, something Aristotle knew well to avoid as a fixation (some writers will portray Aristotle as not being "sophisticated" enough to spend huge amounts of effort on subjectivity, I think it is the exact opposite).

[Anonymous No.20358025]

>>20357993
Are you a Thomist?

[Anonymous No.20358060]

>>20357993
I don't think this is true at all. Post-Kantian modern philosophy gets very very complicated and difficult and technical and it's clear that a lot of thought goes into it. It's at least comparable to, if not more logically critical, than medieval philosophy. After all, it has a thousand extra years of philosophical critique to make use of, unavailable to the medievals. Besides, Aristotle begins with common sense himself, it's a very ordinary language kind of philosophical analysis, based on how we talk about persistence and change and so forth.

[Anonymous No.20358079]

>>20357960
> Descartes epistemology is basically the epistemology of Thomism.
I don’t mean to be rude but as an autist about this stuff you could literally not possibly be more wrong. Cartesian epistemology is Suarezian/Scotist, miles away from Thomism.

[Anonymous No.20358293]

>>20358060
>Besides, Aristotle begins with common sense himself
But he doesn't end with it. If you know anything about him you will know that his philosophy begins with induction via intuition of the first principles, and then deduction of the final principles after careful contemplation and reasoning from them. There is no similar basis in Kantian or post-Kantian philosophy, because it is "logically critical" (this is basically flawed to begin with in that it either removes itself entirely from experience, in Aristotelian terms it ignores the actual content of thought and focuses only on the rules of thought, ie only the first half of the Analytics, or as in Hegel it bases itself in emotive and subrational "common sense" vis-à-vis P.d.G., which is actually completely at odds with any deducible final principles, and lends itself equally to the subjective error, which is now called "intersubjectivity"). One has to be very careful with the assertion of being "logically critical", as technically speaking one can be critical of absolutely anything, the mind can hold whatever it wants to be true or false if it so desires. The obvious problem here is that if one is unwilling to pass judgement on some important aspect of reality, the philosophy dries out in proportion to the impotence of the judgements (which does not, by the way, have any necessary bearing on the truth of the judgements). Philosophy becomes meaningless and devoid of significance the fewer judgements one is willing to make, which is one of the major issues with Kant's beliefs. And if we are going to indulge in the penchant for "critical philosophy" at all, then fundamentally either empiricism or skepticism will come out victorious, because they are simply the most critical of things that can be criticized without any noticeable effect. Empiricism is at least partly correct in that there are no metaphysical or epistemological beliefs needed for us to operate in reality, these are luxuries of understanding and contemplation, which coincidentally Aristotle thought too. Kant's critical philosophy, as it stated in his Prolegomena, had the purpose of stemming the pretensions of the "dogmatists", but empiricism is still far superior at this, so what merit does Kant's critical philosophy actually have compared to the philosophers who don't care for weak half-measures, like Hume? Besides, Kant's entire solution to "dogmatic metaphysics" is to simply perpetuate the subjectivist delusion coming from Descartes which mistakes a relationship of part (human organism) to whole (cosmic organism) for substance (subject) to substance (object). Subject and object are conveniences of language. It mistakes a relationship of subsistence for one of reciprocity, all on the basis of a misunderstanding of self and misuse of language. Cf. Giordano Bruno for a genuine attack of Aristotle.