/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1536

There is a podcast doing this with the entire history of western philosophy. Quite frankly, as someone serious about philosophy, I don't like these general approaches.

THE major philosophers that matter are Aristotle, Kant, Hegel. Why? Because they were systematic and aimed for a unified philosophy. Each of these can take you a lifetime to understand just how fucking deep these motherfuckers were. Their relation to each other as influences is also deep.

>>1536

Historyofphilosophy.net

>>1540

>Aristotle, Kant, Hegel

>overrated

If you're ignorant of just how deep they went. Aristotle's metaphysics and term logic are the most developed lines up to Kant, who finally turned philosophy to itself and was the first to articulate metaphilosophical problems regarding philosophy itself. Hegel is the only one after Kant that took his critical project to heart and agreed that presuppositions and naively assumed knowledge and ontological claoms had to go completely. Hegel is the only philosopher who subjected philosophy to this rigorous standard, which everyone else after him has largely ignored, and thus we continue running on the wheel of dogmatism as if Kant never happened.

They, above all other philosophers, are more important today than ever.

>>1542

Hey philosobro, I didn't disagree with you. You apparently are more knowledgeable about them than I. I'm curious as to why assert they are "more important today than ever". You're on point about Aristotle's logic.

I think we just have different tastes.

>>1543

They are more important because their philosophies are still the pinnacles of Philosophy, which is largely ignored in analytic philosophy. The fact that I can read currently famous philosophers who clearly never read any of them and are literally just retreading lines which were along ago tread and seen to lead nowhere is pathetic. Philosophy has made almost no positive advances past Kant in general because the metaphilosophical critiques have been ignored.

Continentals are very much steeped in the classics, Kant, and the German Idealists to some extent.

>>1543

For example most people don't know that Hegel's Phenomenology is a Meta-epistemological work, it is neither rationalist nor empiricist. It is an attempt to answer the dilemma of the criterion of how we know that we know without begging the question.

People are not aware that the Science of Logic is an attempt to articulate a metaphysics that does not begin with an assumed premise.

It makes me ANGRY as fuck that almost no one knows this nor cares. We're going in circles.

>>1542

>Hegel is the only one after Kant that took his critical project to heart and agreed that presuppositions and naively assumed knowledge and ontological claoms had to go completely

This is a VERY bold statement. Wittgenstein was arguably even more critical than Hegel, though he expressed and formalised his viewpoints differently. I'm sure at least a handful of others did the same, and at least another couple of handfuls thought they did the same, f.i. by considering their presuppositions to be reasonably true.

>>1545

>the Science of Logic is an attempt to articulate a metaphysics that does not begin with an assumed premise

This is very intriguing, but two things;

- By "science of logic" do you just mean "logic" or do you mean something like "applied logic"?

- Logic does begin with assumed premises, no matter what system logic you look at. The premises are of such nature that they absolutely have to be presupposed in order for the system to work, but that doesn't make them any less a premise. What logic does best is have uncontestable links between premises and conclusions, not that it doesn't have any premises. You say that it is an attempt, but it isn't possible to begin with a system using a premise and arrive, through it, at a system independent of it.

>>1546

Wittgenstein went from logical positivism to hermeneutics. He never dealt with knowledge as such. I'm well aware of him, he wasn't versed in Kant and didn't care.

Hegel's logic isn't traditional logic, it is neither syllogistic nor propositional. The dialectic takes place by immanent conceptual analysis. Hegel tries to show that the inner necessity of concepts like being could be carried out in a sustained analysis to a point where the ontological categories would show to ground themselves by ultimately returning to the original concept. This would show that there was no assumption necessary to ground metaphysics.

Honestly I don't think you "should" start anywhere. Reading philosophy is reading someone else's opinion about philosophy.

As Marcus Aurelius said, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

Contemplate life. Talk about it with other people. Read other people's opinions on what you're thinking of. Philosophy is more about the thinking than about the reading.

>>1549

Literally 3/4s is about the reading if you actually care about philosophy. You could go all Descarte and Hume and do "original" intuitive philosophy, and all you're doing is retreading ground that other people tread long before you, and other people graciously showed their errors and corrected them in their own positions.

You're right that it doesn't matter where you start, but it sure as hell matters that you never stop reading until you have an original synthesis you're sure no one else thought of.

>>1551

I think my whole point is that all avenues of philosophy have been tread by trillions before me and trillions after me.

The only authority you give these people on the subject is that they're famous. In my honest opinion all you need for philosophy is to think and to talk about it with others. What do you think the Greek philosophers did with the majority of their time? At no point did I tell him "never read".

>>1551

As an aside, I don't understand at all the pervading desire for "originality" that exists among philosophers. I don't quite understand how it matters if what you think is "original" or not.

>>1554

Originality means you ACTUALLY MOVED ONE STEP FORWARD instead of retreading.

Plato was original. Aristotle was original. Kant was original. People who were very knowledgeable about those before them were capable of using them as springboards to something new.

You're full of shit if you think there is nothing new to think anymore. There hasn't been anything new only because people have your attitude about the value of the history of philosophy. The greats are greats for a reason. Reading them and thinking deeply on their arguments is necessary to moving ahead of them.

>>1558

No. It doesn't. You clearly don't understand even what my stance is on the matter.

You're "full of shit" if you believe that just because someone hasn't thought of something before, which is debateable as to even being possible, that this matters at all other than to stroke your own ego.

But it comes off abundantly clear that this seems to be one of your goals with philosophy from your self serving tone and inability or unwillingness to even attempt to understand what another thinks.

>>1560

It's clear you don't understand philosophy as such. This isn't a feel good enterprise. It's the search for truth. You simply aren't a philosopher if you're not hellbent on moving forward, even if that forward means stepping back. The development of philosophy is through the dialogue of the dogmatic and the relentlessly critical until a new dogma forms.

>>1563

What a tragic point of view.

I don't understand philosophy? Says who? You? Sorry, I was unaware I was speaking to the God Emperor of philosophy.

The field is vast, indeed it encompasses all of time and space in memoriam, for you to tell me that the way I approach such a topic is "wrong" really shows who here does not understand philosophy.

>>1566

You clearly don't. Look, it's alright if you're a mystic, romantic, or a relativist. You may have made a philosophy for yourself, that's as good as most can go that aren't philosophers as such. Philosophy isn't a rationalization effort to comfort ourselves in having taken the journey and gotten there. You're just a dogmatist.

>>1568

Ahaha, who are you to talk down on anyone's views of the world? You're really egotistical aren't you? I like how you claim to be a philosopher yet have asked no questions of me to even begin to understand what I think. Yet you threw out a bunch of fancy jargon. Elitism is such a sorry behaviour.

>>1569

I'm not anything. Me telling you that you're wrong is just the truth. Why would I question you? Your statements give enough of your presuppositions away. Your idea that "all philosophies are equal" is objectively false.

There are better philosophies, there are greater degrees of truth amongst them, and the point of Philosophers as opposed to philosophers is to keep the dialogue running and going forward. You're not a Philosopher, that's all I've said. I could care less about your ego stroking lel-so-ironic-passive-agressive posts. I'm not responding further to you.

>>1570

Haha, now he claims to know what the truth is.

I haven't said anything about my "presuppositions". What I think about philosophy and what I know about it are two different things.