/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Only truth should hold value in philosophy.

I tend to say Plato/Aristotle and Rousseau combined together are sort of the root of my thinking even though Rousseau said the classics were shit.

I'd claim Machiavelli but only bits. some of his ideas justified liberal tyranny which Macron is a fan of. no thanks. its only just if it lacks liberalism. you just can't run a system that causes everyone to hate you for no reason than you're trying to appeal to plebians. Hegel in terms of synthesis.

Russell and Popper are prime adversaries. that should be obvious. I like Augustine and Aquinas a lot because I despise atheists.

>>7066

>>7067

>>7072

Well... my idea is this.

Secular society goes through an esoteric cycle.

The Church or rather God's kingdom on earth is the only thing that does not truly change.

I believe N could see how society rises and falls, and he suspected that man either falls or rises. He didn't know how they would rise, but he sees how they could fall. In a sense his superman does rise, and it does rise to God ( and from God), but only so far as how far the Church is floats above the water of man (secular society)...

Like a flood, humanity is overhelmed by decadence, and the only thing that keeps man afloat and from drowning like "atlantis" is a life saving arc, the church...

>>7078

>what is German process philosophy

>who is Hegel

>who is Tolkien

Re-watch Lord of the Rings and realize you are only the latest in a long line of people to come up with this.

>>7083

>>7078

While you're at it you could just read the Bible, and see that it is pretty explicit that the church serves this function.

>>7084

>>7083

All of it?

Even the esoteric cycle specific and exclusive to secularism? And the heroic arch type modifying alongside the cycle change?

If my idea is not unique, but still self discovered, do I still have hope for developing it?

>>7085

>Even the esoteric cycle specific and exclusive to secularism? And the heroic arch type modifying alongside the cycle change?

I'm pretty sure its been articulated before. Even if it hasn't been you would still have to make a distinction between the institution of the church, and the ideal of the Church. Take your specific institution, and ask yourself "Has my church ever had a legitimate scandal, or failing?" The answer will most certainly be yes, and this is sufficient to begin identifying your cycles within the institution of that church. You could still say that these cycles tend upwards with regard to the church, and downwards with regard to the world. You could then differentiate between the two by way of the Church's archetypal heroic figure, Christ, and how conformity to Him manifests itself differently depending on where you are in the cycle.

>If my idea is not unique, but still self discovered, do I still have hope for developing it?

Sure you can develop it, but as I said, this has all been explored before and you can pick it up in the bargain dvds for like $8.99.

>>7087

I use the Catholic church. Anything outside it would be considered "secular", paganism, judaism, buddhism, atheism, etc etc.

>>7083

St. Pol Pol will save us from the urban demiurge