>Read Plato
>Read Aristotle
You're done with philosophy, or at least you should be done.
Everyone who came after them was, to varying degrees, a lesser philosopher.
If you've reached absolute brainlets like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard or N*etzsche you've went WAY the frick too far.
Go back.
Unironically.
just read BAP
I agree and disagree. Philosophy in the West is just coping with Plato. The modern philosophers are doing their best to dismantle that.
Absolutely based and truthpilled.
Solved by Aristotle. The rest of western philosophy is a series of coping and seething at Aristotle.
>getting cummed
I despise ESLs so much.
The real filter is when you ask someone who was the better philosopher. Aristotle was a filthy Chud with shit takes while Plato was ahead of his time and his views on the soul, God, and the inherent value of all humans are superior to any of the garbage Aristotle spewed. Aristotle’s philosophy would later go on to be picked up by Abrahamic Chuds and hijacked for their own purposes. The world would be much better without him
>Aristotle’s philosophy would later go on to be picked up by Abrahamic Chuds and hijacked for their own purposes.
Abrahamic Religions, especially Christianity, are inherently Platonist. You are stupid.
Wrong. All the major Abrahamic religions have schools within them that were heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, but the vast majority are not at all platonist and certainly not the popular forms of these religions. Christianity had Erigena, Origen, Meister Eckhart, etc. who were very Platonist, but Aquinas, the scholastics, and basically the core of Catholicism is very much Aristotelian. israelites have the Kabbalah which is basically just israeli Neoplatonism, and Muslims have the Sufis, but these schools aren’t even 50% of the demographics so it makes no sense to consider them Platonist
Also, adding to my previous reply. If you think Abrahamic religions are “Platonist” because they believe in a God and an afterlife, then you’re the stupid one. Abrahamics say they believe in an “eternal soul” but they don’t really. They believe souls are created (usually at conception) and this thing cannot be eternal, it is now limited by time, it had a beginning and so there was a time when it did not exist. Plato truly believed in the immortality of the soul, hence why he also accepted reincarnation/metempsychosis. Plato’s God was the One, the Ground of Being, not a person (material or immaterial is irrelevant, a person cannot be the ultimate reality).
>Paranormal horseshit: Banana flavoured
Show me a gram of soul
>autism, the philosophy.
So this is your brain on materialism. Show me a gram of happiness. How about a liter of sadness? Or maybe an ounce of fear? These things can’t be quantified or measured with numbers or predicted with equations (though your autistic ass might think they can), that doesn’t mean happiness, fear, or mental concepts are absolutely nonexistant.
Human life has no inherent value.
That includes you so I’m coming for you
>Plato was ahead of his time and his views on the soul, God
Yeah, he was the mystic. Aristotle was the realist. We know.
No, not necessarily
>reading other people's philosophy instead of coming to the realization on your own
>letting other people tell you what the truth is
Truth is truth, doesn't matter if you come to it on your own or if someone else tells you what it is, so long as you find it.
Wrong
t. brainlet
Wrong.
>letting other people tell you what the truth is
but how do you know it's the truth?
If the alternative is an impossibility.
That requires you to come to that conclusion on your own, hence you’re wrong.
It still remains the truth whether I realize it or not.
Someone can explain to you why the alternative is an impossibility.
How would you know that the alternative being impossible is true?
Because for the universe to exist the unmoved mover (God) has to exist first.
Because atheism, which to my knowledge is always ultimately based on empirical materialism, is self refuting.
Why does the universe’s existence depend on an unmoved mover? What if it has always existed and another eternal being is energizing it?
Matter cannot exist eternally, it has to be created.
How do you know that?
Because matter popping into existence out of nothingness is scientifically impossible.
I didn’t say it came from nothing, just that it is eternal.
But we know that the universe isn't eternal and won't last forever.
Will spacetime cease to exist? When?
When and if God decides to shut it down.
Not an answer.
reality isn't black and white; there isn't simply a truth and false. There are many branching possibilities, some of which aren't even known.
>there isn't simply a truth and false
>Absolute truth doesn't exist
is an absolute truth statement anon.
God damn you're such a brainlet
come back here in a few years when you're (hopefully) smarter, and it will be possible for us to discuss things.
>Your argument is illogical
>OH YEAH? WELL YOU'RE A BIG DOO-DOO HEAD
kek, okay bud, thanks for playing.
and that's why you'll never grow; you can't even comprehend what you're reading.
This is the second time you've posted not an argument. I accept your concession for the second time anon.
why do we let these morons on IQfy again?
Why are you lads so uppity about this question? It's a matter of the simplest logic.
>Absolute truth doesn't exist
Is an absolute truth statement, which is self refuting and therefor logically wrong, which means that absolute truth, logically, has to exist.
>there isn't simply a truth or false
>"SO YOU'RE SAYING ABSOLUTE TRUTH DOESN'T EXIST? THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!"
5th grade reading comprehension
I think your problem lies that you're unable to connect how saying
>there isn't simply a truth or false
inherently implies that absolute truth doesn't exist.
(It does, and you're wrong).
>you're just wrong because I misinterpreted the meaning of what I read
I accept your concession
Do you accept that absolute truth exists?
>Go back to where?
To Plato and Aristotle.
There is 1 physical reality we all reside in, it does not care about your feelings on the matter (you are not a woman for saying you are, for instance). To deny this is to refuse metaphysics, allowing for all kinds of supernatural mysticism to infect public discourse. We are still dealing with Plato, the mystic, through religion. Live with your head on earth or get out of the fricking way.
>To deny this is to refuse metaphysics
No one is denying it, to espouse that the only thing that exists is the material is evidently false and pants on head moronic... it's also why metaphysics fell down the wayside.
It's peak brainletism.
Things that cannot be seen like oxygen do exist, they can be proven and measured using technology. To deny metaphysics is to espouse the supernatural, that which by definition cannot be proven. Plato muddied the waters 2000 years ago, thanks for paying it forward for another generation.
>Things that cannot be seen like oxygen
Are you implying that oxygen is immaterial?
Whenever I discuss philosophy on IQfy it has always turned out to be a huge mistake.
I don't blame you, I'm moronic for doing it over and over again.
No, it's not immaterial. It exists, and we can prove it exists. It can just not be seen with the naked eye.
cont; The soul can not be proven, therefore we cannot continue under the assumption that it does exist. Same with heaven, god and any supernatural phenomena. If we prove it one day here on earth, it's safe to live by it. Until then it is folly.
That's right, you can empirically prove that oxygen exists. But you can't empirically prove that math and logic exist, which is why adopting empiricism as the only way of determining what exists is braindead levels of moronation.
I am not choosing empiricism over rationalism. They are a false dichotomy because our mind needs sensory input to interpret and conceptualize. You need both to function. Math does not exist physically except for what we write down but if we apply it to technology we can fly to the other side of the planet in a day.
It doesn't matter if you choose one over the other, if the only way to determine what is real is through empiricism you're basically saying that math and logic do not exist.
Atheists know and accept that math and logic exist despite the existence of said categories not being verifiable through empiricism, which is what makes their objections to the existence of God on empirical grounds both sad and funny at the same time.
Math and logic are epistemological tools, they are merely the findings we have on the world around us via the sensory input we get and our interpretation of it. This argument you are making is like saying "Your field of view is not a physical entity therefore you are blind". Math is provable in the sense that when you have 2 apples and you add 2 more, you have 4 apples. Therefore we can assume that 2+2=4. If we apply this correctly down the line, buildings stay up instead of collapsing.
>Math is provable in the sense that when you have 2 apples and you add 2 more, you have 4 apples.
That doesn't prove that 2+2=4, it just proves that you have 4 apples.
Math and logic aren't empirically verifiable.
>epistemological tools
Epistemology is also empirically unverifiable (and also aren't epistemological tools you fricking idiot).
That's a lot of sentences to proclaim NUH-UH.
Have you ever created anything? You will have to abide by the math for it to work, that proves that math is an at least relatively accurate interpretation for reality. Of course there are gaps in math, this is because we as humans cannot find out everything there is to know.
You are being a religious skeptic which is hilariously ironic, denying epistemology in it's entirety basically means we can't know anything. Yet we are here, having a discussion using our logic, using language that we both know to communicate while using a device we both know exists. We can know things for sure.
>Go back.
Go back to where?
Heidegger cancels both of them
Only the Bible is important.
Mental concepts are indeed imaginary, most of the ideas humans come up with are wrong/unprovable in some regard. Those that are right have an applicable aspect in reality, e.g. math or physics. Happiness is an emotion given your interpretation of the status of your life. there are mental conditions like depression that influence this that are provable by scanning the brain activity. The subjective existing in the mind or not also has nothing to do with the existence of god or the supernatural, which is a metaphysical claim about objective reality, not subjective emotions.
If you claim the subjective has a place in objective reality you cannot claim transwomen aren't women
ITT: Insecure Pseuds