/sci/gay crossboarder here,
I read Heraclitus and an introduction to Hegel. Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle are nonsense because science reveals that process is more fundamental than essence or substance. Are there any books of scientific philosophy like Heraclitus and Hegel, in which process is fundamental?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Reading this now, enjoying it thoroughly but I have to go slower since I’m not too accustomed with the basic principles of mathematics. He writes in a way that makes it feel like I’m front row in a lecture though which is impressive. I’m finished Gravity’s Rainbow a week or so ago and I hope that getting more familiar with the basics of mathematics and chemistry will make my second reading more fruitful
>I hope that getting more familiar with the basics of mathematics and chemistry
will always tolerate you with slightly less than open arms.
I own that one myself. I enjoyed it.
>disregards Parmenides, Plato, and Aristotle
Don't do it. You're getting filtered. You're making the same mistake a lot of those ancient philosophers made themselves. They tossed out one another's philosophy wholesale, but, the reality is, each of them brought this or that revelation to the table. We are the fortunate who may feast upon all of them from our privileged position as posterity.
I don't have an answer for you precisely, but Heraclitus was almost certainly INTJ. Hegel was almost certainly INTJ. You seem to be enjoying the Introverted Intuition dominance as filtered through a Extroverted Thinking perspective. When you say, "process oriented," any INTJ would lean in that direction. You've rejected Aristotle—an ENTJ, and at first I found this a bit fascinating, but it's no mystery, really. An ENTJ, and it shows very well in Aristotle's Rhetoric, for example, is structure oriented. I would say because an ENTJ wants to either dominate, destroy, or replace whatever structure it is they're analyzing. Plato is thought to have been INFJ, so while he may be endeavoring along similar motives as a Heraclitus or a Hegel, the flip in their second fucntions Extroverted Thinking for Heraclitus and Extroverted Feeling for Plato, has the result of creating opposite blind functions and creating a subjectivity to the logic of the INFJ which, while rigorous, can be a little divorced from reality; this is different than the subjectivity created by an INTJ's tertiary Introverted Feeling in a Nietzsche or Rand, for example, which has the result of making them cling too tightly to preferred aesthetics and romance their ideas nearly to the point of the religious. As for Parmenides, I'm not sure what type he may have been, but I would guess that you'll be more inclined to the works of other INTJs, and perhaps the work of INTPs, ENTPs, ISTJs, and maybe even an ENFP—which would be very different indeed, but comes with Intuition dominance and a Extroverted Thinking regardless.
And another scoffer condemns himself to midwittery. Predictable, but disappointing.
>that post
>IQfygay
Checks out.
>You're making the same mistake a lot of those ancient philosophers made themselves. They tossed out one another's philosophy wholesale, but, the reality is, each of them brought this or that revelation to the table. We are the fortunate who may feast upon all of them from our privileged position as posterity.
Noted, thank you.
>You seem to be enjoying the Introverted Intuition dominance as filtered through a Extroverted Thinking perspective. When you say, "process oriented," any INTJ would lean in that direction.
I never studied psychology but this sounds correct. I am a thinking extrovert.
>Additionally, going into it with the idea that there are good philosophers with good thoughts and bad philosophers with bad thoughts is only going to frustrate you as you get further into it. You can’t evaluate philosophers in the same way you would evaluate a scientist: it’s not necessarily the results that matter, it’s the process of getting to them that counts.
Noted, thank you. I should say that scientists spend the bulk of the "Discussion" section of their published research evaluating the process and why the observations that do not accord with a theory do not undermine that theory.
>Because essence explains matter, not the other way around. In a human body there are many parts, cells, etc, but these only really exist as part of a unified whole, which is the actuality or the soul. And similarly the parts of an individual cell are only conceivable as part of a cell, not as parts.
I don't quite understand you but you can conceive of the organic compounds that comprise a cell without reference to the whole of the cell. Otherwise, organic chemistry and biochemistry textbooks would be unintelligible.
The current theory of the origin of life, that of amino acids and ribozymes, conceives of the parts without reference to the whole.
Don't listen to them. They're the crabs in the bucket.
You make a good example of the level Hegelgays are stuck at. Philosophy won't be saved until Hegel's and Spinoza's influence is completely nullified.
Truth
It’s not so much that process is the fundamental core of Hegel’s philosophy, it’s actually form. Additionally, going into it with the idea that there are good philosophers with good thoughts and bad philosophers with bad thoughts is only going to frustrate you as you get further into it. You can’t evaluate philosophers in the same way you would evaluate a scientist: it’s not necessarily the results that matter, it’s the process of getting to them that counts. Hegel for instance has a lot of conclusions that modern day Hegelians overlook because that’s not what interests them about Hegel. The dialectical method is the beating heart of Hegel’s philosophy and regardless of the conclusions one might draw from it the method still stands separate. Although, if you really want to read philosophers of process/methodology I would recommend Whitehead, Althusser, and Deleuze (albeit not his work with Guatarri). Whitehead literally coined the term process philosophy so I think that speaks for itself. Althusser was one of the foremost Marxist thinkers of his day and his main sthick was inverting the classic Marxist orientation on history by a reexamination of the methodology. Deleuze was one of the foremost thinkers of immanence of his day and while not exactly a process philosopher his rigor when it comes to methodology is unmatched.
Aristotle saw processes at work at the chemical level, and forms primarily in living things like plants and animals (see De Gen et Corrup). These processes, which he considered interactions of the elements, were in some sense "more fundamental" than the essence in that they underlay the essence. For example, Aristotle alludes multiple times to the fact that consciousness depends on the body and that disease etc. will disrupt it (not to mention death, which destroys it). But despite knowing this, he saw the essence as more fundamental - why? Because essence explains matter, not the other way around. In a human body there are many parts, cells, etc, but these only really exist as part of a unified whole, which is the actuality or the soul. And similarly the parts of an individual cell are only conceivable as part of a cell, not as parts. I dunno man, that's the best brief defense I can give of Aristotle on this point. He is definitely worth reading; the real thing is more interesting than the boogeyman version.
>science reveals
Nice to appeal to authority
Heidegger is the successor to Heraclitus.
Hegel is full of shit, although he makes good points. It's too religious and dare I say; communist. It's from Hegel that Marx begins.
Pffftttt, Heidegger wishes. The Apostle John is the true successor and superior to Heraclitus.
Marxism is radical Christianity and it begins with Hegel. Plato was more israeli although he was also homosexual so that limits and distorts his thinking.
Lol, no. That's an unread plebian's interpretation. You've let your political thoughts distort your perception (not that your political thoughts have any merit either).
Science has nothing to do with it, but Cicero has ZERO scientific supremacy over Aristotle and that is a fact. As for Plato, whose major work concerns the ideal governance of a polis, and whose influence DWARFS Cicero, he is obviously the superior root. Nevermind if you actually had a mind to appreciate the nature of governance. Plato's influence on modern government banishes Cicero to obscurity and there's just no question about it.
>whose influence DWARFS Cicero
>he doesn't know that Cicero's influence peaked in the eighteenth century, which was the century of the French revolutionaries and British political economists who influenced Marxism
Pseudery, and not even at the base level. You'll carry on, thinking you know what you're talking about, but you don't know a damned thing.
Go on then reading homosexuals. Remember that Heraclitus was the straight one.
Plato was of the narcissists that want the world to be unchanging. Heraclitus was a free man who encouraged transformation through strife.
It's Heraclitus that leads to wisdom - while Plato leads to stagnation of what you already are.
That's because Plato was a sodomite who sought to get himself a puer.
Don't make me repeat myself. Just reread the last criticism I gave you. It still stands.
There are no forms - it's you yourself that chooses to take one out of your narcissism.
God dammit man, just stop talking to me already.
I have a preening heart of gold! Plato said so!
Lmfao, do you really not even understand the metallic metaphor? Holy shit! That's brutal. What's your IQ, lad? Let us see if you're redefining the upper-limit for moronation.
How are platonic forms narcissistic? Whatever your view is, you must admit that statements such as "this is red" are meaningful, which is the premiss of their (possibly fallacious) argument.
Plato talks about forms in people. His entire philosophy is based on it.
Heraclitus is based on how people have the capacity to change.
>forms in people
you mean his theory of the immortal/tripartite soul? Souls would, strictly speaking belong to the world of particulars, although with the ability to discern eternal forms. All of this is founded on is premiss.
Hearts of gold, silver, iron. He saw people as being incapable of change.
The essence itself is moldable. A bully can become a dove and a dove a bully.
A heart of gold can become a tyrant. But Plato's homosexual and aristocratic mindset can't see ahead of its own narcissism.
If he didn't think that the soul was changeable to some extent, he wouldn't have given a shit about the education of the youth. Of course there exist both inherent and environmental components to character.
But Heraclitus stresses change while Plato stresses stagnation. I don't think you realize how much Plato and Aristotle influenced Islam.
The Ayatollah runs a modified Platonic state.
>Heraclitus
is there any good books about him? I have only read his fragments in the presocratics book from oxford
>having a metaphysical view that emphasizes change in some abstract way = narcissism
reddit of the brain
*stagnation
Narcissism is indeed a refusal to change. It's a fear of the unknown.
It;s the opposite of openness and intellectual curiosity. That's why Plato is a priest rather than a thinker. He's the first famous homosexual priest.
And that fits perfectly with the Ayatollah am his class of priests that prevent any new ideas from forming - thus solidifying his power.
And that fits perfectly with the homosexual that gets over attached to its mother and internalizes her. I'm really starting to get it now.
Totalitarian states are maternal. The devouring mother archetype can be of any sex and the tyrant fits that profile. That's why the tyrant and philosopher are said to be kin.
Ok but this doesn't amount to anything. Anyone can isolate parts of a philosophy to pretend to psychoanalyze a thinker. The problem is convincing anyone to believe you or to care.
Did you not read anything wrote? The problem is homosexuality and that's caused by mother;s with attachment problems that can't let their sons separate.
All the problems of the state come from domestic problems.
>Did you not read anything I wrote
God damn! You are a pseud among pseuds. I really don't think I've ever spoken with anyone as stupid as you on this board, then again, most as dumb as you probably have the humility to shut the frick up.
I'm guessing you're a homosexual narcissist.
Yes, you've been guessing that all along. I'm neither, and the only narcissist I see in this thread is the arrogant moron brandishing the word narcissist like his own personal sword.
You two refuse to see the immense flaws with Plato.
Nothing original survives. But his legacy is with the empiricists and with true men of science.
The OP should read The Physicist's Conception of Nature by Heisenberg.
The urge is hard, but ignore him. This guy is one of the newer resident schizo posters in threads about Heidegger or thr Greeks. He's legit wetbrained or something.
Not him but Plato is a pauncey fricking queer though.
>You've let your political thoughts distort your perception
You have.
>Science has nothing to do with it, but Cicero has ZERO scientific supremacy over Aristotle and that is a fact. As for Plato, whose major work concerns the ideal governance of a polis, and whose influence DWARFS Cicero, he is obviously the superior root. Nevermind if you actually had a mind to appreciate the nature of governance. Plato's influence on modern government banishes Cicero to obscurity and there's just no question about it.
Plato and Aristotle are metaphysicians amd science proves metaphysics are not real but a human construct. They are the wannabe demiurge.
You just skipped Postmodernism in your philosophical studies. Did you even have a teacher?
Also, it's from Plato that Marx begins. Most modern forms of gov't begin with Plato.
Plato conceived of politics as ethics. Cicero is the first political philosopher to conceive the state as that which protects private property. This makes Cicero more scientific than Plato or Aristotle.
>No surviving Greek writer is quite as explicit about the overriding importance of property rights as Cicero, the earliest known to me in a long line of thinkers, extending into modern times, who have seen the protection of private property rights as the prime function of the state.
>The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests
Plato didn't believe the rulers should own private property.
Plato argues for this from his ethics. Cicero and Marx do not conceive of politics as ethics but as the protection of private property.
>Cicero and Marx do not conceive of politics as ethics but as the protection of private property.
Cicero.
Marx was a radical Christian who sought to abolish private property entirely.
>science reveals that process is more fundamental than essence or substance.
Process without essence or substance is simply spinning your wheels.
You're wasting your time with IQfygays. Except for us IQfygays, no one in this thread could survive an organic chemistry or physics course.
Delusions of grandeur.
>process
>essence
>substance
As a IQfy chad I have to tell you that you're cringe and got filtered by philosophy.
>science
Science is a m3m3.
Philosophy is a way of life, not a set of theories and arguments.
>science has revealed that process is more fundamental than substance
If a philosophical theory can be defeated by empirical evidence, shouldn't it be investigated by scientific means rather than attempting to establish an a priori theory?
Half man half woman with the head of a lion. Nero and his castrated boy-wife.
That's thee gnostics' description and it's also in the book of revelations. The depraved homosexual tyrant.
Trannies are actually a return to the depravity of Rome.