What did Plato have to say about imagination? Also, books on the philosophy of imagination? It's wild that we can conceive all kinds of possible things that could never reasonably happen, even as time approaches infinity. Yet we can conceive of them. What would Hegel have to say about imagining things that are never fully instantiated in the world?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
so this homie really thought about everything huh
>Pull huge amounts of unqualified nonsense out of your ass
>Write so much of it down that you brute force your way into the history of philosophy
Plato and Marx have much in common
yeah but the difference is that Plato was right about everything. Marx doesn't even compare.
Plato was refuted, Marx has yet to be refuted.
Nobody refuted Plato. They’ve just seethed and coped. Rousseau retroactively refuted Marx in the 2nd Discourses.
Where was he refuted? Be a big boy and step up.
in the soviet union, cuba, china, korea, east germany...
gommunism is just depleted Platonism. most of those regimes floundered or failed, and the rest simply became more illiberal and religious to survive.
Was Plato's shitting on art justified? Ironically artists were more concerned with the form of Beauty than anyone else
Plato WAS an artist. Ergo, he should have necked himself.
Plato loved poetry, read Phaedrus.
Something to do with being too enveloped in the world of senses. Same reason artists and poets weren't allowed entry into the Pythagorean Academy.
Nope, Plato was unhappy with them because they didn't always portray the truth, he was happy retaining plenty of their artwork so long as it wasn't untruthful or conducive to sedition
>Same reason artists and poets weren't allowed entry into the Pythagorean Academy.
Probably because poets do not deal directly in number.
Who do you consider similar to Schopenhauer but better?
>No Aristotelian is revelant post-Fichte, your ontological foundations are outmoded.
You're moronic. MacIntyre is one of the most revolutionary contemporary philosophers.
>Who do you consider similar to Schopenhauer but better?
In a similar epoch, Husserl, Berkeley, Whitehead.
Look up Dermot Moran's phenomenology reader, I forget the name, but the one with Sartre's essay on the phenomenology of the imagination in it. Moran's gloss on Sartre's value as a phenomenologist is very useful in this context because while he's not as powerful as Husserl/Merleau-Ponty strictly speaking, in essays like the one on the imagination he can be very good
Husserl too but that will take you ten years and he's primarily interested in what he calls meaning-constitution and noesis in ultimately "scientific" (intersubjectively objective) communication, so what we would colloquially call imagining (a mixture of mental images and free association) is usually not his main focus, but comes in rather as a subordinate function of meaning-constitution. Still I'm sure he writes about it here or there. Maybe also something by Merleau-Ponty on the topic, I'm not sure if he covers it directly in Phenomenology of Perception but probably similar to Husserl, as a sidebar
I recommend looking through James' Principles of Psychology too
Maybe some older thinkers like Stumpf would be worth looking into but I don't know if anything has been translated there
Helmholtz too on visual imagination
All in all, imagination in the everyday sense of "free play of mental imagery" is tragically understudied by philosophers
What does it mean to be imaginative or creative, anyway? Can you ever create something new ex nihilo? Or is it merely a new arrangement/association/etc. of what you previously knew, from experience or logic?
good post
High five
Playto? more like, GAYTO. probably NATO
>ctrl+f "Neville Goddard"
>no results
Throw everything you know about "manifestation" out the window. This man coined the term. Unironically Neville Goddard is the best for this
See pic for the history up to Hegel.
And pic that extends it to Castoriadis.
Which is also part of a series that good discussions on all aspects of the philosophy of imagination
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B089FT5X3J
will this make me more creative or at least give me better taste
To get better taste you must listen exclusively to RYM top charts and watch IQfy 3x3 recs for 10 years.
that sounds like hell, I'd rather read Fichte
Then you will remain a plebeian.
Yes, through understanding of the imagination you will unlock its full power.
possibilities, actual, necessity
A unicorn does not exist instantiated but it exists as a form because the rules allow for a horse with a horn. The potential is there.
Saying it doesn't exist at all is objectively a less accurate model than saying it exists but is not instantiated in the physical realm.
It exists in 2 out of three realms. The mind and the heavens but not the earth. Anything the mind conceives has to also exist in the heavens but things in the heavens do not have to be instantiated in the mind.
This is the actual reason why unicorns are eternal. When you try to explain it to a pleb or incorporate the idea into a story the mythical idea of the unicorn is what comes out. The actual meaning of stuff like this tends to get lost almost immediately as it gets absorbed in some form by the masses and reshaped.
There's a related "proof of God" which sounded incredibly moronic when I first heard it.
>We can imagine God
>therefore God exists in the heavens
You actually can't refute this.
>but then flying spaghetti monster also exists
Yes.
Yes, the possibility of fictional objects of the imagination proves God.
>God and fictional objects are central topics within philosophy, but rarely do the respective discussions overlap. Until now the two fields have remained independent. Applying the debate about fictional objects to issues of theology for the first time, John-Mark L. Miravalle bridges these two fields and presents a new approach to notions of God, creatures, and existence.
>Miravalle explains why meinongianism, which holds that certain things can serve as intentional objects with properties, even though they do not exist, can facilitate talk of nonexistence better than other metaphysical viewpoints, such as platonism, modal realism and pretense-theory. He identifies points of connection between theology and nonexistents and uses meinongianism to buttress the cosmological and ontological arguments for God's existence. As a result he is able to explore fresh solutions to problems of classical theism, from the necessary existence of God and creation ex nihilo to free will and the problem of evil.
>By revealing how a particular account of fictional objects is especially harmonious with and supportive of the major claims of traditional theism, Miravalle makes a major contribution to theistic metaphysics.
See Meinong
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meinong/
sorry if this is a moronic question but how is this different to modal realism?
it's not
Meinong wrote well before Lewis, and held that impossible worlds and objects exist (or rather absist and subsist) in degree, whilst Lewis denied the existence in any degree of impossible worlds.
Modal realism is bowdlerised Meinong.
what examples of fictional characters and worlds does miravalle mention? what theological literature does he cite? whats his understanding of the trinity? how does he deal with gaunilos island?
also thank you for bringing miravalle up. where else better to find the source of imagination than the only possible perfectly logical entity from which they can origination from
In chapter thirteen of Biographia Coleridge introduces the distinction between two kind of imagination- primary and secondary .
Primary Imagination :- It is the faculty by which we perceive the world around us. It is merely the power of receiving impressions of the external through our senses. It perceives objects both in their parts and as a whole. It is an involuntary act of the mind. The human mind receives impressions and sensation from the outside world, unconsciously and involuntarily it imposes some sort of order on those impressions, reduces them to size and shape, so that the mind is able to form a clear image of the outside world. It is in this way that clear and coherent perception becomes possible. Coleridge describes primary imagination as the “mysterious power” which can extract “hidden ideas and meanings” from objective data.
Secondary Imagination :- The primary imagination is universal and possessed by all. The secondary imagination makes artistic creation possible. It requires an effort of the will and conscious effort. It works upon what is perceived by the primary imagination ; it’s raw materials are the sensations and impressions supplied to it by the primary imagination. It selects and orders the raw materials and reshapes and remodels it into objects of beauty. It is ‘ensemplastic’ , and it ‘dissolves, diffuses and dissipates, in order to create.’ The secondary imagination is at the root of all poetic activity. It is the power which reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite and discordant qualities and Coleridge calls it a magical synthetic power. It fuses the various faculties of the soul , subjective with objective, the human mind with external nature, the spiritual with the physical or material.
The primary and secondary imagination do not differ from each other in kind . The difference is only of degree. The secondary imagination is more active, more conscious and more voluntary than the primary one.
Fancy :- Imagination and fancy differ in kind and nature. Whereas, imagination is creative, fancy, which is common possession of man, is not creative. It is a mechanical process which receives the elementary images which come to it ready made and without altering these, fancy reassembles them into a different order from that in which it was received. It only combined what it perceives into beautiful shapes, but does not fuse or unify. It is a kind of memory that arbitrarily brings together images, and even when brought together , these images continue to retain their separate and individual properties. They receive no coloring or modification from the mind.
Coleridge has called fancy the ‘aggregative and associative power’. However Wordsworth argued that , ” to aggregate and to associate, to evoke and to combine, belong as well to imagination as to the fancy.” But Coleridge explained that aggregating or collecting is beneath the dignity of imagination because it not necessarily an act of uniting. The materials have to be assembled before imagination can get to work and make the transformation and synthesis. Fancy has to do this act of collecting and so fancy presupposes imagination.
Metzinger offers a modern underatanding of Coleridge's primary imagination as the faculty of all perception through which we model the world and our selves.
>no such thing as selves exist in the world
I don't want Averroism. Do you know who would be the "Aquinian" equivalent, somebody who tries to reconcile self and world?
The self is a process, an act, not a thing. Aristotle has been dead since Fichte.
The self is very much a thing. You exist, don't you? The world is made of selves, and the selves are made by the world.
By the way, if Aristotle is dead, then Averroism is dead as well. Aquinas isn't Aristotle but carefully constructed (but ultimately confused) synthesis of Aristotle, Neoplatonism, and the Bible. By getting rid of Aristotle, you also get rid of Averroism, and the self, nothingness, and self-other interaction is back on the table.
No, as already said, the self is a process, not an object or thing. Being is always an act of becoming, a process. No Aristotelian is revelant post-Fichte, your ontological foundations are outmoded.
things can still be in flux without losing their thingness. read the ship of theseus. you're just being uncritically dogmatic about problems that are still unsolved antinomies.
Black person why don't you just give me what I'm asking for? something that puts the self into dialectic with the world. I don't care if it's outdated. that's what I'm interested in. let me figure things out for myself.
Start with Beiser if you need a Fichte overview of the self as act.
Or Metzinger for a contemporary account
You need to start reading actual philosophy and nor your German clowns who pretend to have something meaningful to say. Even Schopenhauer would be a step up for you.
Ignatius, philosophy has moved on since the Scholastic rediscovery of Aristotle and encounted new critiques and solutions, start with Hobbes here
>philosophy has moved on since the Scholastic rediscovery of Aristotle
lol no, it has only repeated the same debates over and over again, just adding a new layer of pessimism, secularization, etc., with each era after exhausting all that can be discussed. meanwhile, we're supposed to follow up on this entire tradition, which has been rapidly expanding in needless breadth, depth, and complexity, when anybody who can study the devolution of metaphysics from mysticism -> Plato -> Hegel -> Lacan can see the writing on the wall? the philosophical tradition has long ago surpassed the ability of any one person to completely master in their lifetime. I just need something that tries to reconcile the self and the world without doing away with either.
Yet you refuse to engage with post-Scholastic thought, curious.
I refuse to engage with Scholastic thought, even.
Northrop Frye wrote a book about the centrality of imagination as a faculty of the mind and the ability of literature to educate and cultivate it.
>Castoriadis offers a brilliant and far-reaching analysis of the unique character of the social-historical world and its relations to the individual, to language and to nature. He argues that the most traditional conceptions of society and history overlook the essential feature of the social-historical world, namely that this world is not articulated once and for all but is in each case the creation of the society concerned. In emphasizing the element of creativity, Castoriadis opens the way for rethinking political theory and practice in terms of the autonomous and explicit self-institution of society. Castoriadis' wide-ranging discussion deals with many issues which are currently topical in the English-speaking world: the critique of Marxism; the creative and imaginary character of language; the relations between action and social institutions; the nature of the unconscious and the reappraisal of psychoanalysis; and the role of symbolism on both the individual and the social levels.
Plato is for numales
Plato could rip you to shreds with his bare hands
"Famed Olympic gold winning wrestler and three war veteran makes philosophy for numale" - very plausible headline.
imagination, memory, spirit, and sense. all in dialectic. one day it will be made concrete.
Anon you need to read this:
Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi, by Henry Corbin
the sufis and muslims are some of the least accomplished in creativity, frick off shitskin
Filtered. :^)
>Also, books on the philosophy of imagination? I
Not necessarily a book but look into Leibniz's doctrine of striving possibles. Not many people know about it, but it is fascinating in this context.
Plato likes imagination
He certainly employs a lot of it a lot in his writings, philosophies and stories
I'd say he likes imagination and would be in favor it