----- --- 21911925 They raise the standard for truth so high, that I'm convinced that only such a thing as a Platonic form or an Aristotelian substance can meet the criteria. However since these entities can't be shown to exist, skepticism seems to be only game in town. What are some ways around this? --- 21911990 Further context: Gerson argues that Plato and Aristotle held to more or less the same standard of truth, namely that a think can only known if its grasped directly and infallibly by the intellect, rather than indirectly either by the senses or by a step-wise reasoning process, and in order for some object to meet these criteria it has to be simple, immaterial and eternal, possess causal powers and an openness for being known (cognizable or intelligible). --- 21912003 >>21911925 (OP) >substance can’t be shown to exist You idiot --- 21912008 >>21912003 Go ahead. --- 21912036 brother of course it can't be 'shown' to exist because that would be trying to prove that which is known through intellect through either the senses or through step-wise reasoning process. you can only be sceptical if you don't make the effort to live the life needed for the activation of intellect and are content only with theorising, or if you preemptively have already decided that the arbiter of existence is your senses or discursive reasoning --- 21912090 >>21911925 (OP) simple answer: coherentism instead of foundationalism --- 21912152 >>21911925 (OP) The next best bet would be to consider Socrates' autobiographical account in the Phaedo, the "second sailing" he conducts as a safe means to still learn about the beings. Note that in that passage Socrates calls the forms "hypotheses", suppositions about opinions worked out in speech to make sense of what the world might be like if direct access is unavailable. The Parmenides' second half is a worked out example of this (you work out four positive and four negative hypotheses, 1) what x is in itself, 2) what x is in relation to everything else, 3) what everything else is in relation to x, and 4) what everything else is in relation to everything else). For Aristotle, the equivalent of a "second sailing" would be the dialectical approach to opinions in the Topics. (One could learn a great deal from Aristotle by going through his works and trying to figure out whether the arguments are demonstrative, dialectical, rhetorical enthymemes, or sophistical, according to the works in the Organon + the Rhetoric). --- 21913072 >>21912090 Say more please --- 21913082 >>21911925 (OP) Bro Plato was a protofeminist, stop reading that garbage --- 21913154 >>21913082 Ah yes, Heraclitus, it’s been centuries. How are you? --- 21913236 >>21913082 He said those very silly things about women in the Republic but he corrected it in the Timaeus (which is the direct sequel to the Republic): >He who lived well would return to his native star, and would there have a blessed existence; but, if he lived ill, he would pass into the nature of a woman, and if he did not then alter his evil ways, into the likeness of some animal, until the reason which was in him reasserted her sway over the elements of fire, air, earth, water, which had engrossed her, and he regained his first and better nature. --- 21915108 bump --- 21915115 >>21911925 (OP) Yes, good... Now read Cicero and Sextus Empiricus... and after that, Nagarjuna... he he he you will believe nothing, and you will be happy --- 21916386 bump --- 21916434 Idealism was the reigning ontology until the scientific revolution, where since it has been shown that all "qualities" are actually just quantities, leading to the unconditional acceptance of materialism in academia. /thread --- 21916882 >>21916434 The statement that Idealism was the reigning ontology until the scientific revolution is a matter of debate among historians of philosophy. While it is true that many ancient and medieval philosophers subscribed to some form of idealism, such as Plato and Plotinus, there were also prominent materialist philosophers, such as Democritus and Epicurus. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the scientific revolution led to the unconditional acceptance of materialism in academia. While the scientific method does prioritize empirical evidence and quantitative measurements, many scientists and philosophers have continued to hold idealist views, such as the philosopher Immanuel Kant who developed a critical idealism in response to the scientific revolution. Moreover, the relationship between idealism and materialism is complex, and many contemporary philosophers argue for a more nuanced view that incorporates both idealist and materialist perspectives. Therefore, it is not accurate to make a broad generalization about the dominance of a particular philosophical ontology in academia based on the scientific revolution --- 21917298 >>21916882 >it is not accurate to make a broad generalization about the dominance of a particular philosophical ontology in academia based on the scientific revolution Yes it is You pluck out democritus, who btw, like all academics, had a rigorously geometric conception of what an "atom" constitutes. The more spherical the more fiery its elemental composition etc. Atom just means "indivisible" anyway, so was a kind of theoretical monism, not any "science" or deduction in the way common to modernity. Epicurus as an atomist inherited this same classical perspective. Kant actually was greatly inspired by hume, but only critiqued him in that he did not have a "transcendental" consciousness underlying phenomena. >Moreover, the relationship between idealism and materialism is complex Only to idealists clinging to poetics. Vulgar materialism is certainly a plague, but the content of reality is matter. --- 21917303 All of philosophy has been footnotes to Aristotle. Plato is a fucking joke. --- 21917364 >>21911925 (OP) > However since these entities can't be shown to exist, skepticism seems to be only game in town. >What are some ways around this? Realize that only a fool or a madman would be skeptical of the existence of the very consciousness through which they were aware of the concept of doubt. --- 21917420 >>21911925 (OP) >since these entities can't be shown to exist, skepticism seems to be only game in town. Are you retarded? Did you even read them? >>21917364 --- 21917427 >>21911925 (OP) >What are some ways around this? Lower your standard for knowledge? --- 21917610 >>21912008 Try making a meaningful statement without the concept of substance. --- 21917655 >>21911990 >simple, immaterial and eternal, possess causal powers and an openness for being known (cognizable or intelligible) So in other words Ideal knowledge of an object is, for us, mathematical/geometrical? --- 21917671 >>21917303 >>21917364 >>21917420 i'm glad to read these reasonable comments i am tired of skeptics running around with their unabashed ignorance on display --- 21918234 >>21911925 (OP) >What are some ways around this? Selftherapize. Beside, the current philosophical zeitgeist is one of profounding integration & etymoteleological signficance: being a 'minor finder', and cogitating toward the actual enigmas of the universe. --- 21918251 >>21917364 >>21917671 Have you ever even read the sceptics? They do not doubt that they experience appearances --- 21918309 >>21918234 lol, if there's any zeitgeist it's making fun of losers like you who care more about being perceived as interesting by low-iq people than actually even hoping to say something coherent. pathetic inbred --- 21918318 >>21912008 literally everything you experience is substance. did you even read categories? --- 21918323 >>21918251 >They do not doubt that they experience appearances the post you replied to never stated that they did doubt this --- 21918943 >>21918318 The account of primary and secondary ousiai in the Categories isn't the same as the account of ousiai in the Metaphysics, the latter of which is actually devoted to the subject while the former is a concession to beginning to reason. --- 21918985 >>21916434 Actually, Berkeley still hasn't been refuted. People just ignore him and scoff --- 21918993 >>21917298 Democritus and Hume are the bane of my existence --- 21918995 >>21918985 True from what I’ve noticed --- 21919000 >>21913236 This explains societal degeneration so well --- 21919039 >>21911925 (OP) Anything that you directly sense is pretty much real because in a well ordered universe why would you be thrown into a world everything is a fabrication of various substances. Because if that were the case then there’s probably a good likelihood that everything is a matter of opinion, including whether you exist or not and could be given life through reification of found knowledge of its very existence. Like Descartes doubted everything until he came to the very subject of himself but what if these could change depending on the mind of yourself or other possible minds? That everything you think could become real through sheer force of will. There is a case to be made of that issue, that people often will things into their life they obsess over, causing them to manifest but most of the time these end up being abstractions and usually don’t appear as tangible matter. Something has to contain a world for concepts like love, hunger, sadness, honor, pride, etc. outside of a world that would make them possible they could not exist. Abstractions must exist in a world where concrete substances do. There’s no hunger outside the universe, no sadness, no joy, no loyalty. --- 21919132 >>21918993 I'm guessing you are religious --- 21919137 >>21918985 He's such a small thinker that no one really cares about "immaterialism" --- 21919349 >What are some ways around this? It's really simple. Just accept the empiricist Scientific Method. Do not be concerned about the definitions of things. That's for Jews and gays. It's for gays, because that's how you get hundreds of different sexualities and genders, because rather than being concerned with what you do, they are concerned with some kind of identity, completely separate from any action in the world. Same with Jews and gnostic bullshit. Concerned with definitions. Just take a step back and have another perspective. As long a statement has predictive power, it's valid. Don't try to deconstruct it with asking the definition for everything. Like when I tell you that blacks have a lower IQ than whites. You can test this, we have confirmed this, we can made predictions about the world with this. Only midwits will ask for an exact definition of black and try to deconstruct it with definition-faggotry. It's as simple as that. --- 21919354 >>21919349 Thanks BAP. It's like how caring about the sex of the succulent soft body you wanna fuck is for gays... --- 21920233 >>21919137 He's been gaining some traction lately, it seems. He produced the only form of life-affirming skepticism I'm aware of, and that's pretty cool. Russell's response to it is characteristically impotent. Berkeley also anticipated a lot of later thinkers with his linguistic analysis. Definitely worth reading --- 21920534 >>21911925 (OP) Seems this is the problem you're facing, and you're more based for it --- 21920586 >>21911925 (OP) >What are some ways around this? Take your meds to suppress your obvious schizophrenia, then go get drunk and get laid. --- 21920838 >read philosophy and ends up hero worshipping instead of critically thinking about things Maybe you should stick to Harry Potter. --- 21921951 >>21911925 (OP) Here's a little video that was just uploaded that you may find somewhat interesting OP. It wont have answers, but you may like it. https://youtu.be/jt-9NS--o8Q [Embed] --- 21921998 >>21918309 >low-iq people >hoping to say something coherent