What use is there in reading old philosophy...

Not him but knowing and thinking about it brings an odd comfort that isn't believing, but is more than just being aware. Like how if you've ever taken high dose psychadelics, you can feel like you're one with everything, that doesn't mean it's "real," but it is substantial

---->Reddit

not even an argument

And they actually aren't, a disembodied abstract concept is not a chemical process

I suppose my question is, how do you arrive at these forms? I understand that the "form" is the most perfect representation of a thing or idea, but how do you know that a form is correct? What indication leads you to a form?

Explain to me what makes it a disembodied abstract concept instead of a physical reaction just like how we understand other parts of the body and other creatures.

And even if it's begotten by one, to diminish it to some vague notion of chemical process (which is it exactly?) betrays a pretty juvenile impulse, hence the reddit suggestion. Science has yet to fully understand cognition, why would you want to pretend otherwise

I appreciate /lit

It has less porn spammed than the other boards, and the discussions are usually pretty chill. Unless someone brings up communism, UBE, or race

i just shit my pants. please dox me and order a swat team to my house.

This is the problem of thinking about reading as a purely aesthetic experience, or reading for style only. It's been said many times that to read is to rethink the thoughts of another. Reading philosophy in particular (and science for that matter) is supposed to recreate the moment of discovery within the pupils mind, from which they can relive the experience for themselves (thus truly understanding the concept or discovery) and by reliving the experience enough the pupil should become familiar with the process of discovery itself.

Classical education used to entail just this: recreating (within the mind) all the major scientific and philosophical achievements of the distant past until the present. The goal is to create students capable of thinking, and ones who were able to provide proofs for their conclusions or at least knew how they arrived at them. The way you speak about knowledge in your post differentiates very little from carrying an iphone in your pocket forever and whenever you need to solve a problem or retrieve a fact asking Siri or Google for the answer.

I don't actually believe that shit. I just have no clue how to talk to materialists about this stuff. They simply see themselves and their thought as consequences of evolution and necessary physical reactions and effects, and use such ideas to explain things like thought. I'm at a loss on how to teach it.

>just like how we understand other parts of the body and other creatures.
Mate do about a minute of research on neuroscience and realize it isn't that simple and the field has a looong way to go

I agree, just as some have an impulse to attribute causal and mechanist explanation to literally everything I have an opposite inclination, almost a faith in the human experience. Although I was the former from 16-21, which is why I see it as a sort of juvenile stage, that and the obvious fedora new athiest similarity

>'Ideas' are simply chemical processes in one's brain.

Hahaha. Thanks englightment. Thanks French Revolution.

t. perennialist

Democracy was a mistake. Fuck, that's another thing Plato was right about!

Kant might well efface his entire oeuvre if he could see how heinously these positivistic determinists have perverted his ideas, and their immediate offspring

>progress in philosophy
>progress in science

Without democracy there'd be no capitalism tho

Euclid's elements is still an essential text in math. Aristotles prior analytics is a good read too

Exactly?

kek reminds me of how Marx completely bastardized Hegel's thought into the complete opposite

Form and matter are indistinguishable in actuality but we can think about them separately, it's called abstraction. This is how a materialist reads Plato but a Platonist would disagree. In Plato, form is the essence of reality, we discover it in reality as opposed to contemplating universals as a thought exercise.

And about thoughts being chemical reactions, consider that each thing can be explained in various different ways. Is defining a thought as a chemical reaction, the best and most explanatory definition of a thought? Does it allow you to apprehend what it is in ts essence?

If when asked to define a human, you recited a list of chemicals, materials, limbs, components, etc that must be present in every human, would that be a proper answer?

You say as if he had done it by accident. Marx thought that Hegel was wrong and then developed a whole philosophy based on Hegel but getting it right, as he understood it. That's how philosophy is made.

Good. Capitalism and Marxism are the two worst economic expressions of the decline of the Traditional realm.

>You say as if he had done it by accident
I didn't though

go to bed Dugin, it's late

what a stupid trash thread

No point dude just read Wittgenstein he ended philosophy :DDDDD

What's wrong with that?

Ube?

Plum pudding model is a good example as well

Why do I come back here time and time again?

>It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry

Pretty sure they teach you Newtonian Physics before throwing you into General Relativity

Indeed, materialism very often wears fedoras. You claim to have moved past your fedora days, but your aggressive inability to articulate your evolution is very much fedora-tier as well.

I feel the same way since I've gotten closer to Christianity. I still wouldn't consider myself a Christian, but I don't kick down on fedora atheists. I merely qualify their objections and try to give them a perennial perspective on religion and point towards the fact that this dialogue has been going on for centuries and they all tend to take the smug assurance out of their tone.

theory of forms works in an epistemological sense

>falling for the progress meme

>It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry
you can perhaps make this argument for fields like alchemy (ie early chemistry) but mathematics? You do realise that everyone does still study ancient mathematics right? You know pythahoras is still correct and useful. However, we do still use old chemistry and biology because its foundational to current science. Sure, you might not use the same nomenclature but the truths learned 1000 years ago are still true. We dont spend much time on these things because theyre well established and relatively simple.
Similarly, in philosophy a truth gleaned in 500bc is still true assuming it was a truth. Even if it is a subjective truth then it may still be relevant depending on the current circumstance and it is worth evaluating this to see if we have a predetermined truth ready to go. Again, newer philosophy is rarely independent of its prior philosophy. Many philosophers are almost unreadable (at least, if you want to genuinely ubderstand) without having read others. Modernity does not exist in a vacuum - it is a product of history. So much is true of all things. If we disregard old philosophy then we shall only move in a cycle of rediscovering it and forgetting what we know because it is now old. Progress is a culmination of ideas and not the replacement of them.

Yeah, many courses use older models to build a foundation for newer models.

Of course, the idea here is that you can derive the older models from the newer models by applying some constraints to the newer models.

And for the most part scientific models are scored on their ability to explain or predict the world rather than their truth value.

I think a better comparison might be mathematics. Many questions have been posed across time which still require an answer. Many other questions have been answered in a few different ways, depending on the set of assumptions you work from.

If you learn how all these folks got from their respective point-As to that similar point-B, it can give you insight on other questions. This holds true for philosophical questions as well.

So really you would look to old texts for the following reasons:
(1) Some questions were never sufficiently answered.
(2) Some questions were answered in one way, some in many different ways.
(3) Knowledge and experience of the processes resulting in (2) will hopefully provide some help in tackling (1).

>What use is there in reading old philosophy?
There is no use in reading any philosophy.

>now obsolete developments like in alchemy

Philosophy is the only way to prevent the development of the last men. It is essential.

the parts of alchemy that worked went on to become chemistry, the parts that didn't work were relegated to history.

science does devote itself a lot of the time to retreading older ideas - but only the ideas that worked. i'm a bit foggy on the scientific method but part of it is being able to reproduce the results of a given experiment to prove its validity. that's why kids still roll cars down slopes to measure the acceleration and dangle weights from strings to measure force.

same with mathematics? modern mathematicians are constantly looking at older theorems as there may be solutions to modern problems that have been overlooked.

Bcuz i´m a cuckservative idealist?

>being this idealist

Absolutely insufferable. You are the worst kind of person.

read the preface to the phenomenology of spirit and hegel will tell you

/pol/lack detected

Why is that?