Philosophy died the day Plato was no longer relevant...

Philosophy died the day Plato was no longer relevant. The modern desconstruction of his wish to prove the existence of one Truth led humanity to a tragical struggle with reason, which has no longer the power of its greatest days.

How wrong am I, Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Philosophy died with Hume. Can't derive prescription from description. Done. The skeptics win. It is over.

>Heisenberg: "‘I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato’s sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics"
>Plato no longer relevant

Completely. You can leave the board now.

>humanity stopped assuming what it sought existed and started actually doing proper self-criticism to find genuine truth
>and that was the absolute worst thing that could have happened to philosophy
OP, boy should you shoot yourself.
Also Plato is still relevant, every now and then comes a Whitehead to revive him.

Well in any case, even if you're wrong Plato has not become irrelevant at all. If anything people forsaking him has caused most of us to be stuck in the trap of his naive kind of idealism. His quest to find Truth (capital T) is something most of society does in its day to day lives.

Heck, we idealize so hard that we have successfully removed the things we consume from consumption. How many different kinds of sugar do you know that advertise themselves as containing 0% sugar? E-cigars and (I know Zizek also loves this one) chocolates that are not constipating but actually laxatives. Contemporary society has been led into a tragic struggle with reason BY Plato, not after letting Plato go. We are at the point where even materialism is idealist in consideration of matter.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly. He's obviously still relevant, but greatly refuted. No need to be rude, I just want to learn from you.

I said precisely the opposite of what you mention in your greentext, user. Although I complemented with the fact that nowadays we no longer stand with a platonical worldview.

>Philosophy died the day Plato became relevant, and was reborn when Nietzsche superseded him.
Fixed for you.

you need to learn to develop an argument rather than just spit phrases into the wind

And then it went bats. Heidegger fucked off to the black forest to live the rest of his life in ressentiment and Wittgenstein was too smug to read philosophy deeply, arresting his own development.

>"Solves" philosophy
>Spends 20 years painting houses
>Goes back and "solve" his own "solution" to philosophy

Was Wittgenstein the truly first postmodernist?

What precisely was refuted of him? His main idea that the world is a simulation or a projection is regarded as highly possible by modern physicists.

Platonic mathemathicians are still there, arguing that numbers are not conventions but exists as real entities.

Same is true for universals: almost no serious philosopher today holds relativist views, and at best you have neokantians holding that forms are in the mind rather than outside. But almost everyone believes that a formal structure is necessary to either organize the universe or the experience we have of it, because self-organization is either very unlikely or it requires the deus ex-machina of something like "god's will" - which again is very difficult to explain ontologically.

Nobody who works in any relevant scientific field or academia (with the exception of literature departments maybe) holds that the world is ruled by randomness.

Modern science is inherently Platonic in that it establishes that a set of functions (what we call scientific laws) organize the disposition of things in the universe - which is akin to the way Plato believed matter was organized according to the Forms.

The only leap that has not been made yet to show that he was completely right on everything is to say that the final aim of the universe as an ordered manifestation is the Good - which is a pretty vital point - but still.

The only domain where Plato is not relevant is in pop culture, but you know, pop culture serves to create an easily-governed mass of slaves, therefore of course they would point you toward relativism: if there is no truth, your opinion is never relevant.

Meanwhile though, in the real world outside of marvel movies and political LARPers, the elites that are advancing our knowledge of the universe are doing it starting from Platonic premises.

maybe he meant 'repudiated'?
if there are enough people casting stones at a woman, seems to follow she's a harlot
dunnit?

Philosophy effectively ended when Marx overturned Hegel's project towards understanding the development of social structures and material history. Philosophy as a holistic endeavor doesn't exist anymore apart from sociology, psychology, economics etc., the best it can do by its own is autistic analysis of language and meaning. Nobody cares about it apart from self-perpetuating academia.

Fuck off retard
You too. Plato and his disciple Aristotle were imbeciles who couldn't refute Parmenides and Zeno of Elea. Maths is wrong. "It just werks" it's not an argument.

One quote from a clueless scientist means that Plato is still relevant xD xD
Fuck off retard

we have perfectly sound ways of dealing 'mathematically' with infinite series, now, so...

Heisenberg was more versed in both philosophy and science than you or any of the other pseuds on this board

You're confusing Heisenberg with contemporary scientists. Before the Manhattan project every quantum physicist was well-read in philosophy

>maths is wrong
>literally the only thing we have with 100% solid, valid proofs

Saying that something is wrong does not make it wrong, maybe add an argument next time. I have this: either my experience of the world or the world itself (assuming that my experience is right) seems to be ordered according to some laws, which therefore exist, either as forms of the intellect or as actual laws of the universe.

What I am arguing is that you can explain order only in the Platonic sense, and that there is no such thing as a self-ordered universe. Order is conceivable only as a rational unchanging structure supervening "matter" (here not taken as literal matter but as the greek "chora" - i.e. the unqualified chaos that comes to have qualities because it is channeled into a rational order).

Do you have a better explanation of order/the perception of order that goes outside platonic terms? Then please, teach me, wise man.

I offered a full argument in my following post, and a new one here, so you are invited, as the other user, to offer an alternative explanation of why do we seem to experience order in the universe, or to face the fact that you may happen to be a retard yourself, blessed man.

He wasn't a fucking philosopher. By this same logic Schrodinger's quote about Vedic philosophy proves that Vedic philosophy is still relevant.
>You're confusing Heisenberg with contemporary scientists
No, you're the one with a warped view about the past and the present.
>bunch of ad hominem and ab auctoritate
So this is the power of Maieutics...

>Saying that something is wrong doesn't make it wrong
You should tell that to Plato and Aristotle, who couldn't refute Zeno of Elea so they just went with "loool just look at facts bro".

Also, maybe check the SEP page of Zeno's paradoxes before drowning us in your intellectual diarrhea. Intelligent people seem to agree that Aristotle's answers to them were pretty on point.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/

infinite
is no longer
a conceptual hurdle
you little dweeb

>theoretical science isnt philosophy
>metaphysical properties arent theoretical
>math isnt philosophy
>applied science isn't philsophy

Holy cow, stop arguing about people and look at the greater topics
Plebians

>Proper self-criticism
Funny, it seems to be focused on white heterosexuals.

>solution to the paradox of the tortoise mentions Cantor
Top zozzle. Is this what passes for philosophy in american universities?
>Intelligent people
Agains with these fallacies.

Not him, but any book recommendations on this topic?

mathematical law is an abstraction not found anywhere. every object governs it's own behavior according to their individual properties. we don't need the idea of a "Form" to establish this.

Why then, do they posses the same properties? Well put simply they emerged from the same mass at the very beginning of the universe. Similarly to how a son would share character traits with his father. There's no need for laws or forms other than for explanatory value.

youtu.be/E43-CfukEgs

>The modern desconstruction of his wish to prove the existence of one Truth led humanity to a tragical struggle with reason, which has no longer the power of its greatest days.
do you need to say "tragical"? Can't you just say "tragic"?