Still writing books on moral philosophy

Great thread kid

Hegel ended moral philosophy.

>continental philosophy in 2016
Might as well just do drugs and get into women studies

>I guess killing can be justified
That's moral philosophy you butthurt bitch.

>going on Veeky Forums and roleplaying as Nietzsche to get your alpha male kicks

Sad!

>Everything is a spook, nothing is real. Philosophy is dead.

Well, yeah.
Do you claim otherwise, basic income bernfag?

NEETsche is a meme philosopher and his analysis of history was only good like 50% of the time

>his analysis of history was only good like 50% of the time

That's pretty damn good.

Not many people hit that high a mark

Ok but that's still what he based his philosophy on, and the parts he got wrong were essential in coming to his conclusions.

Jesus Christ you must be over 18 to post on this website.

>implying philosophy doesnt chiefly try to answer what it means to have a good life

NO IT DOESN'T

what is it about then? im speaking from a historical perspective on what philosophy is about with socrates' turn towards the human affairs rather than continuing in the abstract metaphysical claims of those before him

Daily reminder that Alasdair MacIntyre is the best moral philosopher of the 20th century.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Have you actually read Plato? Fucking Christ.

E X P L A I N

socrates' turn towards human affairs (moral and political) is pretty much a widely accepted view and is how people distinguish between the pre-socratics and socrates

Nietzsche, Stirner and Kierkegaard are the cancer of philosophy

His turn to virtue was purely to show that what the Athenians thought they knew was right and god-made was merely their opinion, and subsequently transform this personal and merely social (so to speak) ethic into a philosophically tinted one (e.g. by the end of Phaedo, the immortality and continuity of the soul is inherently connected with our application and every day seek of knowledge, instead of being something that just happens after your body dies), being the love of searching for the truth and that what it is (the ideas), though the maieutic art.

Surely there is a popular element included, but Socrates/Plato wasn't a sophist, as if man is the measure of things.

He wasn't the first to turn to the moral or political, but he was the first who gave a systematic account of it as far as I know.
In any case, his doctrine held philosophy almost entirely in the metaphysics and abstract in society until Aristotle became widespread in the middle ages.
What we would call empirical knowledge he and every platonist and neoplatonist held in disdain, his influence was in fact what lead to the view that all matter is evil.
In any case, you know nothing about philosophy.
I recommend History of Philosophy by Fredrick Copleston.

>not being a continentalist

with the point of there being turns to the human affairs before him in the west, i hold that to some suspicion. i wouldnt consider any of the pre-socratics or sophists to have given systematic accounts for the largely pragmatic reason that too little of their writings have survived to fully say that. also, it seems that their teachings on how to live a good life was only a consequence of their metaphysical doctrines. pythagoras tells us not to eat animals and beans due to his doctrine of reincarnation and not the other way around

on socrates, of course there are metaphysical implications to his "teachings" but they seem to be a post hoc justification by plato as far as i can tell as most accounts paint him as chiefly concerned with the good life. imho, plato simply grounded socrates' method metaphysically and condensed his attitudes into pedagogic dialogues, which is his genius. just remember that socrates is not plato's socrates for the simple fact that socrates did not write anything

also, i have copleston's history of philosophy

i was referring to socrates only rather than plato's socrates. while the distinctions between the two are extremely hazy and nobody truly knows for a fact who socrates was, there are, without a doubt, differences between the two (for reasons mentioned above). i dont particularly think that the doctrines of the soul and ideas plato makes socrates say throughout the dialogues are what socrates actually believed in as we stumble upon the problem of reconciling them with his ignorance, which i hold is the truest thing we can say about socrates' project along with the stressing of human affairs. or perhaps this is part of socratic irony?

also, i never once claimed that socrates was a sophist, despite what i think is their influence on him. stressing importance on human affairs is not the same as going full protagoras and claiming relativism but rather i think his project was that through the grasping of human affairs can the most fundamental truths be known. wrestling with the ideas of piety, temperance, and virtue ultimately leads us not only to conclusions about the good life but also of ultimate reality. its less of a doctrine but moreso a view or attitude. its why we almost never see plato give his doctrine of the forms as-is but rather within a larger context of questions regarding things that interest humans the most (justice, piety, virtue, love, etc.)

>while the distinctions between the two are extremely hazy and nobody truly knows for a fact who socrates was
I'll have to say it again, you are truly out of your depth here if you think this, there is no distinction here, Socrates big contribution is to mature and give birth to other people's inner ideas, in this sense, Plato himself is his biggest work.

A spook, at least how it's commonly understood here, is like Nozick's idea of patterns and entitlement and all that.

why dont you think there is a distinction between the two though? it seems somewhat obvious to me as i tend to read the dialogues by thinking why socrates says X but also why plato makes socrates say X. even in the explicit textual level there seems to be one

You've to understand the principles behind Socrates philosophy, which is of the free subject that doesn't recognize any fixed 'being' beyond what it can deduce through dialectic. This is a first but incomplete step towards the more systematic science of Plato, as in even though every immediate presupposition is destroyed by a ruthless becoming of the knowing self (Socrates not knowing anything could be interpenetrated as him not recognizing anything certain and immediate beyond consciousness, of course he knew something); as confusing as this may appear, this same negative process is also the development of the things that are, that is instead of the mere hypotheses we had before (virtue, knowledge, &c), the ousia are mediated through our free thinking and deducing, even if we are not clear and certain of their meaning by the end of the dialogues, we still develop them, making further inquiries easier, it's a negative process that has deeper positive result. That's why they're same, just at different positions of development, Plato just made expression of this further explored concept, which is the of the principles, or laws behind particulars beings.