Philosophers who got everything wrong

It's not about what they got wrong, it's about what you are capable of getting right.

You will always have a reason to criticize or find fault with philosophers. They weren't deities. They were people like you with questions and doubts. Fortunately we have the records of these and so we don't have to reinvent the wheel from scratch. Lucky for us.

I can't even

foolosophers dont invent wheels, engineers do

evolution is real in the sense that life gains in greater complexity and is consistently in a state progressive feedback with itself.

also eternal recurrence is fairly plausible.

True, but philosophers invented the allegory.

...

>beagelbabbies eternally btfo

trying to prove that there are 7 planets through a priori deduction is a not a recipe for successful philosophizing

I sure hope that you don't actually believe that. Science has proven those both to be wrong.

Scientific Method just got BTFO'd

fucking this

Every fucking Phil major i've met has literally had "Plato was wrong" drilled into their head for three years without actually reading his ideas by themselves.

Modern philosophy departments are just factories for autistic logical positivists who actually belong in a STEM field, and insufferable SJW nihilists who thinks everything is "problematic".

>"problematic"
Kek

Academia is fucking dead

I agree.

The problem is polarization and the ever-widening gap between subjective and objective knowledge. Made worse by the production of a passive consumer culture pleasuring itself into obsolescence, futility, and weakness.

The corrections will be painful. Society is headed for a hard landing.

>factories for autistic logical positivists

Unfortunately to be expected given the exalted position of scientific materialism in our mass-industrial culture where technology is the new deity and scientific elites are its priests. That this should leak into areas where it is unqualified to speak of (philosophy - the inquiry into value) in the form of logical positivism is symptomatic of the reigning cultural narrative

Wrong about what anyway? There's very few things he actually presented in such a direct manner as to warrant a reaction of 'this is right/wrong'.

The city/soul analogy for instance.

I think you mean who got everything right

>believing in objective knowledge
>falling this hard for the meme

It's not an 'analogy', since the human soul only exists and functions in a polis, by analyzing the polis you get the true nature of the soul, it's a micro/macro thing.

this post is problematic

Some niggas yerterday insisted he was wrong about the existence of Homer

You could interpret as an analogy.

What?

>thinking logical positivism is in any way the dominant form of analytic philosophy after quine

Is it just me or is Veeky Forums fucking garbage for understanding the history of philosophy?

It's clearly stated that he needs to look things from afar (get hold of the macro) in order to understand better the nature of justice, and then apply it to the micro.

Plato takes the existence of Homer as a fact, but some academics have said that he could possibly never have existed.

'I think we should employ the method of search that we should use if we, with not very keen vision, were bidden to read small letters from a distance, and then someone had observed that these same letters exist elsewhere larger and on a larger surface. We should have accounted it a godsend, I fancy, to be allowed to read those letters first, and examine the smaller, if they are the same.” “Quite so,” said Adeimantus; [368e] “but what analogy to do you detect in the inquiry about justice?” “I will tell you,” I said: “there is a justice of one man, we say, and, I suppose, also of an entire city.” “Assuredly,” said he. “Is not the city larger than the man?” “It is larger,” he said. “Then, perhaps, there would be more justice in the larger object and more easy to apprehend. If it please you, then, [369a] let us first look for its quality in states, and then only examine it also in the individual, looking for the likeness of the greater in the form of the less.'

The only analogy here is between the philosophical inquiry and the act of identifying the small and big letters.

That is very much besides the point. A human being existed who wrote / dictated The Odyssey, and the name we attribute to that person is Homer.

It's like the problem with Hermes Trismegistus. That we don't have an exact person and date isn't really conceived of as an issue by the people who care about his writings.

Marx. The Law of Value is categorically incorrect, much like the Labour Theory of Value before it, and thus his entire philosophic framework is nonsense.

It is a strange coincidence that once you remove everything from Marx's philosophy which was based on lies, all that is left is a bearded Boogie screaming for you to pay for his healthcare. What a strange coincidence.

Actually, the theory is that there were many Homers who accumulated and refined the poems over many generations.

tbf most forms of analytic philosophy are equally as shit and belong in a STEM field.

Terrifyingly accurate

Well given that it was an orally transmitted story that isn't far off the mark, but there still had to be a single individual behind its inception, and given the incredible visionary nature of the work, I should think most of it remained without substantial editing.

>hegelian pittsburgh school belongs in stem
>the australian metaphysical realists belong in stem
>the ordinary language philosophers belong in stem
>the anti-psychologism logicians belong in stem
>analytic virtue epistemologists like sosa and kvanvig belong in stem

go back to /r/philosophy or whatever shit hole you came from, as you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Less the belief in objective knowledge than the necessity of maintaining an internal disposition about the possibilities and limitations of reason.

It's too easy to be a relativist hysteric. You have to believe in philosophy itself as a meaningful possibility and not an infinitely solipsistic exercise.

Have you ever read Marx, or do you just assume he supported welfare states and free healthcare? In fact he showed disdain towards the permanently unemployed (the lumpen proletariat). And to qoute the marxist Lenin, "he who does not work shall not eat" (something along those lines).

Also, while I heaven't read enough to know myself, I've been told Rosa Luxemburg is a marxist who abandoned the labour theory of value.

Karl Popper, because of , , and .

Not because Popper was a logical positivist (he was a dedicated critic of it), but because falsificationism is not that significant of an improvement. Also he is somehow held out as the preeminent political philosopher of our time, who turned severe misreadings of Plato, Hegel, and, to a lesser extent, Marx into the accepted wisdom on those thinkers.

>"he who does not work shall not eat
Words to live by, unless you're Karl Marx, in which case you spend your entire like leeching off of your friends while writing about how exploited the poor working man is.

The absurdity of falsificationism when it comes to philosophy becomes apparent when someone says something like "I am in love with Mary" and we say that is unimportant because it is beyond falsification.

this, also ONE person wrote it all down

>a marxist who abandoned the labour theory of value.

This is like being a police officer who has abandoned the idea of crime. The entire point of Marxism is that the relationship between Capital and Labour is exploitative. If it is not exploitative (i.e. if the Capitalist is not in fact "stealing" value from the laborer) then the Capitalist is doing literally nothing wrong and all of the rhetoric about "enjoying the fruits of [the labourer's] labour" and "economic cuckolds" is literal bullshit.

And of course, it is, since the theory is empirically wrong, but to accept that it is empirically wrong while continuing to champion the proposed solution is baffling. Once you remove the exploitation from the equation what you have left is essentially an economic argument, and there's a reason Marxism considers itself post-economics, because it is defeated soundly in every arena when examined in that milieu.

capped this from another thread, about Plato being right

I feel like I'm too stupid to understand a lot of this but it was interesting to read.

This was confusing but the key thing a got out of it is the importance of Heraclitus and Parmenides when understanding Socrates and Plato. But I think the point about Homeric negation is interesting too.

This. A Marxist abandoning the labor theory of value being like a police officer who has abandoned the idea of crime is a good comparison.

It's necessary to take people at their words. The problem today is that too many academics and intellectuals want to speak without possibility of being understood or interpreted correctly, so that theory and academic discourse degenerates into play or autobiography. Ideologues aren't even ideologues anymore. They're merely intellectual democrats.

I recommend secession from postmodernity. Contemporary philosophy is virtually indistinguishable from the right of arbitrary defection. People who cannot say what they want or mean what they say should be taken at their word in full fidelity. Trust that they cannot be trusted until proven trustworthy.

The ship is sinking.

checked

>he fell for the Hermes meme

>The ship is sinking.

Frightening!

I'll be honest and say that I haven't read das kapital (I have read Value, Price and profit), but can't you make the argument that the capitalist exploits the worker without the LTV? You can as a capitalist lay in bed all day, obviously not creating any value, and still earn money from the work of your workers. Surely there is no denying that work ''can'' create value?

>The ship is sinking.
Yours.

The setting sun drags the Fish down with him. Grow now, for the days of the harvest are close; and the Tares shall burn.

Please continue the rest of this story, I want to hear more.

Happy, those who wish to burn the works of the past so they may at last find sleep: for the works of the future shall burn them, and they will sleep the last sleep.

Happy, those who infect the world with their presence, and wish its death: for the world will disinfect itself from their presence, and they shall find death.

Happy the poor who wish to take from the rich, so they may find sleep: for the little they have shall be taken from them, and they will taste sleep.

Happy those who celebrate the decline of the Lamb so they may taste sleep: for the lions shall come and give them sleep.

Happy the weak who speak out against life and earth: for life too will speak against them, and they will return to the earth.

damn its rare that someone on Veeky Forums has a citation to back themselves up, but this is spot on. well done

Very interesting, thank you user.

writing is working you fucking neanderthal

Karl Marx is retroactively rescued from this "argument" by the fact that he has made generations of writers earn bucks either by inspiring writers or helping people abuse the capitalist system for money making schemes.

But the capitalist would argue that value is only created when there is a buyer to pay more than the cost of production. Hence the capitalist lying in bed would be creating value as long as his business is turning a profit. In capitalism, work itself has no value because work might not turn a profit and only becomes valuable after the exchange of assets. Work aids in creating value, no doubt, but only the investment of capital has the final say on what is "valuable."

Nobody got more things wrong than Hume
Empiricism will be remembered in history as the laughingstock of philosophy

Kant thinks he got one thing right, the doubt about cause and effect, but had wrong reaosning for it.

When I was 15 and I found Hume I thought he was the be all end all smartest philosopher. Then I read literally anything else.

If you're going to be pseuds, could you at least try not to be so banal?

If you're going to call people buzzwords, could you at least include a reason?

this is why christian platonism, and not just platonism, is the most complete form of philosophy

agree

Science diroves evolution wtf am I reading

This is why I'm a Gnostic.

>philosophers
>ever getting anything right

Mate I understand Plato well enough, am Christian, and still have to admit he was wrong. At most he is analogous.

Philosophy = Pornography

synthesis: phlornography

my mind-body is ready for this

Something nice I realized about philosophy and knowledge in general is that there is no real need in life for you to feel compelled to ever get into philosophical arguments with anyone or attempt to prove your point of view. I have no idea why I thought I would ever need to "prove myself" to anyone hung around for so long. Nobody is ever going to point a gun at my head and ask me to divulge my metaphysical assumptions about life.
Philosophy is essentially for me. It acts as a guiding compass for my actions, and I have benefited from my association with it in real concrete ways. I don't need to prove shit to anyone. They can infer whatever they want from my actions instead. I used to get into long philosophical conversations / arguments all the time, but now I feel very little compulsion to do so. If the subject gets brought up, more and more I would rather just remain silent and listen and nod and say "I see, I see. Perhaps. Mmm."

It's a liberating feeling to no longer care if you're 'understood' or not. I understand me, and that is more than sufficient.

Pornosophical philotheology. Metaphysics in Mecklenburgh street!

>using philosophy as self-help rather than obsessive pursuit of truth
Shamefur dispray

There's no need, but in the right contexts they can be very entertaining and let you bond with people in a less superficial way than talking about weather or cars

What? All knowledge is ultimately self knowledge, and the point in learning anything is for the betterment of yourself and others. Dunno what you're on about. Everything is "self-help", including the desire for truth. Why do you desire to know the truth? So that you can enjoy and 'help yourself' to its benefits, surely?

But I know what you're getting at. I've triggered your obsession with arguing with people and trying to prove your right to everyone you meet, is that it?

If the situation can present itself in a wholly untoxic manner then sure. The point is that you can engage with your feelings about it without seriousness and never feel like you need to "win" the argument, which is liberating.

But generally speaking..

"The monk sat next to the master and pointed towards the hills. "Those hills out there - aren't they not the great body of buddha itself?' 'Yes,' replied the master, 'but its a pity to say so."

I think you didmt understand what the term philosophy means

keep at it lmao

If you can't defend your thoughts in a debate, than what are they but thoughts? It must be challenged and reformed in the crucible of dialectic before you can be assured of anything.

I think you don't understand the point of philosophy. It's not simply a tool to debate endlessly with. It has value beyond that.

Shouldn't this be on Veeky Forums or something?

>I've triggered your obsession with arguing with people and trying to prove your right to everyone you meet, is that it?
Preemptive fucker trying to win the argument, not gonna work senpai.
There's a difference between pursuing the truth for truth's sake and treating knowledge as your personal opium. Whether satisfaction and joy are worth it to begin with is a philosophical question too

And what value is that? hahaha

If you think you constantly need to debate people to be sure of yourself then in THAT case they are only thoughts, and not understandings. So, the opposite of what you said.

There is no such thing as pursuing truth for truths sake. You're a living human being and you do things for reasons that you consider ultimately beneficial to yourself. You're not a computer program who can be programmed to simply "calculate for the sake of calculation".

To increase the beauty of your perspective toward life, and thereby your life.

>it's only 'understanding' if you're believe in it like in dogma
Here's a good book for you

how is the eternal recurrence wrong from a scientific standpoint?

positivists are cancer.

i came down the stairs, the logos firmly belted around my slim, boyish hips

she was waiting for me on the couch, toying idly with a signifier. just looking at it made me hard as determinism

she saw me seeing her but it didn't get all weird or postmodern or anything, i mean, just, like, We Saw Each Other. not everything is a reference, holy fuck

anyways

check out these means of production, she said, dialectically. she opened her shirt and two huge partial objects were in there

i immediately became a 4-dimesional deleuzian rhizome

shit was cash

Thanks for writing this

It's called having faith in yourself. If you want to feel that the moral state is one of being in constant self-doubt, then have at it. The point of philosophy isn't that you arrive at a state of dogmatic stasis regarding your own ideas about reality, but there is nothing wrong with abiding by models of reality you have proven to yourself as worthwhile. Otherwise we should all be quaking dithering messes and never make up our minds about anything because that would be the "right, non-dogmatic thing to do."

my life is an empty void sustained only by a tiny trickle of (you)s

here

have this tiniest piece of mimetic currency

perhaps it is all that remains in this empty world

*gasps, wheezes*

sh-shit

the shit

it was

c-c-cash

*dies*