How old were you when you realized the majority of philosophers

>>2182875
12.

File: cw8va.png (64KB, 527x526px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 527x526px

>>2182875
Philosophy constantly evolves.

Rejecting the enlightenment is very posh with the right these days.

Why don't you go live in a pre-enlightenment world with no technology post French Revolution??

>>2182984
The same archetypal patterns repeat endlessly through time in novel forms. The traditionalist knows this, there is no absolute and stable reality but only that secret essence which manifests becoming. The modern is hypnotized by the flux and thinks the flux is all there is and should be. The traditionalist knows reality as not being afflicted by time but being the principle of change and generation/cessation itself.

You assuming traditionalism refers to just a material or social condition confirms my diagnosis of cucklord supreme

File: yangr[1].jpg (11KB, 149x178px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 149x178px

>>2182875
oh, I'd say around 14 or 15.

Then I went to college and took a philosophy 101 class and once I developed a basic though rigorous understanding of western philosophy, I realized that I was looking at it the wrong way.

Before Descartes nobody really thought in terms of "real vs conceptual" or "natural vs supernatural". He may have been wrong about many things (he thought the pituitary gland was where the soul was stored) but he got the conversation rolling about the differences between things that exist in the real world verses things that only exist in our heads, and where we make the distinction

If our society seems more nihilistic than in past eras, then perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective conscious expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself

>>2183399
one of the great discussions in philosophy is searching for the cause of social strife: is it because of self-interested individuals bucking the system for their own gain, or is it hide-bound legalists stubbornly clinging to obsolete ways of thinking even in the face of overwhelming evidence? Jury is still out on that one.

Plus even if you do believe that history organizes itself into predictable cycles, you have no real way of knowing where in the cycle you are because that's the nature of how language mutates over time. At all points in history we see evidence of people finding reasons to believe that they live in the end times and that the apocalypse is right around the corner, even going as far back as the Roman Republic. People living in Victorian era Great Britain fancied themselves as the true successor to the Roman Empire, as do the Ottomans, French, Germans, Italians, and Americans.

>>2183635
>The purpose of life is life itself

>Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water

Wisdom known for ages. Western philosophy, while very illuminating, is still just a circuitous elaboration of deep spiritual truths. Kant's copernican revolution is just a rational formulation of maya, that our realities are fundamentally the product of individuated perspectives.

>>2183893
>Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water because that's the way things have always been and that's the way things will always be, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is heresy.
>After enlightenment we chainsaw the wood while drinking from bottled water because we're too picky to use the tap water which flows into our houses in nearly limitless quantities, while believing that the only true heresy is willful ignorance

Fixed it for you

Wisdom deals with our ability to manage other people: the better you are at convincing people of things, the more wise you are thought to be. Natural Philosophy deals with our ability to manage concrete reality, our ability to interpret the mysteries of creation in ways that yield reproducible results.

>>2184007
Which is fine, but the modern has immanent power, the mystic/initiate transcendent. The modern works within the system of reality according to that system's syntax, the traditionalist understands all natural law as inherently determinative, closed, and finally founded on that which cannot be explained in terms of that law.

The immanent force must be wedded to a transcendent drive, or else it is rootless and expends itself uselessly.

>>2184007
Flint Michigan has shown we've decayed so far as a nation tap water isn't safe any longer.

>>2182984
>implying both stems of logic are not totally coherent, one side is simply showing a biased side.

For instance. With "religious Logic" obliviously remove all anger, and put 10,000 miles in between the people talking, say using a phone. It is totally sound, I mean, to illustrate the point you have to use a bias.