Considering virtually every 'great' thinker from the

>Considering virtually every 'great' thinker from the past would drastically change their opinions given what modern philosophy and science now knows
>implying

>given they are wrong about so much just by virtue of the lack of progress of their time?
>implying


thread over

This has to be bait

>>8346902
You seem upset. This is a legit question.

OP, I've been thinking about this as well. But you don't just read to get a 1:1 map of reality, but also to spark ideas about how to fill in the white spots on that map. Reading an idea that turned out to be wrong might inspire you to try it in a different way, or simply save you the time of testing it yourself. Read a lot, and don't be afraid to read shit, because it helps you distinguish bad ideas from good ones. Good luck!

>>8346907
No it's not. You are just lacking education.

>>8347023
Seems I've hit a nerve. Just a question my good man

>>8346897
Yes, because understanding what they got wrong and why and how they got it wrong is fascinating and informs your own problem solving procedures.

Yes, because science doesn't concern itself with your prosaic experiment as a human and how to conduct yourself.

Yes also because science doesn't capture agency--what is chosen--whereas philosophy does. You could dedicate yourself to drawing triangles for 10 hours every day for no reason other than you chose to. What could science say about that?

Philosophy is the individuating discipline. It prompts you to become your own person.

>>8346897
I know this board places emphasis on classics and original works but I feel exactly the same.

Unless we are talking of a great thinker or work that was ignored or somehow forgotten, the great thinkers of the past should have become part of culture.

When I read a contemporary book on evolution for example, I assume that Darwin's work has been fully incorperated.

>>8347037
I don't answer loaded questions.

>>8347068
Given that STEMshit is constantly ripping off the humanities to make its grim autism appealing ("we are all le stardust xD"), you'd think STEMfags would be a little more grateful.

>>8347072
OK, fuck off then

>>8347079
No ;)

>>8347076
?
What does this have to do with my comment.

this time has a flawed understanding too
future people will disagree
the question is whether they're worth reading:
- do they put your perspective into question, thus providing you with the opportunity to expand your horizons?
- do they say things in ways that are enjoyable to read?
- can you see anything that they have said having an influence on the modern day?
- what can you now add to what they've said?
- do they get something we no longer get?
- do they enlighten you?

>>8347081
Dig, dig, dig

>>8347092
No doubt but we go on the best we have not the best that was even though it is no longer true to the best of our knowledge

>>8347093
Woof

>>8347068
you can't assume that his work has been FULLY incorporated. Sure, if you want to know about the current standing on evolution accepted by a consensus of scientists, read someone that writes in top journals nowadays.
But if you want to know about Darwin's methods, how he wrote, his actual observations of the way living things interact, whom he's responding to
then
you have to read Darwin.

>>8347100
But he was fucking wrong. It's the same with philosophy.

Why read Plato when he was objectively wrong about everything?

>>8347097
but the best we have is the entire collection of human work up to this point. You can't assume that just because people can say things in a more information-dense way now because of the progress of language that the nuance and context of a body of older work from which all this is drawn will not say even more.

>>8347103
He wasn't wrong. He was right for his time. This time is made up for all previous times. So if you want to have a comprehensive understanding of this time, then you have to read the people who made us know what we know now. Even if they did so by being wrong so people who are right now can bounce off of them.

Besides, nobody is completely wrong.

>>8347111
>nobody is completely wrong
I am.

>>8347100
My reasoning goes:
- if hugely popular classic
- then can ignore
So I rather read Lamarck, Malthus, Alexander von Humboldt or al-Jahiz.

>>8347103

State one specific thing that Plato was wrong about, and then demonstrate how he was wrong.

>>8347103
Genuine question, how old are you OP. Something about your posts and this thread in general smacks of juvenile thinking, I might have agreed with you when I was 17.

>>8347115
Your reasoning goes:
- if thing falls into category
- ignore thing

>>8347115
And I know Lamarck and al-Jahiz were wrong but it could still be interesting nontheless.

>>8347116
Birds are made of wood

>>8347128
>and then demonstrate how he was wrong

>>8347128

Where did Plato claim that birds are made from wood?

>>8347123
I want to aquire knowledge that sets me apart. If I read the same as most people, I am not doing that. Sure I need some essentials, but otherwise I should diverge as much as possible.

Collective intellectual tunnel vision is bad.

File: 1469053611939.jpg (169KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1200x1200px

>>8347037
Holy hell man


Can't you just educate yourself rather than asking pants-on-head idiotic questions and feed off the frustration you're creating ?


Anyway, you're making the assumptions that since only the present matter, all the past must be bullshit. Which aint true, considering the present's foundations is the past. Humanity haven't advanced much on a spiritual/philosophical point of view, hence why some of Aristote's stuff is still relevant nowadays.


So yeah tldr just git educated, you can't expect to understand the things of today if you don't understand the things of yesturday that led to today.

All knowledge you gather make you a lil more open minded and able to understand other ideas. There's no such a thing as knowledge that aint worth knowing about.

>>8347140
Well then what's stopping you from doing that ?

>>8347140
you're right
overall it smooths out because you get input from general cultural absorption anyway
but removing a type of thing from your sight is the definition of reinforcing your reality tunnel

>>8347106
If done well then it will. It's a constant refining. Keep the good stuff leave out the shit. That'll no doubt continue happening as we discover more but considering there was plenty of stuff known now to be pure shit that was deemed true before and that was the culture from which even the best minds wrote, there is bound to be plenty of shit in their stuff now. So again, sift the wrong, keep the right. Simple

>>8347148
At least posting a cool picture slightly made up for that cringe worthy persons you put on

>>8347140
Holy shit do you actually understand how you come across m8?

You are everything bad about fedorians, you're talking so much shit with so much air about you on a Vietnamese image board. People like you are all the same, how about you spend less time on the Internet and actually picking up some classics. Then you can go about forming your own ideas on the subject, because feeding yourself with secondhand opinions off of 4chan doesn't really 'set you apart' either.

>>8346897
Changing your opinions doesn't mean you were absolutely wrong about everything.

The present is informed by the questions and answers people gave in the past. For example a lot of the math and understanding about relativity came out of experiments trying to measure aether. Regardless that aether doesn't exist, the exact reasonings and dealing with it is what gave us the math and data needed.

Lots of pgilosophical questions don't have a clearly demonstrable correct answer and any nuanced contemporary discussion can't help but refer to the mountain of thinking done before.

My answer is rambling but this is clearly a stupid question.

It's a "read my dead white (mostly Greek) men so you can form a unique and informed worldview" episode :^)

>>8347156
>Keep the good stuff leave out the shit.
>Keep the stuff that our culture deems appropriate and leave out the stuff that their culture carries along
A written work encapsulates not only the technical information therein but also the way of living it enshrines.

>>8347169
Chuang Tzu won't tell you things that you can put in statistical format. But read his work.

>>8347149
I can agree with that. But can you understand that my heuristic is to generally avoid the most popular classics (science and philosophy)? Note generally, I might still do it anyway.
>>8347148
Nothing is stopping me as I have access to it all. Formal education is horrible tho, it let's everyone learn the same. I think it is fine for the essentials but there should be some randomisation or diversification.
>>8347164
Way to go with the assumptions lad.

>>8347103
I don't know how I could possibly care that he was "wrong".

>>8347177
>having a heuristic

Holy shit

Back to class, timmy!

>>8347116
that there are forms (like a form of hammer which most hammers fit into)

Reason why it's false: modern fucking science.

>>8347198
It would be extremely dionysian.

>>8347177
>heuristic as a noun
Kek

>>8347177
Well you haven't shown otherwise smart-cunt. Another anon suggested you argue with demonstration a point in which Plato is 'objectively' wrong. You also haven't stated your age (inb4 it doesn't matter)

>>8347210
Lol

>>8347210
>implying science investigates anything remotely resembling the realm of forms
it's like I'm talking to a shadow

>>8347216
There's several of us anons arguing in favour of the OP.

>>8347228
No there's not. There's ten of me arguing the opposite.

>>8347228
everyone cares about the people behind the arguments
oh wait, it's an anonymous imageboard

>>8347219
That's because you're stuck in the cave.

>>8347236
The goy I was replying to confused me with someone else.

>>8347241
m8 I'm a cavebro like the rest of the posters here
please tell me how to observe an actual object

>>8347255
Accept that the actual is a product of yourself

>>8347246
oh shit
I'm so sorry to hear that

...anon

>>8347255
With you eyes :)

>>8347258
Because I do not care about Plato being wrong: he is simply a bore just like Dennet is. Now Seneca, he was interesting.

You will never be an exceptionally intelligent individual

>>8347257
intellectually, or..?

>>8347260
So I've got these eyes, right? and they shoot electrical signals to my brain that tell me what light is entering them, and my brain assembles this information into images that a feedback process allows me to observe and manipulate
ok
ok
but then
if I manipulate them then they make sounds too
so how come the same things can both come through my eyes and through my ears?

>>8347271
all is of you my boy

now go chase the stars

>>8347264
Thank you for sharing your opinions

You are wrong OP, it is that simple. Science hasn't done much to disprove philosophy, only ecology, medicine and physics (but noone reads old philosophers on those anymore, and if they do, it's to give them an historical and cultural perspective, which is already a valid reason in itself.)

>>8347264
>Plato
>a bore

What? He's probably the most fun philosopher aside from Nietzsche and Lucretius

>>8347273
still chasing

>>8347228
Well then each one of you has something to prove if you're gonna bust in with

"Lmao old white guys were objectively wrong, the classics have no value in them, modernism is everything and foundations are irrelevant. Plato BTFO LOL"

Or you could just stay in this thread and just keep edging each other off until you all cum and feel guilty and embarrassed again.

>>8347279
for you

>>8347297
>"Lmao old white guys were objectively wrong, the classics have no value in them, modernism is everything and foundations are irrelevant. Plato BTFO LOL"
I am saying something different. I think modernity is not without flaws, consider the following:

Most moderns read the classics.

>>8347301
no he's objectively the most fun aside from N and L.

OBJECTIVELY.

>>8347264
Literally the least interesting philosopher of all time.
It's sort of embarrassing to admit you find Plato boring. A lot of his shit is pure entertainment, and, he invented one of the greatest characters in literature.

Honestly everything before Beauvoir is shit since it doesn't even include women.

>>8347114
>>8347313
Who?

>>8347312
You do know that there was a philosopher who was literally called Richard Fun?

>>8347068
>I assume that Darwin's work has been fully incorperated.
Are you aware that Darwin's work has been largely ideological, and people after him have been desperately trying to empirically prove it by assuming it's correct and working from that?

>>8347318
YOU

>>8347309
This. You should only be reading Tao Lin and Sam Harris.

>>8347322
(You)

>>8347323
I prefer Aztec philosophy.

>>8347332
like what?

>>8346897
Considering this pattern will inevitably keep occurring, is there any point to learning anything?

>>8347338
Sadly there is only the work by James Maffie on Aztec philosophy.

Little survived.

>>8346897
entirely no,
what would be best would be to gain an understanding of these terms/subjects and their dictionary definitions and decide for yourself their true meaning. But then again you might consider yourself better able to decide after having read these works.

File: 1463643839830.jpg (9KB, 239x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 239x250px

>Science
>Philosophy
>Knowing

File: greek-wine-cup.jpg (137KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 800x600px

>>8347342
This

Knowledge is and can only be a product of prior knowledge. There's no getting off the ride, my retarded friend ;)

How about using your brains while reading the greats of the past?

You can like, use your knowledge of modern science, thought and history to "fix" their opinions. Don't believe the Greeks when they make some outdated claims about physics, but learn from them when they talk about something else (even if only because of latter thinkers referring to them constantly).
Read Marx, but don't consider it the truth, but rather a theoretical framework for working out the/a truth (with newer knowledge and so on). Or whoever you're reading, don't just copy them, use their ideas. Plenty of thinking isn't even what is but what ought to be.

Either way tho, understanding contemporary thinkers would be fucking hard without reading the old ones. Maybe the contemporary Hegelian or Marxist or Lacanian or whoever I'm reading discards a lot of what the guys originally said and adjusts the rest, but I still need to know the terminology and the base of it all.

>>8347809
That is good. But to start with the classics would be a mistake. You should start with some more recent work and afterwards go with the classics so you can see what's wrong like how you said.

>>8347836
>you should start with some more recent work and afterwards go with the classics so you can see what's wrong like how you said.
ou should start with some more recent work and afterwards go with the classics so you can see what's wrong like how you said.

What an arrogant way to go about reading. May as well become a new atheist.

>>8347863
It would purify the dire state of contemporary philosophy.

>>8347210
0/10

File: 1459980187670.jpg (61KB, 433x419px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 433x419px

>>8346897
>given what modern philosophy knows

so fucking nothing?

top kek

>>8347246
no one gives a shit newfag

>philosophy BTFO

well done OP

how can philfags ever recover?

File: Leucippe_(portrait).jpg (13KB, 324x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 324x400px

>propose a theory of particle physics in 500 BC
>retard scientists take 2500 years to come to the same conclusion

>>8349182
Fabrique Nationale>>>some shitty Bosnian football team

cmon fampai this shouldn't be such a hard decision

>>8347067
meh not a great example, lots of scientists would love to stick a couple of recording canulas in you while you force yourself to draw all those days, to measure the way your brain was suppressing sexual/social/reward circuits with only such basic stimulation.


Might be able to learn a good deal about the neuropsych of impulse control, which is an important part of agency. Especially since our modern world faces huge issues involving legal definitions of agency/impulse control in mental illness, addiction, and general crime punishment and prevention.

>>8347128
they are though. bones are too heavy

>>8346897
Your question implies that there is a general consensus on philosophical issues and that we have claimed some way of thinking "right" and that thinkers of yore would have to submit to our updated understanding of the world. It really is a vague and somewhat stupid question. Sure, they would accept and learn of all the knowledge science has begotten us but then what? Do you think Kant would be an astrophysicist in today's world? Of course there is value in reading Plato or Aristotle but most posters have already told you about how modern philosophy is only where it is now because of the past philosophical progress. This board is AIDS.

>>8349134
thank. my suspicion is that OP is some smug nihilist who thinks he's got it all figured out. dumb old Kant! *tips fedora*

>>8350289
Yeah, if you're a dumb sperg. That's another reason people will never give up the humanities: science is fucking boring and diminishes us, and scientists are autists who are blind to how their cultural background and choice of values colors their research.

Science is a suicide ethos, and frankly, people are getting fed up. It's only a matter of time before people start slapping the shit out of you. A world without "free will" isn't one worth living in.

People need animating, comforting ideas to persist, and barren science miserists like yourself will die out in a few generations.

>>8350783
>muh reductionism
>muh forest for trees

>People need animating, comforting ideas to persist
Literally fascist.