>The concepts "true" and "untrue" have

>>9530798

Not gonna pretend I grasp that myself, for one. What is he referring to as optics?

File: 1494813923502.png (121KB, 1548x1468px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1548x1468px

>>9530798
u mean perceptin?

>>9530809
Perception, more or less. He is saying that hallucination and reality cannot be distinguished by the senses, and these concepts have no bearing on them.

>optics
You just mean there's no universal appearance for the world since everyone perceives it for his / herself? Yeah I definitely remember reading something like that by the presocratics, in theory of colour or something. Where exactly the ancient Greeks allude to it?

>The concepts "true" and "untrue" have no meaning in optics.

Which goes to show that man is above brute animals that have only the senses - man has the intellect which can perceive true and false.

>>9530798
>>9530846
What he's saying is we all perceive optics, the way we physically and emotionally see everything, to the point where whatever is seen is just seen. It is. There isn't "You couldn't have seen that" or "That's not real" when it comes to hallucinations or frames of thought.

>>9530837
>Where exactly the ancient Greeks allude to it?
Well, you have Thales - the nature of the universe is of water, or "All is one." The first philosopher, yet he possessed the mystical air of the poets in how he expressed his philosophical sentiments.

Heraclitus, whose philosophy in summary is conveying the same thing.

In a sense, the Greeks started on a principle which saw no divide between poetry and philosophy. Their polytheism reinforces this, as it suggests a multitude of values rather than the "one and only" value put forth by monotheism. The beginning of the monotheistic notion in ancient Greece begins with Plato.

File: Philosophy_in_the_Tragic_Age_of_the_Greeks.jpg (26KB, 328x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 328x500px

>>9530860
Also, the word sage (as in the seven sages) stems from Latin sapere or "to taste."

It was left unfinished but read pic related.

>>9530798
>>9530828

Is this point not also kind of driven forward by Deleuze?I don't think the issue here is that people don't grasp the limits of perception, it's just that they grasp it only when it's convenient: they believe SOME things ought to be true regardless if they can or not be so, and by everyone having their own sacred standard of "absolute perceptions", conflict arises. Or so I think.

>true and untrue have no meaning in optics
But Snell's law is true. The luminiferous aether is untrue.

>>9530876
Definitely will read this, sounds interesting. I'm just finishing up the last of the platonic dialogues now, I feel like I should re read the presocratics now that I've seen the references and responses to them by Plato's speakers. Are there any must-read tragic plays btw? Haven't really got to that

>>9530888
A truth arrived at by use of his senses. there's no real reason to assume that are senses tell us anything true about reality.

File: kaufmannisadumbass.jpg (147KB, 601x807px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 601x807px

>>9530828
>>9530883
>He is saying that hallucination and reality cannot be distinguished by the senses

no he's not saying that, he's comparing master/slave morality to a healthy and a sick eyesight.

The healthy eyes want to see more and see things as beautiful and sharp, the sick eyes see things as blurry and stimuli are painful

A bad eyesight is not "untrue" just like it is not "true" either

>one cannot refute christianity: It is impossible to refute a diseased eyesight

>>9532546
>A bad eyesight is not "untrue" just like it is not "true" either
Which is not all that different from meaning that modes of perception are neither true nor untrue, or that there is no "reality" and "illusion" per se - rather, they mean different things for each one that perceives.

But right after that, Nietzsche says that master morality, which agrees that the concepts "true" and "untrue" do not have meaning in optics, by its nature of willing duplicity in the world, has the tendency to sometimes preserve and defend, or even justify and strengthen, the perception of the slave (Christianity) because of this insight into perception that all modes of perception are neither true nor untrue. But this becomes a fatal error for the masters, like it was for Wagner, who ended up incorporating slave morality into his later work according to Nietzsche.

>>9532750
He's really clear that the senses are right and real

"Heraclitus too did the senses an injustice. They lie neither in the way the Eleatics believed, nor as he believed — they do not lie at all. What we make of their testimony, that alone introduces lies; for example, the lie of unity, the lie of thinghood, of substance, of permanence"

"Today we possess science precisely to the extent to which we have decided to accept the testimony of the senses — to the extent to which we sharpen them further, arm them, and have learned to think them through. The rest is miscarriage and not-yet-science — in other words, metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology — or formal science, a doctrine of signs, such as logic and that applied logic which is called mathematics. In them reality is not encountered at all, not even as a problem — no more than the question of the value of such a sign-convention as logic. "

"REASON" IN PHILOSOPHY, twilight of idols -nietzsche

>>9532797
>they do not lie at all.
>In them reality is not encountered at all
Which is to say, that they have nothing to do with truth or untruth, like we've been saying.

>>9532821
He's talking about "metaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology — or formal science" when he say "in them reality is not encountered at all", not the senses.