[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 322 KB, 1080x1175, My Gigachad is the Sea of Stars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16338474 No.16338474 [Reply] [Original]

>tfw fully comprehended the Ἐξαίφνης
Wait, what do I do with my life now?

>> No.16338773

>>16338474
Guys the "Instance" is a serious idea.

>Unlike the temporal “now,” understood as a point in time, the “instant” is not in time—it is not “temporal” in the ordinary sense. However, in Heidegger’s reading, the “instant” is not within time, but rather manifests the essence of the temporality of Being as such: “As to the exaiphnēs, we say it is time itself. Time is not eternity, but rather the instant [Augenblick].”"Unlike the temporal “now,” understood as a point in time, the “instant” is not in time—it is not “temporal” in the ordinary sense. However, in Heidegger’s reading, the “instant” is not within time, but rather manifests the essence of the temporality of Being as such: “As to the exaiphnēs, we say it is time itself. Time is not eternity, but rather the instant [Augenblick].

>The dialogue Parmenides concludes with these astounding words of Parmenides:
>>Let this therefore be said, and let us also say the following, as it seems appropriate. Whether or not there is a unity, the unity itself and the manifold otherness, both in relation to themselves as well as to each other—all this, in every way, both is and is not, appears [phainetai] and does not appear. —This is most true [alēthestata].59

>The concluding word is the character Aristotle’s grandiose alēthestata: “This is most true.” The most profound articulation of reality as one-in-many, as identity-in-differentiation, as presence-by-absence, has been attained. Heidegger concludes hisseminar with the following words:
>>Maximal truth has been attained when appearance and Non-being have been included within truth and Being. The dialogue literally leads to Nothing [Nichts]. . . . Thereby the question of Being has been transformed, everything is now otherwise. The on is both hen and polla, and it is hen, insofar as it is polla and vice versa. The One and the Many are only insofar as they are in themselves negative [nichtig].

Kierkegaard along with Hegel also raised focus onto the "Instance" in Plato.

>> No.16338872

bump.

>> No.16338934

bump.

>> No.16338984

>>16338474
wtf is the Ἐξαίφνης ?

>> No.16338994

>>16338773
Thanks for demonstrating that serious philosophy is just meaningless babble. It tries so hard to be hard to understand so everyone will think it has a legitimacy.
The way of writing is just ridiculous. Why all the foreign words in the brackets? I'm German and there is no reason to put [Nichts] after "Nothing", it's just the same word. But some layman will think it has a deeper meaning. Same with all these Greek words, nobody understands them and so everyone will think it's something deep and mystical.
It's just absurd. Philosophy should be renamed to "have sex".

>> No.16339006

>>16338994
cringe

>> No.16339016

>>16338984
The "Instance" from Plato's late philosophy, the Parmenides, which for such a genius it is not without his ability, to start a new beginning in his philosophy.

>> No.16339022

>>16339006
Fuck you philosophy major, go study something serious

>> No.16339026

>>16338994
It has a deeper meaning because those specifications have a certain meaning in for example Heidegger's use of them. It's not just putting different translations for no reason.

>> No.16339055
File: 45 KB, 318x460, Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16339055

>>16338474
>>16338773
>>16338984
Also here is a full explanation of pretty much how Plato was right all along: https://www.academia.edu/320473/All_of_a_Sudden_Heidegger_and_Platos_Parmenides_2007_

As Heidegger says: "The third passage of the Parmenides is the most profound point to which Occidental metaphysics has ever advanced. It is the most radical advance into the problem of Being and time—an advance which afterwards was not caught up with [aufgefangen] but instead intercepted [abgefangen] (by Aristotle)."

>> No.16339067

>>16339026
Why should I care? How did that affect your life?

>> No.16339091

>>16339067
I can now understand Plato, which in his work and ideas feeds directly into the practical.

>> No.16339097

>>16339091
So what changed in your life because of it?

>> No.16339110

>>16339097
There's no point arguing with these folks. Sunk cost fallacy prevents them from admitting they wasted their time.

>> No.16339123

>>16339097
You're asking the practical validity of Plato's ethics?

>> No.16339163

>>16339123
No, I'm asking what did understanding Ἐξαίφνης change for you`besides intellectual stimulation?

>> No.16339170

>>16339163
I can now understand Plato, which in his work and ideas feeds directly into the practical.

>> No.16339191

>>16339170
You're repeating yourself.
>You read Plato, this is the state P1
>state P1 affects your life, state of life is now L1
>Now you start your journey in understanding Ἐξαίφνης
>You understand Plato on a deeper level now, this is P2
>P2 affects your life, the state of your life is now L2
What's the difference between L1 and L2?

>> No.16339282

>>16338994
based

>> No.16339436

>>16339191
>What's the difference between L1 and L2?
L1 was the near practicing of Plato's thought and ethics, and L2 was the full realisation of its meaning and use in life.

>> No.16339468

>>16339436
Give some examples

>> No.16339549

>>16339468
For one, it is an orientation fundamentally of life, and it is one in which I find myself can have no greater strength bearing to this world. I can not only see the good in this world, but the supreme good, for which I affirm my life, for those around me. If you want particularity's my man, then see the prior relation something like self-control takes in this orientation. And contrast it with a neo-Stoic "self-control", and see the real difference.

>> No.16339577

>Ἐξαίφνης
How do you pronounce this? Ecks-i-pseys?

>> No.16339585

>>16339577
>pseys
I'm idiot, I confused the phi for a psi. Is it phneys?

>> No.16339609

>>16339577
>>16339585
ex-eyeph-nes. I think.

>> No.16339654

>>16339468
Not that anon, but you unironically sound like a fucking fag

>> No.16339925

Bump my magnificent thread.

>> No.16339984

>>16338994
Based

>> No.16340677

>>16338994
Based AND redpilled

>> No.16340768
File: 975 KB, 2144x2812, parmeclitus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16340768

>What we have been calling the third hypothesis, or the Corollary on Temporal Change in Plato’s Parmenides, is most famous for its sudden and somewhat dubious introduction of the term ἐξαίφνης, the instant, as that which escapes the law of the excluded middle, failing qualification by one of two opposite predicates during the transition between changes of state. In the commentary on the Parmenides, Damascius seizes on this new terminology to promote an important distinction between two different aspects of the soul’s conceptual activity, which he calls the “instant” and the “now.”
>>This instant is partless by its character and therefore atemporal, but that was a measure and an interval of time as we showed, and that is what he [sc. Parmenides] called “now” in order to designate the present time, whereas he called this the instant because it came from unseen and detached causes into the soul. If we understood the “now” there as partless, then it would itself be a somatic instant, that is psychic. And so this is an instant, because it is in a way eternal, whereas that is now, since it is the limit of time that measures corporeal coming to be.
>For Damascius, the center of human consciousness, the activity of the soul, can be understood in one way as a temporally defined moment, what we might call a thought-moment, that is, a measure of time’s super-ordinate flux that is artificially discriminated into successive “nows.” At the same time, this center is also known, following the Parmenides of Plato, as an “instant,” and as such acts as the doorway into atemporality. Expounding the method of passage, Damascius, again under the influence of Iamblichus, distinguishes three kinds of reversion: substantial, vital, and intellectual. The last describes the reversion of the soul towards its center, to take its place among the ranks of the intelligible domain. Damascius describes intellectual reversion in the Problems and Solutions, noting that it is a form of return to the realm of Being that nevertheless is still bound up with the world of the soul, the world of becoming:
>>Now intellect returns both by means of substantial and vital reversion but in the third rank and as it were distantly, by means of cognitive intellection, and because intellect is gnostic, and so it returns by means of actuality or in actuality, but not substantially nor by means of the vital power. And that is why this kind of intellection is something that is involved more with becoming, and this is also more apparent to us, because it is especially distinct.

>> No.16340775
File: 1.72 MB, 1013x923, mone-proodos-epistrophe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16340775

>>16340768
>In all of this, Damascius innovates wildly on the language of Plato’s Parmenides. Readers of Plato will recall that in the Third Deduction, the instant is introduced in order to accommodate the conclusions of the First and Second Hypothesis. As the moment between motion and rest, the instant makes possible temporal change itself. For Damascius, this instant has become the inner life of the soul, its nature prior to the activity of thinking a particular thought, and hence, the ground of the soul’s reversion to the realm of Being. Here is another and even more unique solution to the puzzles that Damascius grapples with concerning the soul’s dual membership in the intelligible and temporal orders of being. According to the way that the soul actualizes its essence, it admits of differing identities, as Steel (1978) has shown in his monograph, The Changing Self. In this sense, the various degrees of unreality that are detailed in the subsequent hypotheses of the Parmenides in Damascius’s explication, inasmuch as he designates them as One, Not-One, Not-Being, Not-One, are also configurations of the soul itself:
>>If the soul is divisible and indivisible in its totality, always its summit is more indivisible, its lowest degree more divisible…Therefore according to Parmenides as well, the summit of the soul is sometimes One, sometimes Being, sometimes all the degrees between [One and many], just as its lowest degree is sometimes in a similar way not-One, not-many (In Parm. 11.11–15 Steel).
>Hence the crucial place of the third hypothesis in Damascius’s exposition of the Parmenides is in showing how the life of the soul moves up and down the scale of being. Therefore Damascius understood this dialogue to be an illustration of the complete career of the soul, from the summit to the lowest degree of being. All the while, however, Damascius insists that the soul retains its fundamental reality
and its εἶδος: it never irrevocably forfeits its place within the highest realms of being, however clouded its upward gaze may become.

>> No.16340779

>>16338474
do what i do and feel furious rage at this horrible world for keeping me in shackles

>> No.16340832

>>16338773
I have some familiarity with Heidegger, but I couldn't understand. As I interpret it, you mean that, like Schopenhauer, the instant is a point tangent to a circle (time)? So the point is outside time? However Schopenhauer's time is improper comprehension of time (not futural).

Is this an approximation of Heidegger with neoplatonism? Kek

>> No.16340845
File: 8 KB, 249x249, 1594442497527.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16340845

>>16338994
>I'm German and there is no reason to put [Nichts] after "Nothing", it's just the same word.
BASED
I remember reading that when Galileo described physical phenomena, he used simple, everyday words in a new, technical context. However, the phenomena he was describing was also something that is part of physical reality, and easy to grasp. Philosophers should stay very far from perverting the usage of normal fucking words, if all they're going to use them for is to refer to their uselessly abstract, made-up concepts that are impossible to understand unless you read pages upon pages of mental masturbation and splitting hairs.

>> No.16340958

>comprehends
>doesn't fully comprehed
Heh

>> No.16341348

>>16340768
>>16340775
This is all very interesting, but it seems to me to be more so a classification of a form(s) of being int he instance, rather than the fullness of time and being as Plato uses it and Heidegger later reveals. The instance, for example, is not just an "in-between"(probably made that mistake by the prioring of this idea between the presocratic figures Heraclitus and Parmenides instead of recognising the uniqueness of Plato) hence the ending quote of the Parmenides of it covering both opposing dual manifestations here >>16338773


Still it elucidates something exact about the human manifestation of the instance which I find extraordinarily interesting and also helpful, and I would like to know if you have any recommendations for reading Damascus. It's also good to see other anons are familiar with the Ἐξαίφνης.

>> No.16341361

>>16340832
Yeah I wasn't sure if that selection alone would be helpful at all, you should read the full article which is pretty short >>16339055 and of course you need to have read the Parmenides to really understand this. But in short Plato is rooting the Forms in the Instance (which is beyond presence insofar as it means the now strictly), that is in Time and it shows a radicalisation of what is generally considered to be his later philosophy; in works such as Parmenides, Sophist, Timaeus.

I'm not too familiar with Schopenhauer's conception of time but here it seems to me that he is still considering time within the practical sense of the presence now, and not really in its reciprocative understanding to being.

>> No.16341406
File: 118 KB, 902x523, 1596145825837.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16341406

>>16340779
No shackles brother, but rather the potential to do what you will to do.

Taken from the wikipedia on Plato's Phaedrus:
>A soul is always in motion and as a self-mover has no beginning. A self-mover is itself the source of everything else that moves. So, by the same token, it cannot be destroyed. Bodily objects moved from the outside have no soul, while those that move from within have a soul. Moving from within, all souls are self-movers, and hence their immortality is necessary.

Free will(self-mover) in being(Instance, as a descriptor of being), which reminds me of something Nietzsche said that should explain it(which is funny that almost all of Nietzsche's critiques fall away for late Plato):

>Free will appears unfettered, deliberate; it is boundlessly free, wandering, the spirit. But fate is a necessity; unless we believe that world history is a dream-error, the unspeakable sorrows of mankind fantasies, and that we ourselves are but the toys of our fantasies. Fate is the boundless force of opposition against free will. Free will without fate is just as unthinkable as spirit without reality, good without evil. Only antithesis creates the quality.

>> No.16341778

bump.

>> No.16341848

bump.

>> No.16341934

bump.

>> No.16342130

bump.

>> No.16342714

bump.

>> No.16342931

>>16338994
You sound like a bitter idiot (probably a larping Nazi) who only understood Heidegger was shit after you'd wasted a shit tonne of time reading him. Seethe harder.

>> No.16342934

bump

>> No.16342937

>>16338994
absolutely based and true

>> No.16343224

>>16342937
No it isn't.

>> No.16343309

>>16339577
êx-ay-phnês, the ê representing the closed eh sort of like the a in aliens but without the diphtongs common in the english language

>> No.16343398

>>16342931

Chad German speaker vs sad ad homenien virgin

>> No.16343627

bump. No one understands the thread.

>> No.16343655

>>16338773
>>16340768
>>16340775

GALAXY BRAIN: THE PRESENT IMMANENTLY IS THAT WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY OUTSIDE OF TIME, THE MOST DIVINE FORM THEREOF YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN, THE PAST AND FUTURE EVER DESTROYING THEMSELVES AGAINST ITS CONTENT, WHICH YOU ONLY DOUBT DUE TO ASSUMING IT ABSOLUTELY INSIDE OF THEM AND ASCRIBING THAT WHICH IS OUTSIDE TO AN UNKNOWABLE "TRANSCENDENTAL" GOD.

>His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"
>He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."

>> No.16343884

>>16341361
>>16338773
what is the difference between the instant and the now though? what do you think about the exposition on time and space being related here >>16341354.

>> No.16343911

>>16338994
Based department? Yeah, I think I have the guy...

>> No.16343916

>>16343884

See:

>>16343655

>> No.16343918
File: 1.91 MB, 1033x1033, 150282_0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16343918

>>16339097
Nothing

>> No.16343930

>>16343655
>>His disciples said to him, "When will the repose of the dead come about, and when will the new world come?"
>>He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it."
This could be interpreted in a variety of ways so please explain.

>> No.16343954
File: 1.21 MB, 1464x1986, Nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16343954

>>16338474
>>16338773
>>16339055
>>16340768
>>16340775
>>16341406
So is there literally any critique of Plato at all which holds in his late philosophy, or any future philosophical development which was not prefigured by it?

Any critique by Nietzsche just fades out right away.

>> No.16343965
File: 70 KB, 446x435, 1596149190756.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16343965

>>16338994
BASED

>> No.16343967
File: 242 KB, 800x1171, 1598476814215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16343967

>>16338994
Basado. OP is subhuman

>> No.16343973

>>16343967
You haven't read Plato.

>> No.16344004

>>16338994
>>16339282
>>16339984
>>16340677
>>16342937
>>16343911
>>16343965
>>16343967
>whatever i dont understand is meaningless

>> No.16344017

>>16344004
I'm pretty sure it's the same person.

>> No.16344028

>>16338994
muy basado

>> No.16344223
File: 69 KB, 600x624, 1585217776142.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16344223

>>16343655
The past and future, all change and all rest, plurality and oneness, are all simultaneously present in the eternal, in the One-Being. Aka Beauty, aka Love, aka Harmony, aka God. Being-Life-Intellect.

>> No.16344418
File: 653 KB, 1034x501, Llord Godson.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16344418

>>16343954
>So is there literally any critique of Plato at all which holds in his late philosophy, or any future philosophical development which was not prefigured by it?
there isn't

>> No.16344936
File: 80 KB, 1568x2288, THOMAS PASSAGE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16344936

>>16343930

>> No.16345029

>>16338474
Personalize and apply yourself.

Better to know than to be ignorant; worse to be idle with knowledge than to excel with knowledge.