/lit/ - Literature

>>16747953
Aristotle

>>16747958
Was he really?

Socrates

>>16747961
Yes. You could also say Heraclitus but Aristotle's is more worked out.

>>16747961
I imagine his dialogues were laughable

>>16747958
>Aristotle
>>16747968
>Heraclitus
literally, clearly, never read Plato.
The forms is a response to the affirmation of Heraclitus world of Becoming. Which you'd know if you've read Plato.
And Aristotle was a Platonist.
>>16747953
Plato is the unity of philosophers, there's literally no philosophy not already encapsulated by Platonism to some degree.
This is how both Stoicism (Polemon) and Skepticism came about out of Platonism, and Peripateticism is also found in Plato. They each a different interpretation of Plato, and all capture a part of the truth.
Even Epicurus has Platonic basis if you read Philebus, the Epicureans seek the midpoint between Pain and Pleasure.

>>16748093
No Plato combined the confusion that arose of Heraclitus vs Parmenides which spawned the sophists. That's what the cave was about. It accounted for Heraclitus but degradating him to Parmenides or eternal truth through the mechanism of ideas.

>>16748093
I was mid >>16748107
But I agree w you but I think you should allow philosophers to be not true. Aristotle's nominalism is true particularly but his ideology is, taken by itself, a repudiation of Plato. We can examine whether repudiation exists and where they meet but not if you don't take them as their own metaphysics

>>16747953
Nietzsche unironically.

>>16748093
Ok so who is the polar opposite of plato dipshit

>>16747953
>Which philosopher was the polar opposite of Plato?
A complete opposite of plato would be Samuel Beckett

>>16748093
>>16748113
To add onto this I think you should have existence be foundational. By doing so you can examine a metaphysics to see if it's correct. By doing so with Aristotle etc we can fruitfully work with them in relation to existence.

>>16748093
>Lloyd P. Gerson
You're presenting a controversial book that doesen't show the academic discussion on the Plato-Aristotle relation. Aristotle is not the oposite of Plato, but Lloyd P. Gerson's perspective is a very problematic one.

Depends on what you mean by opposite- as the anon's above mentioned, a philosophy that comes out of a disagreement with Plato will probably have some common threads with him by virtue of being in the same philosophical tradition. It might be more fruitful to look to the Far East. From what I have read of Taoist thought, it strikes me as rather un-platonic. however, in many cases this is because it is quite simply not even talking about things in the same way as Plato (by virtue of being in a different tradition) so you dont have the point by point negation that 'opposite' might imply.

>>16748220
>not opposite
Not him but can you defend that? Whatever overlap they have is due to historical significance but their metaphysics are entierly separate

>>16748224
I agree w this but taoism is proto- hegelian which follows Aristotle's teleological perversion

>>16747953
Democritus, Epicurus, the age of enlightenment, Modern philosophy, Post-modern philosophy

Otalp.

The Buddha, and Nagarjuna for Plotinus

>>16748258
This is interesting. I have not heard this point made before.
Are you aware of any good books/articles/essays/whatever dedicated to an indepth exploration of overlaps and comparisons between Eastern and Western philosophies? Or discusses the ideas of one school in the terms of another? In reading scholarly work about East Asian thought, I usually come across cursory comparisons or references, but I would appreciate something a little more rigorous

>>16748442
I'm aware this is a broad ask but even something as specific as a discussion of Taoism as proto-Hegelian would be really fascinating.

>>16748442
I'm so sry to be your dead-end on that but I'm looking for that. If I was rich I'd write it. I'm working on something more fundamental in free time.

>>16748448
Ah oh well.
Along those lines, one recommendation that may interest you is a collection of articles edited by Walter Scheidel called Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires.
It's mostly an exercise in comparative history and counterfactual 'what-ifs' to explore the similarities and divergences of the political economy in the ancient Med. and ancient China- but in the process it does touch on the philosophical traditions of both. Unfortunately this means there is not a whole lot of time devoted to talking about the philosophical ideas themselves, more so the contexts they developed in and their role in their respective societies, but it may pique you interest nonetheless.

>>16748448
>>16748494
Also I think the Japanese philosophers in the 'Kyoto School' dedicated a significant amount of time to explaining and understanding Japanese Zen concepts and philosophy within the framework of contemporary European thought- but I have yet to really read anything about them besides a basic overview so I am not to confident in saying more than that.

>>16748494
Yeah it does seem interesting. I think in order to speak about philosophical trends a philosophical historicism needs to be grounded in existence. I'm in the math historicism part being grounded in the philosophical

>>16748512
Yeah no that is dope. I'm very interested in seeing a coherent philosophy so we can examine philosophy qua philosophy instead of qua cultural or chronology

Feuerbach