Greatest retroactive refutations of all time

[Anonymous No.13901497]

I'll start.

>Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

[Anonymous No.13901512]

>>13901497
Leibiniz retroactively refute Guenon

[Anonymous No.13901529]

Thales retroactively raped all the reeking rectums of philosophy with his remarkable remonstrations

[Anonymous No.13901540]

Plato debunking the entirety of the Enlightenment in a single dialogue.

[Anonymous No.13901828]

>>13901497
Neochina retroactively debunking the USA

[Anonymous No.13902074]

>>13901540
Which dialogue would that be? I'm rather curious, as I'm still fairly ignorant of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13902087]

>>13902074
The Republic.

[Anonymous No.13902102]

>>13902087
In that case, after I'm done with the four dialogues detailing the last days of Socrates, I'll make sure to pick it up.

[Anonymous No.13903148]

>>13901512
Can you extrapolate on this?

[Anonymous No.13903619]

>>13903148
Do you mean elaborate?

[Anonymous No.13903823]

>>13901497
hahah the image

[Anonymous No.13903837]

>>13903619
He means ENHANCE!

[Anonymous No.13903876]

>>13903837
He means DILATE!

[Anonymous No.13903977]

>>13903823
kek.

[Anonymous No.13904059]

>>13903876
based

[Anonymous No.13904063]

>>13901497
But what if Abraham wasn't?

[Anonymous No.13904076]

>Kant once received a letter from a young lady who had read his works on ethics. Prizing Kant's genius, she sought advice on what she should do about a certain problem of hers. She was engaged to marry a gentleman whom she loved, but she was not a virgin. She wanted to know whether she should tell the man or keep quiet. Kant advised her that she must tell her fiancée. The fiancée broke off the marriage. Distraught, the woman wrote to Kant again, deeply troubled over the result of her decision and admitting she was having doubts over Kant's system of ethics. She asked if she might come to Koenigsberg to meet with Kant and discuss her doubts. Although he received the letter in a timely fashion, he chose never to reply. The woman committed suicide after some time.
Retroactively debunked roasties and the sexual revolution.

[Anonymous No.13904082]

inb4 Whiteheadfag claims this thread is an anti-Whitehead psyop conducted by Guenonfag using 15 different proxies

[Anonymous No.13904092]

>>13904082
Guenon-Whitehead synthesis needs to be done.

[Anonymous No.13904274]

Shankara refuting Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimansa, Samkhya, Jainism and Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13904433]

Then let us go to the others, the friends of ideas; and do you interpret for us their doctrines also.
Theaetetus
I will.
Stranger
You distinguish in your speech between generation and being, do you not?1
Stranger
And you say that with the body, by means of perception, we participate in generation, and with the soul, by means of thought, we participate in real being, which last is always unchanged and the same, whereas generation is different at different times. [248b]
Stranger
But, most excellent men, how shall we define this participation which you attribute to both? Is it not that of which we were just speaking?
Theaetetus
What is that?
Stranger
A passive or active condition arising out of some power which is derived from a combination of elements. Possibly, Theaetetus, you do not hear their reply to this, but I hear it, perhaps, because I am used to them.
Theaetetus
What is it, then, that they say?
Stranger
They do not concede to us what we said just now to the aboriginal giants about being.
Theaetetus
What was it?
Stranger
We set up as a satisfactory sort of definition of being, the presence of the power to act or be acted upon in even the slightest degree.
Stranger
It is in reply to this that they say generation participates in the power of acting and of being acted upon, but that neither power is connected with being.
Theaetetus
And is there not something in that?
Stranger
Yes, something to which we must reply that we still need [248d] to learn more clearly from them whether they agree that the soul knows and that being is known.
Theaetetus
They certainly assent to that.
Stranger
Well then, do you say that knowing or being known is an active or passive condition, or both? Or that one is passive and the other active? Or that neither has any share at all in either of the two?
Theaetetus
Clearly they would say that neither has any share in either; for otherwise they would be contradicting themselves.
Stranger
I understand; this at least is true, [248e] that if to know is active, to be known must in turn be passive. Now being, since it is, according to this theory, known by the intelligence, in so far as it is known, is moved, since it is acted upon, which we say cannot be the case with that which is in a state of rest.
Stranger
But for heaven's sake, shall we let ourselves easily be persuaded that motion and life and soul and mind are really not present to absolute being, that it neither lives nor thinks, but awful and holy, devoid of mind, is fixed and immovable?

[Anonymous No.13904437]

>>13904433
Theaetetus
That would be a shocking admission to make, Stranger.
>Stranger
>But shall we say that it has mind, but not life?
Theaetetus
How can we?
>Stranger
>But do we say that both of these exist in it, and yet go on to say that it does not possess them in a soul?
Theaetetus
But how else can it possess them?
>Stranger
>Then shall we say that it has mind and life and soul, but, although endowed with soul, is absolutely immovable? [249b]
Theaetetus
All those things seem to me absurd.
>>Stranger
And it must be conceded that motion and that which is moved exist.
Theaetetus
Of course.
>Stranger
>Then the result is, Theaetetus, that if there is no motion, there is no mind in anyone about anything anywhere.
Theaetetus
Exactly.
>Stranger
>And on the other hand, if we admit that all things are in flux and motion, we shall remove mind itself from the number of existing things by this theory also.
Theaetetus
How so?
>Stranger
>Do you think that sameness of quality or nature [249c] or relations could ever come into existence without the state of rest?
Theaetetus
Not at all.
>Stranger
>What then? Without these can you see how mind could exist or come into existence anywhere?
Theaetetus
By no means.
>Stranger
>And yet we certainly must contend by every argument against him who does away with knowledge or reason or mind and then makes any dogmatic assertion about anything.
Theaetetus
Certainly.
>Stranger
>Then the philosopher, who pays the highest honor to these things, must necessarily, as it seems, because of them refuse to accept the theory of those who say the universe is at rest, whether as a unity or in many forms, [249d] and must also refuse utterly to listen to those who say that being is universal motion; he must quote the children's prayer,1 “all things immovable and in motion,” and must say that being and the universe consist of both.
Theaetetus
Very true.
>Stranger
>Do we not, then, seem to have attained at last a pretty good definition of being?
Theaetetus
Certainly.

[Anonymous No.13904446]

>>13904433
>>13904437
Now that's one hell of a retroactive refutation!

[Anonymous No.13904451]

>>13904437
>Stranger
>We speak of man, you know, and give him many additional designations; we attribute to him colors and forms and sizes and vices and virtues, [251b] and in all these cases and countless others we say not only that he is man, but we say he is good and numberless other things. So in the same way every single thing which we supposed to be one, we treat as many and call by many names.
Theaetetus
True.
>Stranger
>And it is in this way, I fancy, that we have provided a fine feast for youngsters and for old men whose learning has come to them late in life; for example, it is easy enough for anyone to grasp the notion that the many cannot possibly be one, nor the one many, and so, apparently, they take pleasure in saying that we must not call a man good, [251c] but must call the good good, and a man man. I fancy, Theaetetus, you often run across people who take such matters seriously; sometimes they are elderly men whose poverty of intellect makes them admire such quibbles, and who think this is a perfect mine of wisdom they have discovered.1
Theaetetus
Certainly.
>Stranger
>Then, to include in our discussion all those who have ever engaged in any talk whatsoever about being, [251d] let us address our present arguments to these men as well as to all those with whom we were conversing before, and let us employ the form of questions.
Theaetetus
What are the arguments?
>Stranger
>Shall we attribute neither being to rest and motion, nor any attribute to anything, but shall we in our discussions assume that they do not mingle and cannot participate in one another? Or shall we gather all things together, believing that they are capable of combining with one another? Or are some capable of it and others not? Which of these alternatives, [251e] Theaetetus, should we say is their choice?
Theaetetus
I cannot answer these questions for them.
>Stranger
>Then why did you not answer each separately and see what the result was in each case?
Theaetetus
A good suggestion.
>Stranger
>And let us, if you please, assume that they say first that nothing has any power to combine with anything else. Then motion and rest will have no share in being, will they?

[Anonymous No.13904493]

>>13904451
>Stranger
>The sophist runs away into the darkness of not-being, feeling his way in it by practice,1 and is hard to discern on account of the darkness of the place. Don't you think so?
Theaetetus
It seems likely.
>Stranger
>But the philosopher, always devoting himself through reason to the idea of being, is also very difficult to see on account of the brilliant light of the place; for the eyes [254b] of the soul of the multitude are not strong enough to endure the sight of the divine.
Theaetetus
This also seems no less true than what you said about the sophist.
>Stranger
>Now we will make more accurate investigations about the philosopher hereafter, if we still care to do so; but as to the sophist, it is clear that we must not relax our efforts until we have a satisfactory view of him.
Theaetetus
You are right.
>Stranger
>Since, therefore, we are agreed that some of the classes will mingle with one another, and others will not, and some will mingle with few and others with many, and that [254c] there is nothing to hinder some from mingling universally with all, let us next proceed with our discussion by investigating, not all the forms or ideas, lest we become confused among so many, but some only, selecting them from those that are considered the most important; let us first consider their several natures, then what their power of mingling with one another is, and so, if we cannot grasp being and not-being with perfect clearness, we shall at any rate not fail to reason fully about them, so far as the method of our present inquiry permits. Let us in this way see whether it is, after all, [254d] permitted us to say that not-being really is, although not being, and yet come off unscathed.
Theaetetus
Yes; that is the proper thing for us to do.
>Stranger
>The most important, surely, of the classes or genera are those which we just mentioned; being itself and rest and motion.
Theaetetus
Yes, by far.
>Stranger
>And further, two of them, we say, cannot mingle with each other.
Theaetetus
Decidedly not.
>Stranger
>But being can mingle with both of them, for they both are.
Theaetetus
Of course.
>Stranger
>Then these prove to be three.
Theaetetus
To be sure.
>Stranger
>Each of them is, then, other than the remaining two, but the same as itself.
Theaetetus
Yes.

[Anonymous No.13904539]

>>13904433
who is that supposed to be btfoing

[Anonymous No.13904657]

[Anonymous No.13905686]

*retroactively refutes you*

[Anonymous No.13906558]

>>13904657
>>13904092
Whitehead-Guenon alliance, when?