/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14465419]

Name a more based philosopher than Diogenes.

[Anonymous No.14465426]

>>14465419
Plotinus and all the Platonists.

[<negarestanipoopoo> !gDrA1n2Fhc No.14465549]

>>14465419
>>14465426
>retroactively refutes plotinus, guenon, whitehead, hegel, bogdanoffs, deleuze, hegel, land, and himself
>retroactively solves all of philosophy
>tells humanity how to achieve FTL travel, direct contact with god, enlightenment, penis enlargenment ect

nothing personell kiddo

[Anonymous No.14465554]

>>14465419

Diogenes is cringy as fuck and the ultimate reddit "philosopher"
>omg he told alexander to fuck off omg thats so based ahaha

[Anonymous No.14465576]

>>14465549
>Materialist
>Philosopher
Good try, Kid.

[<negarestanipoopoo> !gDrA1n2Fhc No.14465584]

>>14465576
>btfo's materialism
>>14465549
>gets called materialist by room temp iq midwit on 4chan

nothing personell kiddo

[Anonymous No.14465596]

>>14465554
This is specially ironic because it gives Alexander too much importance, while Diogenes didn't give two shits for titles and stuff like that. It's like saying "he is so out of the system, he flipped the finger to Leonardo DiCaprio!", I mean, nothing.

So, if diogenists are that impressed by him telling Alexander to fuck off his sun, then Alexander was indeed an important person, unlike the way Diogenes treated him. Alexander wins by killing Diogenes and stranding diogenesfags out their way to be impressed by Alexander himself.

[Anonymous No.14465615]

>>14465584
>14465584
Retroactively refuted by the infallible Guenon (pbuh).

>It seems that nothing exists for modern man other than what can be seen and touched; or at least, even if they admit theoretically that something else may exist they hasten to declare it not merely unknown but “unknowable,” which absolves them from having to give it further thought. If nevertheless some persons still are to be found who try to form some kind of idea of an “other world,” relying as they do on nothing but their imagination they picture it in the likeness of the terrestrial world and transfer to it all the conditions belonging to that world, including space and time and even a sort of “corporeality”; in speaking elsewhere of spiritualistic conceptions we have given some very striking examples of this kind of grossly materialized representation; but if the beliefs there referred to represent an extreme case in which this particular feature is exaggerated to the point of caricature, it would be a mistake to suppose that spiritualism and the sects more or less akin to it retain the monopoly of this kind of thing. Indeed, in a more general way, the intrusion of the imagination into realms where it can yield no useful results, and which ought normally to remain closed to it, is a fact which in itself shows very clearly how incapable modern Westerners have become of raising themselves above the realm of the senses; there are many who do not know how to distinguish between “conceiving” and “imagining,” and some philosophers, such as Kant, go so far as to declare “inconceivable” and “unthinkable” everything that is not capable of representation. In the same way everything that goes by the name of “spiritualism” or “idealism” usually amounts to no more than a sort of transposed materialism; this applies not only to what we have described as “neo-spiritualism,” but also to philosophical spiritualism, although the latter considers itself to be the very opposite of materialism. The fact is that spiritualism and materialism, in the philosophical sense of these expressions, have no significance apart from one another: they are simply two halves of the Cartesian dualism, whose radical separation has been turned into a kind of antagonism; and, since then, the whole of philosophy has oscillated between these two terms without being able to pass beyond them. Spiritualism, in spite of its name, has nothing to do with spirituality; its conflict with materialism can be of no interest to those who place themselves at a higher standpoint and who see that these opposites are fundamentally very near to being equivalent, their supposed opposition reducing itself, on many points, to a merely verbal disagreement.

[Anonymous No.14465620]

>>14465584
>>14465584
Retroactively refuted by the infallible Guenon (pbuh).

>It seems that nothing exists for modern man other than what can be seen and touched; or at least, even if they admit theoretically that something else may exist they hasten to declare it not merely unknown but “unknowable,” which absolves them from having to give it further thought. If nevertheless some persons still are to be found who try to form some kind of idea of an “other world,” relying as they do on nothing but their imagination they picture it in the likeness of the terrestrial world and transfer to it all the conditions belonging to that world, including space and time and even a sort of “corporeality”; in speaking elsewhere of spiritualistic conceptions we have given some very striking examples of this kind of grossly materialized representation; but if the beliefs there referred to represent an extreme case in which this particular feature is exaggerated to the point of caricature, it would be a mistake to suppose that spiritualism and the sects more or less akin to it retain the monopoly of this kind of thing. Indeed, in a more general way, the intrusion of the imagination into realms where it can yield no useful results, and which ought normally to remain closed to it, is a fact which in itself shows very clearly how incapable modern Westerners have become of raising themselves above the realm of the senses; there are many who do not know how to distinguish between “conceiving” and “imagining,” and some philosophers, such as Kant, go so far as to declare “inconceivable” and “unthinkable” everything that is not capable of representation. In the same way everything that goes by the name of “spiritualism” or “idealism” usually amounts to no more than a sort of transposed materialism; this applies not only to what we have described as “neo-spiritualism,” but also to philosophical spiritualism, although the latter considers itself to be the very opposite of materialism. The fact is that spiritualism and materialism, in the philosophical sense of these expressions, have no significance apart from one another: they are simply two halves of the Cartesian dualism, whose radical separation has been turned into a kind of antagonism; and, since then, the whole of philosophy has oscillated between these two terms without being able to pass beyond them. Spiritualism, in spite of its name, has nothing to do with spirituality; its conflict with materialism can be of no interest to those who place themselves at a higher standpoint and who see that these opposites are fundamentally very near to being equivalent, their supposed opposition reducing itself, on many points, to a merely verbal disagreement.

[Anonymous No.14465622]

>>14465554
someone says this in every thread
because of your faggotry the get was missed, kys

[<negarestanipoopoo> !gDrA1n2Fhc No.14465644]

>>14465620
>guenonfag retroactively refutes himself

based! your quote misunderstands the meaning of "representation" in the kantian sense. for example, deleuze in difference and repetition concieves of the conception of difference in itself as existing and delineates its properties in great detail, on the condition that it isnt subject to the possibility of representation, which is something kant already does in the start of the transcendental analytic, in the first critique, and develops further in the second critique, with regards to moral agents. read Kant and stop being a dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.14465646]

>>14465419
Diogenes wasn’t a real person, Plato made him up as a troll

[Anonymous No.14465647]

>>14465622

being homeless isn't a philosophy you cuck

[Anonymous No.14465657]

>>14465644
>hurr durr my thinking machine can operate without time or causality
kant was fucking retarded

[<negarestanipoopoo> !gDrA1n2Fhc No.14465782]

>>14465657
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-mind/

read this if the critique is too hard, you absolute moron.

[Anonymous No.14465800]

>>14465782
>Here Kant advances one of his most notorious views: that whatever it is that impinges on us from the mind-independent world does not come located in a spatial or a temporal matrix, not even a temporal one (A37=B54fn.). Rather, it is the mind that organizes this ‘manifold of raw intuition’, as he called it, spatially and temporally. The mind has two pure forms of intuition, space and time, built into it to allow it to do so. (‘Pure’ means ‘not derived from experience’.)

>These claims are very problematic. For example, they invite the question, in virtue of what is the mind constrained to locate a bit of information at one spatial or temporal location rather than another? Kant seems to have had no answer to this question (Falkenstein 1995; Brook 1998). Most commentators have found Kant's claim that space and time are only in the mind, not at all in the mind-independent world, to be implausible.

[Anonymous No.14465812]

There isn't one. He was an ISTP

>ISTPs are curious about the mechanics of the world around them and typically have a unique ability to manipulate the tools in their environments. They tend to study how things work and often achieve mastery in the use and operation of machines, instruments, and equipment. They seek understanding, but in a practical sense: they like to be able to put their technical knowledge to immediate use and are quickly bored by theory.

>ISTPs tend to be detached and prefer the logic of mechanical things to the complexity of human emotions. Independent and reserved, ISTPs treasure their personal space, and want to be free to be spontaneous and follow their own lead. ISTPs are selective about their relationships, and appreciate others who allow them plenty of freedom to do their own thing.

based as fuck

[<negarestanipoopoo> !gDrA1n2Fhc No.14465814]

>>14465800
Glad to see that you agree with me. Try reading what you posted, then what I posted, then the excerpt from the SEP, and see whether your quote actually proves what you said, or disproves what I said.

>hint: it doesnt, because you are a moron

[Anonymous No.14465815]

pyrrho
hegesias

/thread

[Anonymous No.14465826]

>>14465814
>kant's flagrant parmenideanism can be rescued
you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are, <negarestanipoopoo>

[Anonymous No.14465829]

>>14465426
based
>>14465549
cope
>>14465620
based

[Anonymous No.14465832]

>>14465549
How did he retroactively refute people who weren’t alive until at least a century after his death? Do you mean that he preemptively refuted them? Or that they retroactively refuted him?

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.14465846]

>>14465620
>It seems
utter cowardice

[<negarestanipoopoo> !gDrA1n2Fhc No.14465865]

>>14465549
>>14465832
he retroactively refuted them like guenon and parmenides didnt retroactively refute whitehead

[Anonymous No.14466001]

>>14465419
Carlyle
>All history is just the lives of great men, Diogenes is well known as an amusing footnote in the lives of Plato and Alexander
>Justifies slavery on the basis that it pulls out the unused potential of the slave
>Calls his opponents literal worshipers of Mammon and the devil, but is a deist with a tenuous relationship to God
>Has his magnum opus accidentally burnt in a fire, autistically rewrites the whole thing from memory

[Anonymous No.14467113]

>>14465419
Peter Sloterdijk. He's more in tune with what's likely to be the future of right now than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.14467766]

>>14465596
Diogenes was showing alexander wasn't objectively important despite his reputation even today.

[Anonymous No.14467818]

>>14465549
>>14465584
>>14465644
>>14465782
>>14465814
>>14465846
>>14465865
All fucking tripfags must fucking hang.

[Anonymous No.14468001]

>>14467113
His Critique of Cynical Reason is also a major modern study of Diogenes, and completely backs the notion of his major baseness. Just thought I'd mention this for the plebs.

[Anonymous No.14468373]

>>14465426
Uncontrollably based

[Anonymous No.14468528]

>>14465815
What are some good books about pyrrho?

[Anonymous No.14468656]

Guenon

[Anonymous No.14468684]

>>14465815
>hegesias

[Anonymous No.14468691]

>>14468656
The thing I like most about Guenon is that he has all of the good qualities of Diogenes and none of the bad, all of the good qualities of Plato and none of the bad, all of the good qualities of Kant and none of the bad.

[Anonymous No.14469223]

>>14468001
>baseness
Assume you mean based-ness....