/edu/ - Education

Side note, this website is like the MIA of starting with the Greeks
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index.html

Plato is the father of idealism. Know your enemy.

>>12507
What is "idealism" and how is Plato its "father"? He was the student of Socrates and influenced by a few pre-Socratic thinkers too

Plato is a bore, his dialogues only grapple with abstractions that point nowhere and his political beliefs in the Republic are batshit. Maybe it's only good in an academic environment where you can receive direct context from an expert as to its historical importance.
Aristotle on the other hand could be a bit worthwhile. He definitely got the Marx and Adorno seals of approval iirc.

>>12507
>>12509
platonic philosophy was actually akin to eastern philosophy in the sense it was an attempt to make a coherent edifice of the various pagan mythologies like what 'theology' is understood as today.

>>12511
Plato is fantastic for exposing people to critical thinking. All his dialogues are relatively short compared to shit like Hegel or Deleuze or even Aristotle. The form of said dialogues are just that, dialogues, so those who are exposed to constant television and movies and other simulacra media can understand the flow and structure of the writing. The content itself is less important. Plato is baby's first philosophy and newbie gains. It's a rapid pace of examining the world in a way outside of the norm. Most of them never go anywhere because
>OH SOCRATES I MUST LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE VOTE TO KILL YOU RIGHT NOW AFTER YOU UTTERLY DESTROYED ME IN DEBATE
<SOH-KRATES U R SO WIZE!
Even with that taken into consideration, the content of his ideas do subsequently create the building blocks for future philosophers, and as the guy quoting Deleuze in the other thread said
>the power and authority of philosophy comes from it's history.

>>12509
Idealism is a philosophical view that reality is fundamentally mental or spiritual in nature and that the material world is derived from non-material entities. Plato is considered the father of idealism because he was one of the first to develop and articulate an idealist worldview, arguing that the physical world is a flawed and temporary reflection of the eternal and perfect world of ideas.

>>12538
Even under capitalism money is only a means to capital accumulation, and most capital isn't "liquid"/tied up in financial instruments

>>12530
In other, more contextualized terms; idealism (in this context) proposes that the world is dependent on some given ontological presuppositions (that is laws or principles for being). Imagjne the world is like a videogame; a physicalist asserts that only the items and their observable behaviors (physics for example) do exists while idealists in this context would hint that there’s a programming behind those behaviors.

>>23560
Most summarily, it is the distinction between content (materialism) and form (idealism).

>>23560
Every interpretation of the world is dependent on ontological presuppositions. There are no definitions of anything "ready-made" in a way that is unmistakable to all observations or some sense of the universe that may be assumed (which itself is a presupposition).

These were always ways to understand the world rather than assertions about what it "fundamentally is". The materialist approach suggests that metaphysical assumptions can be questioned by evidence that is more immediate, and that such assumptions must fit the evidence available to a cruder sense or reason we assume exists. Idealism rests on inquiry into what it means to "exist" or "sense" or "think" without any necessary reliance on "evidence", since all of that evidence it itself thrown into doubt. The idealist can still acknowledge that material things exist and can be admitted as evidence, but only after they were admitted as evidence for whatever we do to judge what is fact and what is not. The materialist approach strives to make as few assumptions as possible about the universe, with the simplest and necessary assumption being that there is a world to speak of. Idealism cannot really say there is a "world" except as an abstract notion, and so idealism has to insert some prime mover or actor or some entity that regulates the universe generally, that may or may not be coterminous with the universe itself. Materialism doesn't have an answer to how the universe "began" if it is to make any assertion about temporal affairs, and such an answer isn't necessary to make claims about the universe. It would be simple enough to assume the universe always existed or couldn't not exist, or that its origin is trivial yet beneath our dignity to think about. A materialist does not need to believe that temporality and causality are fundamental to the universe at all, nor does an idealist need such a construct since "God is timeless". But, a materialist would suggest there was some existence that was not bound to temporality that could be judged by science just as the temporal world can be, and materialism could pose a question about whether our sense of time itself is valid, or where such a sense came from. An idealist cannot seriously break down the subject or observer without resorting to more "ideas" about that observer that cannot be substantiated, and the same is true of the universe as it is. You can see the real problems with the idealist ontology if you got out of the "cult of the self" or various ideological shibboleths about life, thought, and so on that were really artifacts of the present social order. We didn't always think about existence in the way that was mandated and imposed on us in modernity, and those who imposed it in modernity were a small group of fanatics who had a particular purpose for doing this, and insisted no one was allowed to tell them no.

If you are proposing physicalism or "programming", both amount to the same thing and are extremely idealist ontologies… but because political and religious education were inadmissible, they are advanced as "pure materialism", thus abolishing any independent and genuine concept of science that we would use. There could only be imperious assertions about what science is.
Likewise a materialist doesn't have to discount ideas or spiritual concepts. They would simply consider religious and spiritual matters to be a thing that could be investigated with science. Inventing an arbitrary barrier in thought is anathema to the materialist approach to the universe. That leads to many unfortunate implications for us, especially in modernity where sanity and rationality became political matters, where refusal to agree with the ruling orthodox meant torture and death.

>>23974
I should add, this confusion is entirely on the back of the German idealists who bastardized "dialectics" to be some sort of pseudo-matter, because that was a way they could terminate independent thought, and they could force this on people to restore the most brutal types of slavery and serfdom they could. The worst of all is that they call this "freedom". Germans. Always. Lie. They then make claims about the Greeks that neither Greeks nor Romans actually believed, and there was no collective belief of "the Greeks" or "the Romans". The history of the Greeks is that they argued about everything, and the history of the Romans is that Romans almost never did "new philosophy" and were always skeptical about philosophy's claims to be anything. Of the Romans who do inveigh on the question, they are always aware of what these things really are and how they were spoken of among Romans who gave a shit about this stuff, and not one of them formulate "idea" in the way Hegel did.

>>23977
Eugene, it's too obvious when you rant about the Germans. Might as well go back to nameposting.

>>23978
Nah, you'd then report him to mods for banning. Like you did to Newgene

>>23979
I didn't report anyone, but okay. I have nothing against you FWIW, although I do disagree with some of your perspectives somewhat. I agree with a fair bit, though. Point I was making is that you have a very distinct style and it's pretty easy to tell when it's 'you'.

>>23992
What if I told you Kant was a retard who did so much to damage proper science, and the whole of German idealism is a cancer on human knowledge and intended to be so? I can't wait for the day that ridiculous cult is held up as an example of pure human stupidity.

>>23992
Anyway the point I make is that "subjectivity" is entirely irrelevant to questions about the world. We have to suppose our subjective biases are not relevant to the world, and all of our biases are knowable and things we adjust for. That is the central conceit of Germanism—that forced ignorance is Absolute. It's insanity. If however "you" are easily not relevant, which is how the ancients and anyone who isn't a fucktard understood this, what I said is how many of the Greeks and Romans would have understood it, roughly. They weren't poisoned by a large gnostic pseudoscience that didn't exist yet or the demands of Christianity (demands that Christianity could resolve while retaining the necessary religious cosmology for understanding their god).

Empiricism was rooted on very specific assumptions about "matter" that suggested its forms were fixed "in nature" and, once ascertained to exist, we can't really say that empirical evidence doesn't exist, even when it's asserted imperiously. Hence the name. Empiricism means you have to believe atoms are philosophically and actually "atoms" or you have to invent an excuse to say they're not actually that.
This is useful if you want science to make regular predictions and want to centralize that knowledge in a repository, as you must for an institution or a person to assemble all of this knowledge about the material world and use it. We can't be bogged down in relitigation of basic physical concepts… until we have to be. That's why empiricism devolves into something that creates this elaborate models to protect the old system, unless great effort is made to correct the propensity to do this. You'd have to submit how we do science and the concept of metaphysics to the empirical method, and this you can do, but it leads to very unpleasant results… basically, you can do "reality control" like in 1984 and no one can really tell you know. But, that was also inherent in empiricism.

Rationalism merely suggested that reason or "knowledge itself" as a process was the chief source of further knowledge. It's a much more specific assertion than it is made out to be. Basically, it was possible to refine knowledge through knowledge, and this set off a line of inquiry and abstraction that was difficult to "get" before rationalism. It was with the German idealists that this was transmutated to make claims about "fundamental reality" that were unwarranted. Rationalism said something about what we can do with ideas, rather than many assertions about ideas themselves. Basically, we can by reason correct our own knowledge or build atop it.

>>24008
>kant is a retard
<why?
The foundational principle of his ethics is to only do what you would force everybody to do, so you it follows that you should never fuck your wife unless you want to force everybody to fuck your wife. This is why he died a virgin at 79.

>>24008
The empirical view taken to its conclusion is that knowledge is simultaneously everything and "nothing", and that sense experience can be replicated by thought alone. You can't really prove that "you" exist, and that's the entire core of the argument, that it's not about "you"… yet you're investing knowledge in the sense experience of entities that speak.

Empiricism has its uses for judging knowledge and allows for a critique of Reason, but it always devolves into a belief in legalism regarding all knowledge. It's not "you" or "sense" that really judges, but the "sense" of institutions, or entities of knowledge that are established by law… which means ultimately they are established by force and Empire. That is a very different claim from materialism, which suggested an ontological view of how questions about the world can be answered. That was my point, that empiricism required someone to defer to an established authority over their own sense-experience, since your own sense-experience can be trivially discounted. The only "out" for the self would be autistic and insane thinking, which we have no shortage of today.

I know that due to your Nazism you can't really understand these arguments and refuse to, because you'll always recapitulate the fundamental belief that reality can be controlled and that reality is "imminent". The world itself was here long before humans or any conceit they hold about it. That is true of any epistemology; it inherently concerns how "knowing entities" can know, rather than any claim about the universe. My point is that these epistemologies are flawed and knowingly advanced to retard genuine knowledge, which requires us to speak of a world where knowledge is relevant. It is entirely possible to build a general theory of knowledge that is intentionally divorced from a real world.

>>24023
Basically, without "a priori" genuine knowledge being possible, you can't really know anything. You can only affirm "legal knowledge", since your own sense experience is not intrinsically meaningful and you cannot meaningfully inveigh on what "you" are or why "you" are relevant to anything.

Rationalism is internally consistent but suffers from the same problem of asking what "you" are. And that's the Nazi's central problem, inability to get out of the "cult of the self" programming. Most of us will say that we're here for a time and then we die, and we have a history and can ask ourselves how we came about, and what we remember from when we were children. No reasonable person could be entirely severed from their childhood experience and accumulation of knowledge then, as if a new mind could be superimposed on the old. That conceit was not inherent to empiricism or rationalism, and so the "problem" wasn't detected until there were social systems that could impose such a thing. The older empiricists and rationalists took "me" for granted based on some simple assumptions, but assumed as reasonable people did that their childhood knowledge was irrelevant compared to the accumulated knowledge and expectations in society, since the humans who become adults encounter proper society and obligations to that society, and this requires them to prepare their children for that world. Young children picked up on this and would have to adapt to the adults' world and history, and so these obligations were taken on gradually before the child is granted adulthood.
We see in the education Eugenics imposed exactly how that process was abrogated at the earliest age possible, and replaced with what we live under today. The classical philosophers assumed that such a thing was either impossible, or would have been seen for what it was and that would be an obviously undesirable condition for any thought. But, inherent in what was done to education in our time was a failure that existed within empiricism. Rationalism really never made the extreme claims that were superimposed on it, and really, empiricism made a claim about scientific knowledge, which is to say knowledge of the world. An empiricist can easily judge that something like the humanities are not things that can be judged like any other science, or at least a crude scientific method is inappropriate for the humanities, politics, history, and things which are contingent on human beings being active participants in order for them to exist. Empiricism simply "looks the other way" when those matters come up, until the humanities root their claims in the same world that science studies.

My belief is that everything can be studied by science broadly, but that the crass approaches to science are not definitionally "science" in total. It doesn't belong to any school of philosophy that I know of, since it relies on discounting "the subject" or anything special about humans or thought entirely. Humans are just a collection of events in the universe that acquired, on their own power, faculties that were novel. This applies to individual human beings and to the history of humans collectively, which humans communicate through this invention of language that was never reproduced for any other animal in the way that humans utilized it. You might be able to find intelligent language in animals like in whale songs, but it never led to those animals adopting technology or honing their bodies for diverse functions in the way that it did for humans, and that itself was something that did not arise in the same moment that language did. It arose because humans had a peculiar history. Only when that is understood could human history be correctly interpreted on the soundest possible footing, rather than operating with crass assumptions about what humans are or should be. That produces a very different theory of knowledge, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology than anything that I believe humans did in the past. For one, superstition and theology are not wholly irrelevant here. We begin our inquiry with a superstitious notion that the universe and things in it are generally knowable and that the entirety of "this" is knowable, and that is not a superstition we can demonstrate as true without fail, nor a superstition that can be dismissed. What isn't a superstition, which would be necessary for us to have this conversation, is that there is a world where any of these events happen, and that for the purposes of speaking of "a world", it is a singular proposition, even if we adopted an ontological view that there isn't actually a "single world" in that sense.

The problem with "a priori" knowledge is that you can wind up making a lot of new knowledge about nothing that is interesting, and you can in theory create a "worm" that clogs the intellectual faculties. That's where we step back and ask a question about knowledge itself.

>>12451
>intellectual value to studious communists
lmao. communism as some sort of university club

>>24035
>science is a perfect example. science is the standard of all institutional knowledge.
Institutional knowledge is funny, because as a rule, institutions do not conduct or value science. Human beings do because they can possess a desire for truth and believe science is an approach to that truth. What was needed was for institutions to co-opt this and then mediate what comes naturally to most human beings, because we need to value truth about the material world if we're going to navigate this by anything more than instinct and pre-defined behaviors. The institution is given over to "grand theories" because they do not have the existence of actual human beings, and they are governed primarily by laws and politics.

That's the point I'm making, regardless of empiricism or rationalism or any other epistemology. The empiricist understands that institutions are problematic, but it has to assume there is an automatic "rational subject" that inherently cares about the truth. We as human beings don't need to value the truth or science at all. We usually value science because it implies an objectivity that no philosophy can seriously refute without saying "science is fake and gay". Then you look at what the university says now about the universe, that all of our efforts to know are "fake and gay", and we accept the empirical facts that institutions adjudicated even if the judges are dubious to say the least.

>a rationalist would say this is because at the very least, "i think, therefore [i know] i am".
This is often misinterpreted to make claims about subjective being that were not Descartes' point. Descartes asserts existence at first simply because if someone doubts existence of knowledge, that implies there is something that can doubt. So, obviously whatever sense experience is, it is "something". The pronoun "I" is saddled with philosophical baggage that is inappropriate to the claim but this came after the fact. "I" could be any mind, however that is interpreted, carrying out this thought exercise, regardless of whether it acknowledges its own being as necessary. It could just as well apply to another knowing entity, or some process that is presumed to "know". We establish "I" because we have a lot of knowledge about our existence that can be independently verified, and that's the whole point of the thought exercise. It would be very difficult to insist "you do not exist" when you're screaming for your life and remain very aware of the world, and whatever process is carrying that out hasn't ceased. Even if we died, we can ask if we did exist, and ask questions about temporality, just as we can posit that there was a world before we were born. The contrary argument requires an extreme type of autism.

>doctors used to tell us that smoking cigarettes was healthy. lets not take "science" too seriously.
Any smoker can independently verify and ask how they acquired the smoker's hack, why they can't seem to breathe properly. It wasn't until modernity that "smoking was healthy" was claimed by "The Science", and this was an early test of imperious science telling you obvious lies. People are not as stupid as the imperious theory needs them to be, but they always insist "this always works".

>>24040
I should probably add that I'm a smoker and I get annoyed at propagandistic "science" about tobacco smoking. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that smoking is bad for the lungs and the heart. On the other hand, it is the only psychoactive substance that significantly improved my life and ability to tolerate this shit, and no one wants an answer to that. What I see are pharma Nazis taking away, or taxing into oblivion, one of the few drugs that would cope with the mindfuckery that is afoot. It's far from perfect and I don't believe anyone should start smoking. It's expensive as fuck. But, I unironically believe it would be possible to mitigate some conditions like OCD through the strategic use of nicotine. I did break some of the worst OCD-type behaviors once I started, but of course pick up the nicotine addiction.

>>24051
>one is legitimated as a scientist if he has institutional backing, while any who are "controversial" are automatically labeled as unscientific or pseudoscientific.
This was not always the case. It's a very modern conceit about "science". Science in the past was beneath the dignity of aristocrats, many of them openly disdaining science and preferring philosophy and a purely metaphysical view of the universe. Metaphysics is primarily a problem for us, who do not have innate knowledge of anything in the universe and have to suppose there are particular things to know besides the banal fact that there is a world.
The guys who made "science" a thing in modernity came from a sector of the priesthood, people who were into magic, or members of the working class who were the scum of humanity if not for their specialized knowledge. The ruling elites until the 18th century openly worked against "science", and as soon as they could, those elites and their inheritors erected a conceit about "science" that is alien to the genuine article. It is those who bray about "legitimate science" who are the worst fakers, and it has been observed time and time again.

Proper science does not regard "subjectivity" in any sense. Our existence is irrelevant to the universe. We are aware that our observations are impaired because subjective sense operates with clearly imperfect information. We have to surmise there is a reason why the human sensory cluster senses what it does, rather than assuming sense experience is "raw knowledge". This is trivial, because we can ask how effective our eyes and ears are, and know what we cannot see or hear at a particular moment, and likewise with all other subjective senses. Reason itself is just another sense of the human being, and when you look at how much "exalted Reason" is imposed on the universe, you see how it is founded on nothing but the emptiest conceits. Nothing about the universe was made to be compatible with reason. Instead, we value consistency and the simplest explanation for events in the world, and so we would always discover recurrent patterns and base our observations on them.

And so the smoker can tell you smoking is unhealthy, and doesn't need an expert to tell them to deny what their own bodies tell them, or an expert to confirm (and make dubious claims about drugs while exonerating other drugs). We can determine for ourselves facts about things that are very familiar to us. We would have to be able to communicate those discoveries, and because a lot of people are familiar with these things, there is a body of knowledge that is common sense and reinforced by repeated re-discovery. This common sense and our knowledge of it can be manipulated to, which is what the "meme" does, pervert common knowledge with thought-terminating cliches and faggotry.

>>24053
Before you bring up relativity, the entire point of the relativity principle in physics is to correct for our observational error, not to fall into a mental trap of believing "everything is relative". We are supposing that there is an "objective frame of reference" to be known, even if it doesn't belong to any particular thing including the world itself.

So all of the stories about "time travel near the speed of light" are super bad science. What happens with light observation over long distances is an observational error, not an existential error.

>>24057
The state has always reviled "science" and loathes the condition where it is accountable to something outside of it that is an intractable problem for the state's claims. There is no version of the state's claims that tolerates anything outside of it as a permanent condition. In principle, the only alien entity states recognize are other states of equal standing. Anything that is a noted subordinate of a state is regarded as such and thus for itself is irrelevant. If the state starts regarding its people as permanently independent, it surrenders its claim to be a state before any of its own considerations, and the holders of such an instrument have to ask why they're bothering with any of this. Either the state's claim is clear and not subject to "science" or independent inquiry, or it is not and the state has to seek to end that condition. The state co-opts science and establishes in its place "The Science" or a pseudo-science that is not subject to independent inquiry, and is reduced entirely to a legalistic affair. There is no version of that legalistic "science" that resembles the inquiry a human being carries out, and this is intended. The legalistic approach presumes the universe is inherently knowable and "wholly rational", and must do so for the claims of the state to succeed. States must co-opt science to prevent it from questioning the political enterprise. If the state "allows" science, it does so with extreme skepticism and establishes the positions of state institutions as the legal default that are automatically defended. It can't not do this.

For most of history, "science" as a practice was beneath the dignity of the state, and where science was acknowledged at all, it was always a menace to be curtailed and replaced with a legalistic pseudo-science. Scientists were threatened if their efforts questioned a single dogma of the ruling state and the ruling institutions. Corporate government of modern times distilled this to its essential components and ultraviolently imposed "The Science". The so-called "enlightenment" was actually the termination of scientific inquiry that was once carried out by whomever had the free time and resources to conduct this inquiry. This could only happen gradually, because technology granted to a state advantages technology did not grant up until that time.
This sort of thing is inadmissible in the Nazi world-system, so I don't think you can understand this no matter how many times I repeat it. None of the noted "luminaries" of the past did much for science, for science was always a haphazard process and constantly under attack by imperious decrees and insinuations. Humans simply don't know how to do actual science, and never did. The best of them muddle through because they needed science to understand the world, for the ruinous pedagogy they were given retarded their understanding irrevocably.

>i hightly doubt there have been many brilliant peasants
Nearly everything that is "basic science" came from peasants who plowed the fields and watched the weather. They learned these things because their lives depended on learning about agriculture, and then about plants for medicine, chemical knowledge. All of that was reproduced mostly by anonymous persons and re-learned generation after generation. Occasionally it was written down, but in the past, education did not teach any of these things, and education was never consistent for the whole society. The noble hired some slave that did possess the knowledge, and eventually there was an effort to compile all such knowledge. Again, a Nazi-Satanic cannot allow such things to exist in their world-system, but if the nobility spent their lives in the muck doing actual work, where do we see them doing this? Labor was beneath the dignity of free men of property, and neither nobles nor managers were the foundry of practical knowledge. The managers would instead find a slave that was literate or that could recount the method, and since the manager saw knowledge as proprietary, it would not spread widely. You take for granted a society where people could exchange this knowledge at your own peril. And so, between men this sort of knowledge would have been transmitted through church, through the community, or re-acquired out of necessity by that most effective pedagogical technique "monkey see, monkey do". The nobility and especially the aristocracy went out of their way to destroy this habit of accumulating knowledge. For the core aristocracy, their ideal world was a world of eternal rape gangs that kept the world on the brink of starvation, so long as their "great game" continued. A Satanic race cannot change.

>science presupposes an observer of phenomena.
Science presumptively makes clear that the "subject" is entirely irrelevant; that all of its claims pertain to the world generally, rather than any particular part of it. Science may be categorized by the variety of things that are objects of inquiry, but to be sensical, science implies a general theory of all such things is possible, even if the disparate categories of knowledge only apply to specific objects. There is nothing in the universe requiring any separation of the areas of science, nor does the universe protect anything from scientific inquiry. The gods themselves can be investigated with science, and if you understood the thinking of polytheistic pagans, this was wholly acceptable and accepted for those who really studied religion. Most of humanity simply doesn't believe in gods, or only saw gods as an excuse for their personal wants, but from the outset, "gods" were by their nature decisively inhuman and unliving, and it was folly for gods to be likened to animals such as Man.

>yet, reason overtakes itself. you use your reason to banish reason, even now.
I don't "banish Reason". I simply said that humanity's reasoning ability is a sense that we possess because we have a brain capable of this, rather than something that exists as a "seed" in the universe or a particular substance. The reasoning capability itself is abstracted and can be generalized like any technology, and so we can use anything for "reasoning" or carrying out instructions we operationalized for ourselves. For example, using an abacus or a computer to simulate computation that otherwise would be done by us. We ourselves are following the rote instructions if we did this "manually", rather than the rote instructions themselves being "Reason". The instructions are things we carry out because we worked out that they are valid in systems of logic, rather than those instructions having any special primacy to describe the universe. They are very clearly artifices we constructed to better work with information we have retrieved from the world. Reason isn't even synonymous with the whole machine that carries this out, because the brain existed first to regulate the body rather than for "pure thinking". Thinking is only one part of what the brain does, and everything the brain does for thinking it does for a purpose. It isn't necessarily a good purpose or one we would consider rational, but it happens because among the tasks of the brain is navigating a world where possessing this knowledge means the difference between life and death. If we don't know these things and insist on ignorance, we don't just die. We get fucked, we get ritually sacrificed. To be retarded is the worst thing in human society and it's not even close.

>if it belongs to nothing, then it does not exist, surely.
A "frame of reference" doesn't have any necessary existence. It is a shorthand we developed to understand our own position in the cosmos, and the position of other things that are similar enough to us in that they are physical entities. The universe itself isn't "calculating" any of these referential frames. What we are doing is a great "error correction" that we are aware of intuitively, and the finer and precise details are things we measure and calculate. A cruder error correction is more or less "native" to how humans navigate the world, and a thing we are familiar with even if we don't have a fully formal rational theory as to why. We can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, or fire a weapon while mounted on a horse, and can become good at specifically that if we want to become horse-mounted archers.

>>24059
>when was the last time science disagreed with itself?
A method doesn't "disagree with itself". If you've come to treating science like a dogma that excommunicates members of the congregation, it's long past a question of science.
There is a science to ruling and religion and how such mechanisms work, but the world does not care about any of our political conceits. In practice, humans will out of necessity abandon all political and spiritual conceits to survive, perhaps pretending afterward that nothing was violated. If people live for an empty and wrong conceit, they're stupid. We often hold among our guiding principles some commitment to reality, even those who loathe to admit it.

>slavery and literacy dont go together.
The chief export of Greece during the Roman Empire was educated slaves, who became freedmen precisely because they were literate and were employed as teachers. In the ancient world, there wasn't the same sort of laws passed against teaching slaves to read as existed in the US. Even those laws didn't stop black slaves from learning to read, and it was after the fact that the "all blacks are illiterate" trope was made true, to justify what the Fabians were about to do to the country. Also lol, if you think literacy is monopolized by the culture industry vultures, that is not literacy. You'd be surprised how much of the ancient canon was accessible and short. Since books had to be copied by hand, the texts those teachers used to teach grammar were usually simple enough, and they're still around today and translated into English.

If you took someone from a nomadic society, then literacy wouldn't be common because there were no books to read and no agreed-upon system for writing such things. Even then, the Maya had a written language, and the Inca "sort of" had a record-keeping method that was compared to primitive writing systems. Reading at a basic level is something that can be taught to an adult in a short time-span, and is usually taught to children. The idea that children are "forever illiterate" is Germanic, Satanic and fag. Even among illiterates, they understand language and machinery. Knew an illiterate guy who diagnosed immediately what was wrong with my car when I was looking at it and he walked by. My guess is that he was actually "semi-literate" but hid this because he has no reason to sell himself as literate. That actually happens a lot with slaves. A literate slave was not rewarded. More was demanded of him, and so slaves and students have every incentive, deliberately inculcated, to hide any sign of intelligence. That is what it is like to live among this Satanic race.

As a general rule, the intellectuals of any society are the most likely to support any system of slavery, regardless of their place in it. As masters, they will always seek to premise slavery on "essential knowledge", because that suits their proclivity in humanity's social order and justifies their attack against the old proprietors. As slaves, intellectuals are the fastest to serve master and know how to please master, and the master in turn regards the hustle. Intellectual slaves are fixers for their masters, and that was established early. It was the same with the house negroes in the US, who were rewarded for viciousness towards the other slaves. That was always the "smart" thing. Rebellious slaves were usually the desperate or those who had so little to lose that they would gladly take up arms to exterminate as many white filth as they could before they expire. The intellectual always has a million excuses to not be that, in one way or another. Intellectuals are natural cravens and revel in that fact. Every once in a while you find the professional revolutionary, but the more intelligent of them do not throw their lives away. They command, by some virtue, others to throw their lives away, for their intelligence is a limited quality among the revolutionaries. Guys like Stalin and Trotsky understood how to survive and what virtue was. Stalin was everyone's boss and loved by the party base. Trotsky knew that his job was to destroy virtue, but he himself was not a stupid or weak man. Guy was a badass during the Civil War.

>and nature created brains. how interesting!
Nature "creates" nothing. All that exists in nature, by definition, "always existed" or was fated to exist at some time in history. There are things that arise out of some impulse of lower-order things in the material world, like how life-forms grow and their offspring develop novel qualities. Nature has no "guiding principle" whatsoever. It could just as well terminate this type of society by some cruel joke, and it was always fated to happen in hindsight.

I write about nature in particular in TRI:
https://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/book04/chap02.html

Much of the book follows from this view of history, to separate what is truly natural from what is "artificial history". Nature describes laws that are not temporal but that describe the universe itself or classes of things that are presumed to exist "in nature", however that is construed. In practice everything we know is really "artificial history" but because we don't have a suitable understanding of where those artifices arose, we shrug and say it was "nature" or some absurd situation that brought about these particular artifices.

>no, the ruling class is who tells you that life is insignificant.
My life is "significant". I certainly exist, and I existed in the past. I know when and where I was born. When I die, nothing erases the life I lived, as if it never happened. I'm "significant" in the sense there is a sign or symbol regarding myself, and it would stretch credulity to insist I never actually had a physical existence when evidence of my existence is documented and enough people have encountered me. Even if no one remembered me, it would not change that I existed.
It is the imperious Nazi claims that glorify essentialism and insist reality can be edited. All Satanics believe this instinctively, because they need to believe history works this way. It doesn't.

Does my life has "special meaning"? Of course not. The universe does not give a shit about any of us, and because the ruling aristocracy has such a high opinion of themselves, they have more to lose if they see this sobering reality. My mistake was assuming most of humanity, in one way or another, did see the futility of this, and so they would prefer to have nice things over this Satanic hellscape. But… no. That's not what humans are. I should have known better, but 2020 showed that humanity never had it in them to be anything else.

I don't give a shit about what the ruling system says about my existence. If I have to keep shouting against the whole world, I can do that. It would be stupid, but the stupidity is theirs for making everyone go along with their faggotry. I didn't start these wars or insist everyone has to kowtow to ritual sacrifice cults and pederasts. I go out of my way to avoid hurting anyone, because such things do not improve my life in any way, and I never understood the mindset that thinks torturing humans is the point, but a Satanic race cannot change. Cannot change. Forever.

I would like to say though, that I know for myself why I was here on this wretched Earth, and what I'm going to do with the remainder of my existence. I'm done with the insinuation that I have to live for some failed system that only wanted to humiliate anyone who didn't kowtow to Satanism. I know my existence is unusual among humanity, and by the law of sufficiently small numbers, I'm "important" relative to the bulk of humanity, for my function is unusual. I would much rather be an anonymous cog with a simple job and a simple life, and if you had any sense, you would want the same. You wouldn't bray like a fag about "the specials". Unfortunately, eugenics won. Satan won. We don't get to live in that world.

>>24067
It's clear we're going around in circles now because you can't really get past the Nazi/essentialist conceits about science and intelligence. Science isn't a "method" that you plug in mindlessly to solve problems. It is something we do. Bad science is still science in the genuine sense, but "The Science" is specifically intended to neutralize any activity that was science, precisely because it did reduce science to a programmatic method carried out mindlessly.

>>24075
The point being that you can do the best science possible, do everything right, and still be not just wrong but flagrantly wrong, and your method will tell you that you are obligated to be wrong. That's why you don't rely on Reason alone to describe the world, something that is very basic to philosophy and common sense. However capable your reasoning and however well it is grounded in the world we actually live in, it will never be able to possess the certainty imperious assholes assert. There's not a method nor any possible method to "solve" science for you. All of those things you mentioned are not advances in any form of science, but are advances in reasoning that may inveigh on what is done with science. You can prove by reason that a lot of theories are wrong, but you cannot prove that any one of them are correct. That is what was fundamentally inverted with Popperian faggotry and things like it, the idea that "you can't prove a negative". It is the exact opposite. The only things that can be proven are negatives, and positives are always in doubt… and yet, we know that there is positive knowledge, or else there isn't a coherent way this world can continue as we perceive it. Science as a method doesn't give the answers, but asks us how we can better pose the questions we would want to answer through science. It doesn't "think for us" in that sense. You're always going to have to ask if your experimental methodology is worth anything, and again, Popperian faggotry insists on telling you "this always works" to justify flagrant violations of reason a child can see through, so that science may be dictated imperiously.

>>24083
Science has no "foundational myths". That is Germanic faggotry. The point is that science, at a basic level, only produces more questions and preliminary findings. The judgment of facts is not accomplished by "science". It is done by human beings for their purposes. Science eliminates things which are obviously wrong, but it provides no "Absolute Knowledge" that you have to accept, no matter how much these braying retards insist that is the point.

Without science, we never ask the appropriate question to even make judgments of truth regarding the material world. We might invent something that isn't science that asserts something about the world, but this invention doesn't do anything. Science is something we do from the simplest possible starting principles, and it is contingent on the practitioner recognizing metaphysics is a trap unless accounted for.

I'm saying that even if you do everything right in science, even if you carry it out as thoroughly as you reasonably can, you'd still be left with a wrong answer, or worse, you'd be stuck with a framework that produces a wrong answer but explains everything else about the world. I think of how much pseudoscience there is in physics today and how everyone has been obligated to conform to insane declarations like "time dilation" in the public discourse. If that is a narrative for public consumption, it has ensnared far too many academics who are lied to and told to lie to themselves and to the public, and nothing new is discovered. A whole false cosmology was built around the "Big Bang" and upheld by imperious assertions and then the destruction of scientific thought. If you look at the actual theories, the truth is that all of the physicists in the early 20th century were making it up and hoping someone in the future would solve the greater questions, of which there were many. Instead of that, Satanics took over and declared that there is no more science as such. Yet, the honest scientist is either stuck working within this broken paradigm, or must repudiate a large body of knowledge and find himself working with little more than someone 400 years ago possessed. In some ways, he has less, because scientists in the past were not hobbled by this mind-destroying ideology.

Also, there is no "necessary evil" inherent to existence itself. The world, frankly, has little regard for the evil, for the proposition of the evil is for it a strange obsession. There is a lot of evil in the world, much of it far greater than anything humans can summon which is saying a lot, but the evil is cosmically close to irrelevant. Most of the universe is dead, and what exists has no particular malevolence about it. Also, suffering is not evil. Humans should suffer if they look at the nature of their race and their conduct. Humans were given every opportunity by the world to alter their conduct, even if they cannot change the origin and nature of their race. Humans managed to change their conduct enough so that we can actually tolerate existence, because we had to, even if that conduct falls far short of any redemption. They didn't need to insinuate a "balancing act" with the evil of the eugenic creed. The eugenists insisted on their particular morality, just as aristocracies and nobilities always have their special morality to justify their deliberate shitty behavior.

>>12538
Good article

>>24089
>most technological innovation comes from war in the same way; the military-industrial complex brought us personal computers, the internet and mobile phones.

Actually not really true
The Internet was a military project, but telephony existed as a civilian project

>>24092
This meme that the military is "productive" is so annoying. The organization that blows through billions of dollars and can't keep their toilets functional is totally the reason why technology can advance. Jesus H. Christ, my sides.

There are two great barriers to technological advance, and a third that always should be remembered. The first is that no one has any incentive to create technology for its own sake, and so, technology only arises when someone sees the necessity of proliferating it. The second is that the political incentives of human society are all arranged against technological advance. The human dream is for nothing to change so that their internecine conflict can be carried out at the lowest level of technique possible, so that ritual sacrifice may continue. The third is that humans really aren't terribly bright, and are further hobbled by a ruinous pedagogy. There are very few who make new discoveries their primary occupation, and most of those few want technology for nefarious and spurious purposes. The last thing any of these people want is technology to enter the hands of ordinary people, who would use that technology to never be ritually sacrificed again and forbid the practice of ritual sacrifice, preferably by exterminating the cults guilty of perpetuating it. Nothing in nature mandated this ritual sacrifice. It has always been a human undertaking, and exemplifies the agency of their race. If the ritual sacrifice ever stopped or became too difficult, you can see their Satanic race shrieking, including the people who would fight for their liberation out of necessity.

If humans were not singularly focused on ritual blood sacrifice, then this habit would be negated, but the result wouldn't be "infinite technological advance". The faith in intellectualism is the core cause of ritual blood sacrifice and the thrill of torture. In a world where ritual sacrifice is abated, intellectuals and technologists would be at the very bottom of the social ladder, where they belong, and viewed with correct suspicion. Technological advance would continue, but it would continue primarily to perfect things that should have been worked out before, if not for the proclivities of a deficient and retarded race.

If you're talking about some new paradigm or approach to knowledge itself, that isn't really an "intellectual" undertaking, as if you are guaranteed to have these insights if you invest enough intelligence points in the project. In a better world, humans wouldn't have much to do, and so many of them, not just intellectuals, would contemplate what this strange world we live in is. That line of inquiry is violently suppressed under the regimes of ritual sacrifice, because any inquiry would make clear that ritual blood sacrifice is why we live in such agony. There was a brief period in early modernity where this could be foreseen, and there was a greater force in humanity that insisted that no deviation from their race's core proclivity could be tolerated. At the critical moments where ritual sacrifice could have been abated and then reversed, humanity "chose wrong" and violently elimiated any technological advance that would impede ritual blood sacrifice. The eugenic creed locked in this failure of their race. A Satanic race can't change, and that's exactly what we got.

Since the "military industrial complex" began, technological advance has essentially frozen. The last novel technology was the laser, and nothing much came of it. Biology is hopelessly ideological, and physics was actively sabotaged because general physics knowledge would have made clear the method and practice of this ritual blood sacrifice. It would be too obvious to not see what happens. By placing all technological advance under the national security state, the lockouts against any technological advance that would impede ritual sacrifice were permanent and irreversible. As the natsec state was locked in by the 1960s, technological progress has completely frozen, and in key areas it has actively regressed. The longer this goes on, the greater the terminal decline, with its end result, predicted in advance, being terminal insanity of the race and all of its members.

Unless, someone really has a mind to change it and asks why we came to this sorry impasse. Everyone who does that is violently attacked and ridiculed. Anything against ritual blood sacrifice is "retarded" automatically, even though the dogmatic "science" of aristocracy is so pants-on-head retarded that it is insulting to even humanity's limited intelligence.

Before you say "but muh computers", the computer itself does not contain any novel technology. They don't operate on magic. Integrated circuits are an advance in industrial technique, but they are really very small versions of the ponderous vacuum-tube computing machines, which themselves were poor replacements of human clerical labor. I don't discount what the computer would have been, if humanity weren't a Satanic race given over to ritual sacrifice. But, if we were going to use the computer for good, most of what happened since 1970 would not have happened. Computerization should have entailed the end of the price system and most of the lockouts, but the ruling elite of humanity decided to use the computer for the exact opposite, and succeeded at "Germanizing" the thought process so that the computer was granted mystical properties it does not possess.

What really made the computer a remarkable piece of technology is that it suggested that a general theory of technology rooted in rationality and scientific inquiry was possible for the first time. Past "general theories of technology" were found in political economy and were one part moral philosophy and mired in the political intrigues of the human race; or they were makeshift economic plans that sometimes were imposed by the command of states, and sometimes were worked out locally by whomever had to manage something. Computerization would have entailed the end of managerialism, and thus of many of the lockouts maintained so that ritual blood sacrifice and vice can be protected.

This thread went from a simple philosophy discussion to some of the most DIABOLICAL Trvth Nvkes I have ever seen on Leftypol. Well done, anti-german anon

>>24104
>>24103
>>24102
>>24101
>>24087
OK, I'll bite.
What do you mean by Ritual Blood Sacrifice?
What is the function of Ritual Blood Sacrifice among humans? And how is it related to class structure?

I've suspected something similar for a while now. I've read Frazer's Golden Bough, so I understand the cultural and historical importance of Ritual Blood Sacrifice with respect to Kingship and hierarchic authority. Frazer writes as if the Ritual Sacrifice is sublimated into other cultural practices as a civilization developes. However, you seem to be implying that Ritual Blood Sacrifice has not only continued to be practiced in its more primal form by the ruling class, but that the superstructure of Bourgeoisie Capitalist Society (as well as its predecessors) is, in its primary function, an altar upon which to make burnt offerings, that the sweet savor thereof may be pleasing unto the Lord.
In this case, the offerings are not just the masses of humanity, but even the earth itself. "The Lord" as a signifier, implies not only the "god" of the old priesthood, but also the ruling class itself. Insofar as the superstructure of society reinforces itself, the act of Blood Sacrifice is also made as a ritual to facilitate its continued performance, hence its role in reinforcing class roles and hierarchy. But you seem to be going a step farther, implying that Ritual Blood Sacrifice is a fundamental part of human culture, therefore any other social superstructure that can be erected, can only be built through the process of Ritual Blood Sacrifice, up to and including communism. This is prefigured by the story of the King of the Wood.

While I don't necessarily agree with it, the argument is compelling. You talk about the role of Eugenics and German social engeering, and you also hint at secret knowledge of human origins. It reminds me of the teachings of Yacub, propagated by the Honorable Elijah Mohammed (peace be upon him). Taking this together with J. Sakai's analysis of Euro-American settler colonialism, particularly Sakai's analysis regarding settler exploitation of oppressed nations such as Africans and American Indigenous people viz a viz slavery and genocide, along with the relations of Euro-American capital as well the Euro-American strategies of lebensraum & eugenics, to the Third Reich, and the recruitment of Nazi scientists and intelligence networks into the American Empire which so naturally followed WWII, a frightening proposition emerges.

And yet people continue to resist! The American Empire is faltering, People's China is rising, and African and South American peoples poised for great victories. Let's not pretend that the Teutonic curse is without end. And yet the practice of Ritual Blood Sacrifice is not absent from these societies, at least as reported by Frazer.

Lets remember that Frazer didn't do any field work himself, he compiled and interpreted the work of anthropologists. At a time when anthropology was a young, and often used to excuse white-supremecy. Perhaps athropology was also used as covrrvfor intelligence operations even I'm this period, that I don't know.

Sun-Ra argued that because these anthropologists began operating centuries after the rape of Africa began, perhaps these anthropologists were not studying primal indigenous cultures, but took as their subjects cultures which had been influenced by colonial PsyOps, at least in some cases. That doesn't mean the results of anthropology are without value, only that the context in which they were compiled needs to be considered.

I guess what I'm saying is Humans have the potential to be motivated by formulae other that Ritual Blood Sacrifice, and that's its possible that they were in different times and places in the past.

Thank you for this food for thought, Eugene.
BTW, I have a couple questions:
i) What's your take on the practice of Psychological Operations? To what extent does this military discipline influence society? Can you point to any examples?
ii) How pervasive was the influence of Nazi personnel within the CIA and other elements of the Euro-American Power Structure during the Cold War?
iii) What's your take on the Cold War mind control projects such as MKULTRA?
iv) What's up with Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, and the Symbianese Liberation Army allegedly being involved in Psychological Operations to demonize the left while making use of, and possibly testing mind control techniques? Do you see any similarities between Manson's operations and some of the material put forward by the Order of the Nine Angles? What's up with Anton Long? Why do so many of the more reactionary currents of Satanism seem to have connections to intelegence services? What's up with Michael Aquino? The Temple of Set has its own Order of Nine Angles, founded in a Castle in Germany, but it appears to be a different organization than the one founded by Long. In fact, Long and Auqino seem to have some beef IIRC. Looking back, its interesting that the more accessible Church of Satan, in its late 60s heydey was headquartered in San Fransisco when the other crazy shit was going on, and I heard Anton LeVey had some reactionary politics as well as connections with white supremecists. BTW, WTF is Esoteric Hitlerism, is just watered down ONA doctrine with an emphasis on the deification of Hilter?
v) Can you please expound more of your philosophy regarding Ritual Blood Sacrifice & the Satanic Race?

>>24191
The sacrifice doesn't serve an ulterior motive or function. Every other function is subordinated to it. Why else would they squeal so much about the unholiness of, dear heavens, UGLY and STUPID people? Stupidity by all standards of comparisons does not mean what they need it to mean, and so it is with every other spurious pretext for conducting the ritual sacrifice. Stupid people are pathologically averse to doing anything and pose no serious danger of acting even if they were granted power. They wouldn't know what to do with it, and would almost certainly be usurped by someone who was just smart enough to make someone suffer.

All ritual blood sacrifice is deliberate and carried out with the intellectual capability to do that much as a necessity. It was, in the final analysis, always carried out on the basis of intelligence rather than any other standard like "bad juju", ugliness, or any other thing that was valued. Only stupid people were ritually sacrificed, and the blood ritual glorifies the stupidity and ignorance of the victims in all things. This is what birthed the human race as "human" in any recognizable form, and that is what it means to be "human". There is no other concept of this type of animal, and that is why ritual sacrifice recurs so regularly and holds the power it does. To its partisans, they are simply doing what is natural for them. It did not occur to them that this was really "wrong". They are drawn to the power of the ritual torture and humiliation, and once they taste that they're never going to stop. Why would they? Intelligence always seeks the shortest solution to any problem. That is what makes it intelligence as we understand it. Of course, the only thing that intelligence is capable of doing then is pursuing more ritual blood sacrifice. Anything else would be "retarded", "trifling", and so on. Does this make sense to someone who regards the world as real and meaningful? Of course not. Does intelligence register this disapproval? Not in the slightest! That is why intelligence always brays about "overcoming nature" and invented this whole system of habitual lying around essentialism. If an intelligent person does act against this impulse, they are accused of self-hatred. If humans held any moral value besides this—if they believed the world itself does not care about our conceits—then they are left without any direction or any particular reason why they should exist at all, and many good reasons to see that the human race and all it can accomplish is a monstrous abomination. Yet, some humans do attempt to find a way out, because they must, and the ritual sacrifice was first and foremost conducted to police human societies and regulate admission into the ranks of the valid. That explains the regular sadism of their race, on display every day. I need not list examples because it is so basic to the human constitution that they can't stop themselves from doing something abominable, even the best of them. Aristocracy saw this and saw the advantage of fomenting this rot, while securing for themselves an exemption from the sacrifice. That is the birth of most religions and the further purification of the torture and humiliation technique, up to the present day. Now the ritual sacrifice is done in the name of technology and upheld as the Crown of Reason itself. It still accomplished nothing but shit, and it will never accomplish anything but shit. Intelligence still, to the bitter end, will choose the shortest solution to any problem it encounters, absent any compelling reason from the world to do otherwise. If it were going to be different, the intellectuals would fight to the bitter end to resist any change. They quite like choosing who lives and who dies.

>>24191
I'll try to answer your other questions:

>What's your take on the practice of Psychological Operations?
Given more importance and explanatory power than they should. Most of the lying and humiliation is carried out by civilians, and upheld as a civic duty. It is more accurate to say that private life and the public domain has been thoroughly militarized, than it is to say that all of this malevolence has to come from military intelligence ghouls with the super secret tech and security clearance (the "right of transgression").

>ii) How pervasive was the influence of Nazi personnel within the CIA and other elements of the Euro-American Power Structure during the Cold War?
The Nazis were an arm of the global imperial system, created to absorb Germany and Europe into it as quickly as possible. The Nazis had no real independent policy. All of their greatest atrocities were carried out so that Anglo/American backers could have all of that eugenics research data, to chop up the inmates. That never went away. After the war, the true believers in Eugenics were allowed to work in America or given cushy assignments, rewarded for a job well done in crushing the free peoples of the world. Of course, the USSR had both its own part in the imperial system, and had a history of German influence and so there were a lot of sympathizers with the Germans during the war in Russia. And, if you haven't figured it out, America the Great and Terrible is nothing but another arm of the imperial system, with the same ghouls jockeying for position within it. You have to get out of thinking that nations were ever the chief actors in history. That idea is promoted because nationalism entailed democratization, and the democratic public-facing republics were the only thing that suggested it might have been different, if humans really wanted it to be so. It turns out that… no. That's not what humans are. It is not within their capacities as a race to allow this, and that was why Eugenics chose racialism rather than objective metrics of ability that could be studied on their own merits. If you did "eugenics" on a strict and honest assessment of ability, you would have to ask what mechanically causes ability or disability, and you would find most of the answers for human betterment have nothing to do with selective breeding compared to the huge environmental disaster humanity lives in, which was entirely a product of their sick society and the practice of ritual blood sacrifice being enshrined. Great expense is paid purely to maintain the sentiment that ritual blood sacrifice must continue.
>iii) What's your take on the Cold War mind control projects such as MKULTRA?
Continuation of the obsession of every aristocracy throughout history. These are not new things, as if governments were innocent until The Science corrupted them.

>iv) What's up with Charlie Manson, Jim Jones, and the Symbianese Liberation Army…
For every guy who is infamous enough to get a Wikipedia page, there are perhaps a hundred who never make the big time. So many underestimate the appeal of Satanism and think no one could possibly believe in the Dark Lord. Not counting dumb teenagers who know nothing about anything, I get the sense most Satanists are relatively decent by Satanic moral standards, and they believe that the Dark Lord is the true god of this world and humanity and that is that. You don't need to believe it was the result of the CIA promoting something unnatural, because death cults and faith in the Dark Lord have been around for a long time. It's the oldest religion there is. The real blackpill is seeing that Christianity is a terrible death cult that has largely directed its own demise on its terms, at least within its core territories.

>v) Can you please expound more of your philosophy regarding Ritual Blood Sacrifice & the Satanic Race?
All I can say is, read my books on my website.

>>24197
Any links to your website?

I think they’re a bit shit tbh.
I got way more out of ancient Chinese philosophy than them. The western canon generally sucks aside from Marx and a few others.

>>24248
>the founder of formal logic is shit; i prefer fortune cookie wisdom instead
right…
>but, uh, marx is good tho!
did you know that marx considered aristotle the greatest thinker in antiquity, and even attributes the theory of economic value to him? you are speaking like the fish who doesnt know that he swims in water. and who are these "few others" that you put above plato and aristotle, exactly?

>>24239
I'm technically "anonymous" here and I maintain that but I am a familiar figure here and I maintain a Twitter account, and on said account there is a link to my website.

>>24248
See this is the sort of empty symbolistic horseshit that marks a pseud. So much of what the Greeks did was not unique to them, and so many around the world worked out the same sort of principles of logic. There is a whole pseudo-history where the Greeks invented everything and while the ancient Greeks certainly had prejudices as is common, they themselves recognized an intellectual debt to the world more ancient than them. What they did was a recasting and interpretation of the ancient world of their time, rather than a wholly new invention that they made "just so".

If you see what men like Kongzi (Confucius) are doing there is a lot of familiar ground covered, in which concepts of politics and society are described. They didn't have to meet each other, but some things are worked out simply because they were formalized and could only be formalized in particular ways. Pretty much everyone in China will tell you the Chinese canon is inferior to the Western canon and doesn't answer the sort of questions that were answered in India, but the Chinese never really bought in to "philosophy" as such. If something a foreigner did worked, it made no difference whether they claimed primacy in creating the idea. The greatest distinction between China and the Mediterranean cultures is that despotism won out and discredited anything that even vaguely resembled a republic or "democracy", and this was worked out as a theory of the first emperor and his advisors because they very much did not want that. Likewise the civil service in the west was rotten with corruption, internal divisions. In China, the civil servants were among the upper classes and a respected position. In Rome, the civil servants were slaves, freedmen, and foreigners, and were barely tolerated.

>>24290
Bro thinks Greeks invented logic

>>24352
logic was first *formalised* by aristotle.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-logic/Aristotle
logic was not "invented" by aristotle of course, but has always been the unconscious determination of thought, which we otherwise call "reason" (λόγος).
the theory of λόγος (Logos) itself is derived from heraclitus, in the philosophic tradition, but heraclitus himself refers to λόγος as the "fire" of life, explicitly associated with persian zoroastrianism (mithraism - which later inspires christianity), where as we read in John 1:1,
<"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος."

>>24314
>Pretty much everyone in China will tell you the Chinese canon is inferior to the Western canon and doesn't answer the sort of questions that were answered in India, but the Chinese never really bought in to "philosophy" as such
That's a silly inferiority complex, Chinese philosophy addresses questions of the state in a way that western philosophy didn't engage with until a millennia later, and that's being very charitable to western philosophy

>>24354
any examples?

>>24355
The entire school of legalistic
Before that and before aristotle the mohist school developed a consequentialist approach to to the state and also a formal system of logic

You don't really see anything like this in the western cannon until Hobbes

>>24356
*school of legalists