Who was correcter? Who was more impressive?

Who was correcter? Who was more impressive?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger seems to have more living influence and I believe it is growing

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nah, Witty is built into everything now, Heidegger gets more attention because he's not the norm.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Witty is built into everything now
        No he isn't. I don't know where people get this. It's always someone who has only read Wittgenstein and then think everything is Wittgenstein

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Who was correcter?
    Correcter: Spergerstein. Nontheless, none of them were correct in the first place.

    >Who was more impressive?
    Heidegger. Beside his redneck subjected philosophy, his thought can be open to pretty interesting ideas, such a stronger conception of death than those of XX century french sophists ---as Foucault was aware in his later days.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >as Foucault was aware in his later days.
      Where does Foucault talk about this?

      Getting into Foucault at the moment, especially is later period College de France and Berkeley lectures...

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Big Strong Cassirer

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Casirrer lost the debate at Davos lmao, also Kantorowich and Jung destroyed his philosophy of myth as politics
      Cassirer is and was like a old dog, the last of the aristocratic neo-kantians of old germany, outpaced in every way by a village mutt, a israeli shepard dog and a Shiba inu

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        By Kantorowich you mean Kantorowicz? Also I’m not sure mythology is completely separated from politics. It does have a philosophical, metaphysical domain but at the same time it was conceived as a social-cultural force, like Hercules and the Heraclids, myths and religion being restricted to a family, a phratry, a clan, the claim of cities to particular gods. Vico and Fustel de Coulanges make it very obvious that myth and religion were not separated from political and social life in almost any way.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    everything wittenautism had to say was already said by Aristotle

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aristotle also rounded it out by providing a positive complement, instead of a purely negative philosophy, which is not in itself a "bad thing." Witty could be used as a strong analytic introduction to scholastic and Platonic philosophy, in the sense of inducing a sufficient degree of aporia so as to allow the questions asked by certain ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, to make more sense to the modern or otherwise deluded reader who still clings to different kinds of arbitrary ideals created by socio-cultural circumstances.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Very good observation anon (I'm not the anon you responded to). But this of course leads to an outright rejection of Wittgenstein, and is essentially Continental sharing many similarities to Heidegger.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Very good observation anon (I'm not the anon you responded to). But this of course leads to an outright rejection of Wittgenstein, and is essentially Continental sharing many similarities to Heidegger.

        A propos book

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Trivia: Rosen is the R in the EPR paradox.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymouṡ

            Huh? The EPR guy was Nathan wasn't he? And he was a mathematician or a physicist, i.e. something serious. This dude is a philosopher (i.e. not serious).

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Wasn't talking about Stanley. Only his surname.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Witty could be used as a strong analytic introduction to scholastic and Platonic philosophy, in the sense of inducing a sufficient degree of aporia so as to allow the questions asked by certain ancient philosophers
        Why does Kant not suffice?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Kant is ahistorical and lumps ancient and modern rationalism together and derided Plato as a mystical Schwärmer (Von einem neuerdings erhobenen vornehmen Ton in der Philosophie). Heidegger is one of the first to explicitly allow us to understand the ancients (more) properly.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Kant's thought is generally very confused and unclear, even though he writes fairly clearly. Kant also does not lead to a sufficient degree of aporia, because he still dogmatically imposes limits on reason. Wittgenstein is much more concise, clear-headed, and ultimately does not allow dogmatism to cloud his conclusions in any way, hence his famous quote everyone knows.

            But aren’t aporiai precisely epistemological limits, which is what Kant is doing in the Ciritque? I understand that Kant does not let these limits “open”, for he ends up delineating the limits of reason with certain precision, but am I wrong to think that some metaphysical questions are put in aporic doubt? Your addressing arbitrary ideals is what led me to think of Kant, for his criticism does lead to an inquiry of them. Aristotle is not more like Kant? And Plato in the Sophist and some passages in the Republic?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Kant's thought is generally very confused and unclear, even though he writes fairly clearly. Kant also does not lead to a sufficient degree of aporia, because he still dogmatically imposes limits on reason. Wittgenstein is much more concise, clear-headed, and ultimately does not allow dogmatism to cloud his conclusions in any way, hence his famous quote everyone knows.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Kant is ahistorical and lumps ancient and modern rationalism together and derided Plato as a mystical Schwärmer (Von einem neuerdings erhobenen vornehmen Ton in der Philosophie). Heidegger is one of the first to explicitly allow us to understand the ancients (more) properly.

          Surely the actual content of Kant's philosophy must not allow for it, rather than just secondarily Kant's opinion on the Greeks? Otherwise there is no reason he cannot. Would the obvious view of Kant still belonging to the history of metaphysics suffice to explain it? I'm not well versed enough in Kant or Wittgenstein to explain why.

          One may, however, perhaps say that Kant induced the necessary aporia, or something more, for German culture (and broadly European culture) to allow the questions asked by ancient philosophers to be heard anew.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Plato at least proceeds consistently with all these conclusions. He no doubt had in mind, albeit in an obscure way, the question that had only lately been broached: "How are synthetic propositions a priori possible?" If he could have guessed at that time what only came up later: that there are indeed a priori intuitions, but not of the human understanding, but sensible ones (under the name of space and time), that therefore all objects of the senses are [missing verb] by us merely as appearances and even their forms, which we can determine a priori in mathematics, are not those of things in themselves, but (subjectively) of our sensibility, which are therefore valid for all objects of possible experience, but not one step further, he would not have looked for pure intuition (which he needed in order to make the synthetic knowledge a priori comprehensible) in the divine understanding and its archetypes of all beings as independent objects and thus lit the torch for Schwärmerei.

            So he didn't think he merely arrived at aporiai, he thought he actually determined the limits of reason.

            >For it is self-evident that a concept that has to proceed from our reason must have been made by us. If we had wanted to derive it from some appearance (an object of experience), the ground of our knowledge would be empirical and unsuitable to be valid for everyone, and consequently for the apodictic practical certainty that a universally binding law must have. Rather, if wisdom were to appear to us personally, we would have to first look to that concept made by ourselves as the archetype, to see whether this person also corresponded to the character of that archetype made by ourselves; and even then, if we find nothing in it that contradicts it, it is absolutely impossible to know its adequacy with it other than through supersensible experience (because the object is supersensible): which is self-contradictory. Theophany thus turns Plato's idea into an idol, which can only be worshiped superstitiously; whereas theology, starting from concepts of our own reason, sets up an ideal which compels worship from us, since it springs from the most sacred duties independent of theology.

            This is an explicit denial not only of Plato and the neoplatonists but also of Aristotle.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Aristotle also rounded it out by providing a positive complement, instead of a purely negative philosophy, which is not in itself a "bad thing." Witty could be used as a strong analytic introduction to scholastic and Platonic philosophy, in the sense of inducing a sufficient degree of aporia so as to allow the questions asked by certain ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, to make more sense to the modern or otherwise deluded reader who still clings to different kinds of arbitrary ideals created by socio-cultural circumstances.

      What from Aristotle comes close to Wittgenstein? The Categories? Metaphysics?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Posterior Analytics. It's his investigation and merging of real content with logical form which turns philosophy from "wordgames" into substantial investigation. It's essentially where he rigorously separates semantics from metaphysics.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bulldozer Man

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP here. I would like to add that I want an unbiased view. Heidegger's Nazism may be swaying the thread in his favor hehe.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The world could have done just fine without either.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    both were stupid pragmatists and only midwits find their work valuable

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Witt for both. It's not even close.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Both were fans of Spengler. Both were almost nihilists, but with a small glimmer of hope.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    heidegger is just trying to do nihilology and doesn't even realize it, he should have read proclus

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger. Wittgenstein is just a meme thinker.

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein is massively overrated. He himself admits he said nothing original. The Tractatus is not very original at all, and neither is PI. I am judging him as an analytic who feels other analytics are just better and more original and interesting. But you know I can also judge him as a continental. I think Heidegger is really good if you give him a chance and read and track what he's saying. He's actually radically original, creative, and interesting. So Wittgenstein sucks from the perspective of both traditions, honestly. We need to move past him
    >but lol he btfo all philosophy
    That's babymode philosophizing, you can do better.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why is being original automatically seen as something good? That'll just give people incentive to keep inventing more and more deranged bullshit.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because we're always wrong and the future generations always figure it out, this is literally the role of the sciences, giving space to people making up actual bullshit is part of the price to pay but it's a small price, the alternative is rigidified ossification festering for centuries til people realize wait a minute we're really lagging behind. This is just the way the sciences already operate, we have to push boundaries and question what's previously accepted, it's better than adding epicycles to dying old systems.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    wittgenstein for reviving reidian critique of epistemology in on certainty and consequently refuting all philosophy after the disaster of kant/hume, otherwise they both suck majorly

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger seems to have more living influence and I believe it is growing

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger pointed out that we live in a post-philosophical civilization, which seems basically as right as any philosopher could possibly be in retrospect.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Commoners were never interested in philosophy. They were interested in God, their land, the soil, work, and rewards.
      Only autistic academics and pretentious fags were ever interested in philosophy.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's because higher-ups put them in those commoner situations where they're interested in opiates and simple means-ends survival, and virtues engineered to uphold the system that keeps them as commoners. Philosophy is what the free people do, the people with the means, and after thinking a little more those philosophers realized, wait a minute, the commoners are being kept out of this by the system. Of course you, another pro-system idiot (and sadly victim too) don't see it for what it is. You should never glorify the virtues of commoners once you realize to do so is to glorify the system that inculcates those virtues in them so they can stay in that place (mere commoners who suffer and never rise above).

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger was epoch-defining, Wittgenstein was merely interesting.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I hate Heiddi for how he treated Husserl, I'd even say his relevance is overblown, but even then I have to admit he is in a completely different league above Witty. Only the early and middle parts of the Tractatus are interesting.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *