Bryan Magee passed away last July, but I only just found out today. Also, I didn't realize he had published a well-received three-part autobiography. I hope to read it when the libraries re-open here. I have already read his mostly excellent intellectual autobiography "Confessions of a Philosopher.">NY Times: Bryan Magee, Who Brought Philosophy to British TV, Dies at 89https://archive.is/Wc4ad>The last interview with Bryan Mageehttps://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/the-last-interview-with-bryan-magee-philosophy-great-philosophers
There are links to more obituaries at the bottom of his wiki page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Magee
Why study philosophy?
I'm going through Cassirrer's Language and Myth again after not reading any philosophy for a while and it's more entertaining than most fiction out there.
Where should I start with Neoplatonism?>>54650
It's just fun.
Proclus is the one who moved furthest away from the original Plato turning it into a full theology. For people like Bertrand Russell thats a bad thing. He was the last great Pagan, dying in 485 AD, after Western Rome had already fallen.
Theres a theory that Pseudo-Dionysius was a conspiratorial plan to sneak Neo-Platonism into the DNA of Christianity, so it could be revived at a future more tolerant date.
I wonder if, in the future, that what we consider unique and special will instead be trivialized and bite-sized. Magnificent ideas won't be heralded by a single man anymore, when you have a population of several billions. Artistic monoliths won't come from a few artists. What was once special will no longer be special when it is ubiquitous. Everything reduced to a formula and its ingredients. How to produce a philosopher. How to produce a mathematician. How will we contain that arrogant heart of man? That arrogant messiah-wannabe. The one that takes the several-thousands of photos of itself. The one that compulsively lies for self-benefit. The one with unchecked and heartless sexual promiscuity. The creature that figures itself great, when there are several-billions of itself.
I wonder if the dissonance our species faces with individual accomplishment relative towards group accomplishment will be our downfall. Throughout history, the individual was regarded as the originator of renaissance (da vinci, socrates, christopher columbus) so I wonder if the dissonance lies at the fact that man is too arrogant to love existence beyond himself, so will always be a greedy, competitive creature.
Humans are not one creature, we are a collection of impulses and chemical signals that can have completely opposite motivations and drives
So, viscerally we are all alike, so explain these opposing "motivations and drives" that differ amongst men? What distinguishes me from you? Our own seperate experiences?
Thought you might find this essay especially Wizard relevant.
I started having volcelish ideas as a boy, but there was no sophisticated ideology or ethics behind it. My whole world came from cartoons. And a lot of cartoon heroes were saying no to succubi, because they were so focused on the mission, they couldn't be distracted by human attachments.
So its interesting to see my primitive boyhood superhero reasons for going volcel examined in a philosophical manner here.
This is too basic a question, please try again with a more educated one
Pierre Hadot’s topic is sweeping. He presents a new understanding of the nature of ancient philosophy and how we should read it…
Hadot argues that most modern scholars misunderstand the nature of ancient philosophy from Socrates to the rise of Christianity. Since the collapse of classical civilization, our primary access to ancient philosophy has been the written word: either the writings of the philosophers themselves or the reports of others about their lives and teachings. This has led to a tendency to interpret ancient philosophies as primarily theoretical in aim. Ancient philosophers, like the great speculative philosophers of the middle ages and the modern period, were supposedly concerned to elaborate comprehensive and consistent “systems” of ideas. And, like them, the ancients supposedly wrote to communicate these systems of ideas to the larger “republic of letters.”
Hadot, by contrast, argues that ancient philosophy was primarily practical in its aims, not theoretical. Wisdom was not identified with knowledge of the whole, but with happiness or well-being, which was to be attained by bringing about the proper internal ordering of the soul. Any and all accounts of the cosmos were subordinated to this goal. One did not have to be an original theorist in order to be a philosopher. Nor did one have to be current on the opinions of various theorists. Instead, one had only to adopt a particular way of life: a life centered on the pursuit of wisdom. Thus, one can be an original theorist or an erudite scholar, but not a philosopher in the classical sense. Just as professors who teach novels do not thereby call themselves novelists, so professors who teach philosophy should not thereby call themselves philosophers. Being a philosopher was not a matter of education or vocation, but a new way of being in the world arising from an internal spiritual conversion.https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/06/philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/
Maybe I'm in the same boat as you. Well I look at Christian Neoplatonism I actually am looking for a reread of the Enneads with some Trinity thrown in. But all the so-called Christian NeoPlatonists I've read from both Latin West and Greek East, it reads more like a sermon than sophisticated philosophical theology say of the style of Aquinas.
>>55550>it reads more like a sermon
I'm reading authors by chronological order, so I don't know what renaissance neoplatonists are like, but I've read enough to understand that the so called early Christian philosophers were extremely dogmatic and rejected vehemently the beliefs of the Greek and Roman philosophers.
Anyone can reccomend me good books on empty or open individualism?
Dionysius is an interesting case, because ancient Christians thought that he was actually the Dionysius in the New Testament, rather than someone copying later Neo-Platonism. So his theology had an influence far outweighing his real significance.
How long did it take you to read the Summa Theologica?
I think around a month, but i have already worked my way up to Aquinas chronologically, so a lot of arguments were anticipated by Aristotle and I skipped the least interesting parts dealing with catechism and salvation through faith.
where would you say Duns Scotus stands in that debate? I've heard him called both
He stands with Aquinas as a realist, but his ontological argument for God and Being is univocal while Aquinas' is strictly analogical.
wizards are Volcel Knights of Faith according to Kierkegaard's ideal
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
Is that original? If not, where is it from?
The Book of Ecclesiastes
I wish it was mine.
Resumé by Dorothy Parker.
Heard it first in the movie "succubus, Interrupted".
Found someone wrote a response to the poem:
Lovers pain you;
Jobs are a bore;
Age will drain you;
And love will drain you more;
Money is fleeting;
Youth passes by;
Mistakes are self-repeating;
So you might as well die.
I don't like this line:>And love will drain you more;
perhaps more fitting:>And love even more
what philosopher's works would toroko would recommend anon
Why is beauty associated with morality?
Because both are temporary and speak to a deeper longing that can't be fulfilled.
Is being a Wizard compatible with the Kantian categorical imperative?
If we were to wish that all humans be virgins and neets, that is pretty much the end of humanity no?
Human creation is defined as an aspect of humanity in some word-salad way. The earth won't stop suffering from the wounds inflicted on it by humanity until all of humanity's creations are removed. Unfortunately with the advent of microplastics infecting every inch of our Earth, the earth will never be rid of human creation and thus humanity will endure, though we may no longer be around to also suffer from it.
Yes. In fact, Julio Cabrera's argument for antinatalism is pretty much a Kantian one (deontological). To be fair Kant himself had some pro-life / affirmative ethics bias because of his meme Prussian Christianity, but there are also some bits of fiat ethica et pereat mundus mindset. For example when Kant wrote about how life without dignity is worse than death, also he said sexual desire is intrinsically bad.
also Kant was virgin
>>61854>ruined his reputation
How did he do that?
By…being a murderer?
Oh. Ok. So you're saying normies have a low opinion of him. Got it.
Without the bombings none would care about his ideas, it would be like he never existed. Many such cases.
No he's just a crab, not a wiz. He is the classical crab that wants to get laid but can't so he wants to change the whole world so he'll be able to get laid and stop been a loser in the current one. The reality is that he will still be a loser crab in his new world as well.
Read about the fiasco of how his brother had to fire him from his job because he started dating a succubi from work and she dumped him right away a he got obsessive with her and harassed her.
As someone whose read Schop's complete works, I would say this is a useful short intro that sums it all up and gives you a lot of good quotes. You get the gist of it in 100 pages that I've spent 1000s of pages on. I'm on the part where Schop recommends sexual asceticism as the ultimate denial of the will, right now.
its nice having a complex metaphysics, where the entire universe revolves around what we wizards believe.
Anon, I've avoided reading Schop solely because of his great volume. I hope this lives up to my expectations.
All of his ideas are just a regurgitation of Ellul, really. Ellul is a bit out of date, but he's better than Kaczynski.
How is OPTIMISTIC NIHILISM?
i have written a summary of my current idealism and wish to see if others object to it:
peak moral goal: pleasure
peak moral bad: suffering
only way to maximize moral value: self understanding and self love, then departure from anything that destroys the self understanding and self love. with this, reduction of causes of pain and suffering to loss and mental illness.
reason: peak suffering comes from inner turmoil.
inner turmoil identified as beating self up, hating self, being desperate for things
example: beating myself up about meeting expectations of my boss. if i do not beat myself up, then i would be left with the worry of becoming homeless. becoming homeless is a loss of comfortability, physical safety, and hopes of attaining loving relationships with people. all such things are identified as being external to my main job of self understanding and self loving, therefore such loss and the suffering that comes with it is accepted.
wait shit, id say utilitarian pleasure, not just my pleasure
if i had a pill that would throw me permanently into a pit of pleasure, at the cost of the wellbeing of other people, i would not take it
Not hypocritical, though. He didn't promote for everyone to be an extreme ascetic, he only pointed it out as the only true escape from existence.>>61878
Honestly, I'd recommend everyone to just read The World as Will and Representation, and ignore the preface where he keeps telling you that you can't read it unless you've already read his earlier treatise on the principle of sufficient reason. It's amazingly well written and Schopenhauer's incredible in his capacity to explain in a simple way very complex concepts, as well as put them in beautiful metaphors. So I'd recommend people to just dive right in. Also, I think Janaway's translation is the best, but I don't agree AT ALL with his understanding of his philosophy, so I'd rather people first read Schopenhauer and then come to their own conclusions. (I'd recommend more Bryan Magee's book on Schopenhauer.)
>>62199>I'd recommend more Bryan Magee's book on Schopenhauer.)
You mean where he tries to argue Schop's philosophy is compatible with OPTIMISM?
Yeah, I don't agree with his idea that you can extricate his pessimism from the rest of his philosophy and that it's merely an extraneous psychological trait of his. But I think overall he covers it pretty well, and also has a lot of really interesting parts about his philosophy's relation to Wagner, Wittgenstein, etc.
to sin means "to miss the mark"
the mark being to maximize your pleasure in a utilitarian manner
i am jesus
I've been thinking this is quite a shame recently. Where are the philosophers of the stoa nowdays? Why do we not have men prowling around asking if anyone knows what justice is? Not even one public masturbator? All "philosophers" in our time just quiver behind the gates of their precious academy. It's pathetic.
I read an intro to buddhism book and I found it quite dissapointing. The primary motivation is the problem of suffering but if there is no essential self then there is also nothing for dukkha to attach to and any suffering that is experienced is just one among many impermenant phenomena. I suppose this would be fine on its own for a therepeutic approach to life but the morality of buddhism insists that we have compassion for other beings despite the fact that their dukkha is also an impermanent phenomena and they have no essential being for any compassion to attach itself to.
Upon my current understanding, the only legimate path that the buddhist tradition reveals is the pratyekabuddha, one who seeks personal enlightenment and is not concerned with helping others to get enlightened. I admire the detachment that the buddha encourages but I feel on my path I must also extend this detachment to suffering and compassion as well.