When was the objective-subjective split formulated in the history of philosophy?
>>995155
this is a great image, OP.
>>995155
contemporary philosophy is pointless and arguably destructive to society
if any form of speech should be banned, that's it imo
>>995155
Has philosophy ended, /his/?
what do you mean by objective-subjective?
if you mean an ontological difference between an object and a subject - circa Descartes
if you mean that people think some things are true beyond one's own views and some things are not - pre-Socrates probably
if you don't know jackshit and just want shitposts - the 1960s when the liberal cultural marxists ruined western society
>>995155
Descartes.
>>995480
It's kind of bloated IMO, and they somehow fucked up spelling Pyrrho's name even when "Pyrrhonian" is spelled correctly
>>995155
Complete pleb here
The philosophies at the very bottom sound stupid as shit
>>995649
Don't take the descriptions too seriously. All of the philosophers in a given section are extremely different from one another and can't be summed up in just a couple sentences
>>995656
I know but I assume the chart is supposed to be informative to some degree
what it gave me was that the bottom philosophies sound stupid as fuck
>>995664
Well you are a pleb after all
>>995678
I don't deny that
Philosophy is for nerds anyway yo
>>995684
Says the person on the history board
>>995664
The chart is dumbed down enough so that if you do not already know who the philosophers are will be more develop more incorrect ideas than correct ones.
>no speculative materialism
Get out of my way correlationists fucking shits
/r/ing the philosophers timeline meme chart
>>996352
There is no speculative realism. It's a term invented by internet bloggers.
>>995649
You're going to say your opinion without explaining why? Just like that?
Hey /his/ I want to get into German Idealism, Existentialism, and Phenomenology.
Can I just read them in order or are there philosophers before the idealists that are essential? (Besides the greeks, that is)
>>998549
>Greeks
>important
>>995155
During the time of Plato we had the Sophists making those arguments so ancient times at least in the west
>>1001041
>>995155
I don't think you can even attribute this to any of the sophists. I think for the subject-object distinction as we think of it today natural science has to be part of the equation and for that you need to identify it as starting with Descartes. There simply was no idea of subjective vs objective in pre-cartesian philosophy. Sure there was a soul, but that was a totally different thing.
>>995155
unless OP is going to specify which particular thing is "split" on objective vs subjective than this thread will continue to have shitty posts that make vague statements.
Pretty much philosophy thinks EVERYTHING is entirely subjective or objective. So unless he tells us what the point of contestment is he never really asked anything interesting.
