Which philosopher has the greatest understanding of reality? Motivate your answer by referring to a body of work.
It's a progress.
Define "reality" first.
>>7708170
That which exists.
Nick Land
I think you literally have to start with Greeks, this inquiry into the reality started with the Presocratics (specially Parmenides and Heraclitus).
Heidegger, obv.
>>7708173
Then anything would work for that definition. Truths, lies, apple pie, illusions, pedobear, etc. all exist. Your definition is too vague. There's no way to pinpoint any specific author to such a broadly defined term. Not trying to be rude. Just saying.
>>7708186
I think a way to start is to subsume all those different things of perception in a self-determining principle (even if it's wrong and absurd) and proceed from there, e.g. Thales, water.
>>7708186
If I could define it less vaguely I wouldn't be asking for a philosopher with the greatest understand of it, would I?
>>7708215
understanding*
Reality is a spook
>>7708215
If you want to understand reality, I suggest you study physics.
The post-postmodern conception is that of existential nihilism and absurdity. There is no a priori or pre-set meaning to life. Rather, man makes meaning with his linguistic mind, creating various cultural concepts which he then interprets (due to behavioristic cultural practices) to be true, leading him into an ideological spell of illusion. It has taken modern Western philosophy many years to destroy or deconstruct ideology (even though it still permeates the psyches of most citizens). Eastern philosophers figured this out in B.C. times, however, with the help of philosophers like Lao Tzu and Zen Buddhists like Ikkyu.
>>7708237
Implying physics is as deep as the rabbit hole goes.
*caution fedora tipping in progress*
>>7708246
Physics most certainly has its flaws (logic is limited as Godel showed us). It's just the best we have to work with so far, unfortunately.
>>7708178
on this note can anyone recommend me some leftist speculative realists that are currently active
I got it! Read Robert Anton Wilson!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuOplymDx4I
>>7708257
The mere fact that we can't reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics should be a big enough indication that these are merely models of the world and not true perceptions.
Senpai, why do you have a picture of the pineal gland?
>>7708274
Because my third eye is activated.
my diary t b h
>>7708266
You're citing Korzybski, here, I take it? Yes, "the map is not the territory." I agree with your sentiments. The planet is impartial and nature is decidedly indifferent. Still, despite its flaws, physics still allows us to construct objects and understand things that would never have otherwise been known without its inception.
Ontological fallacy. What's reality my freind? Depends which philosophy you subscribe to." "Most 'realistic' philosopher is the one I agree with most...Therefore I'm patrician, you're pleb, stop liking what I don't like" Ouriborous argument.
>>7708292
No, not citing him, but I think it is a generally accepted view along intellectuals. But yeah, physics is definitely our best tool for the manipulation of the physical.
>>7708126
Thomas Aquinas
>Implying reality is just the physical reality
>>7708126
the buddha
>>7708516
/thread
>>7708126
Stoicism
>>7708126
The most radical skeptics, for example Feyerabend. Sextus Empiricus is great already, but difficult to understand correctly due to the fact that his arguments are often directed against obsolete philosophies, so I had to pick a recent one. The hearts of skepticism being Münchhausen's trilemma and Quine's holism (both of them being already implied in Sextus Empiricus' works).
>implying any philosopher has a greater understanding of reality than the others
>>7708541
>>implying any philosopher has a greater understanding of reality than the others
Basically this. It's speculation.
>>7708186
Literally autism. This is why this board is shit. How does pedobear demonstrate a philosophical understanding of reality you goober
>>7708551
U can't kno nuffin :^)
Shut the fuck up
Op to answer your question
Metaphysics, morality, and the mechanisms of reality: Evola, Schopenhauer, Nietzche
Emotion, suffering, adversity, and the human capacity to endure (overlaps a lot win the last one): Kierkegaard, Buddha, Stoics
Being as such: Heidegger
Aesthetics: Plotinus, Plato
>>7708126
Anaxagoras and his ideas of mixtures.
>>7708568
What kind of argument is "u can't kno nuffin :^)"? Just making fun of people will not make you any less wrong. If you think you really know something, prove it. Protip: you can't. To prove that you know something, you'd have to start from nothing; but starting from nothing, you have nothing to base your assertions on, so you can never build any deduction. Your naive sensation of evidence is nothing more than a personal and irrational feeling.
>>7708593
They are really rudimentary desu.
>>7708126
Baudrillard. Reality in the 21st century has been consumed by simulacra.
>>7708595
Tips fucking fedora. U can't kno nuffin but don't mind these absolutist statements about the nature of evidence and philosophical inquiry lmao
>>7708632
Fedora? I'm not an atheist, I'm a skeptic. That is to say, on the question of God, an agnostic.
Your counterargument demonstrates your bad understanding of skepticism. Skepticism doesn't affirm anything; the skeptic arguments destroy themselves after having had their effects. Otherly said, I never made any assertion, I only dared you to prove something, which you didn't.
>>7708646
Assertion: I am alive
Proof: me typing this post right now
Y-YOU CANT KNO NUFFN
>>7708654
Your assertion "I am alive" is meaningless if you don't define its terms. Please define "I", "am", and "alive". Only then you'll be able to start trying to prove the "you" "are" indeed "alive".
>>7708263
>leftist
>speculative realist
Kill yourself
>>7708568
>telling someone to read Schopenahuer's metaphysics
O I am lauffin
Turbo pleb over here
Read more
>>7708265
RAW is my hero
>>7708664
Hahaha Jesus Christ I thought people like you were just a meme. How do you remember to breathe? And please define "define"
>>7708695
Haha okay dude I'm sorry Schopenhauer isn't taught at Cat Lady U
>>7708702
One of the most embarrassing responses I've read in a while.
>>7708699
>And please define "define"
EXACTLY. It is a circular argument, which only proves thatr you can't define anything, and that the very fundations of your thought are contradictory. In the same way, you can't prove the validity of the concept of proof or evidence. The only conclusion is that no rational assertion is possible.
I repeat: NO ASSERTION CAN BE RATIONAL. A skeptic is nothing more than someone who recognize his/her own irrationality (and that is why, icenditaly, I remember to breathe: I don't have to act rationally). You should do the same, since you are so obviously irrational.
Can't say I know jack shit about philosophy, but do philosophy threads always go this way? People shouting names of philosophers at each other?
>>7708706
Oh no Ryan the barista does not approve
>>7708719
I don't really give a fuck dude. You can't kno nuffin :^)
>>7708726
Thank you for that useful contribution to the thread :^)
Probably David Hume, although he wrote about very old problems, problems that have been around since the beginning of philosophy
Anyway, the problem of induction and the is-ought gap to me are still the two biggest problems in philosophy and I don't believe they will ever be resolved
>>7708754
Great retort
>>7708754
You're just shitposting dude. At least I hope you have fun trolling.
>>7708237
I kinldy suggest you never mention any Eastern 'thinker' again if you desire your replies to be taken seriously.
>>7708126
Spinoza
And since I'm aware none of you plebs will do this, I'll do it myself:
/thread
>>7708776
Do what?
>>7708766
Try not baiting, young trollhopper, and supposedly there won't be a need to remind others of Eastern philosophy at all.
Where should I start with philosophy?
Wouldn't it be good to just read the high school manual again and then pick up whatever philosopher I'm insterested in?
>>7708126
You'll have to read different philosophers to find out which ones present a model of reality that you find convincing.
Aristotle has a pretty commonsense view of what can be known about mind-independent things, despite the abstract and convoluted philosophy of mind that his thesis gets him into, and the complex commentaries on Aristotle supplied by the middle ages, as with >>7708505
Locke is a good modern example of this kind of commonsense philosophical orientation.
But "commonsense" rationales aren't necessarily the most revealing or trustworthy ones.
Kant stands far outside the commonsense view, and shows how we make a great deal of sense, and can even get rid of some problems, by radically redefining concepts like "reality" and "external world" and "self."
You've got to put the work in yourself, anon. These anons are right:
>>7708165
>>7708170
>>7708302
>>7708551
>>7708695
Are there any detailed criticisms you're capable of that get to the basis of Schopenhauer's metaphysical system?
>>7708654
WE WUZ ALIVE AND SHITT
Generally, the real is admitted under some conditions and only to a certain point : if it abuses and shows itself to be unpleasant, tolerance is suspended.
>>7708719
lmao of course you can give a definition of the word "definition", or define "define". A defintion of a word is the way a word is commonly being used in a certain language. If it would be impossible to define anything you wouldn't be able to have the discussion you're having at the moment.
Anyways, skepticism is the least useful thing you could believe in this fiercly, so have fun with your life m8
>>7708257
>logic is limited as Godel showed us
People really say anything about Gödel.
>>7708178
Fuck off with this CCRU bullshit. It died 20 years ago, let it lie.
>>7708126
Mainlander is the only one who advocates suicide across the board, and ascribes a negative value to life, so him
>>7709947
Le ebin darkness
This site is trash
Maritain, no doubt.
>>7709952
>darkness
I love how life-apologists try to couch efilist thought in aggressively histrionic terms. It has nothing to do with "darkness" or "emotions". It has to do with surviving being a constant losing battle with thermodynamic forces, the absurdity of which happens to be overmuch experienced at all levels by the human mind.
>>7708237
>implying that's not just postmodernism
>>7709537
This.
>>7708126
There's too many problems with your question. But the answers the immediately come to mind (before going through what's problematic with your post) are Wittgenstein and Heidegger.
>>7708699
defineposters have always been a staple of /lit/ senpai, ironically or no.
>>7709508
philistine. read derrida.
Based Hume's treatise of human nature has the best grasp of human reality
>>7709508
pleb. read wittgenstein.
>>7708126
Thomas Aquinas.
See: On the Principles of Nature.
dont know about greatest, but...
Gilles Deleuze
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_and_Repetition
>>7711252
Deleuze uses the preface to relate the work to other texts. He describes his philosophical motivation as "a generalized anti-Hegelianism" (ix) and notes that the forces of difference and repetition can serve as conceptual substitutes for identity and negation in Hegel. The importance of this terminological change is that difference and repetition are both positive forces with unpredictable effects. Deleuze suggests that, unlike Hegel, he creates concepts out of a joyful and creative logic that resists the dualism of dialectic: "I make, remake and unmake my concepts along a moving horizon, from an always decentered centre, from an always displaced periphery which repeats and differentiates them" (xxi)
>>7711272
>I'm a non-binary gender snowflake
>>7708766
>he doesn't know about Nagarjuna
>>7711296
>dualism
"We Gladiate, but I guess we're really fighting ourselves"
