>start with the Greeks
>"everything is fire"
>"no, everything is water"
>"no, everything is air"
So are we supposed to understand retardation? Is this why these boipussy-loving degenerates are recommended?
no, it's the build up to nietzsche's
>everything is lies
https://youtu.be/V9HKtPVms_Y
You're not supposed to take the pre-socratics so serious. Read them for context and ideas that interested your field of study.
Eternity is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is a child's.
>>7976738
>doses lsd once
>>7976617
How pleb can you get
>>7976617
Im not sure you should compare the Pre-Socratics to Plato or Aristotle. They're really just read to understand what arguments other philosophers were responding to. Some cool stuff in the Pre-Socratics, though. The Ship of Theseus and Xeno's paradox comes to mind.
>>7976632
That presupposes that 'lies' are any more or less valuable than 'truths.' Nietzsche's whole platform is that the falseness of a judgement isn't enough to object to it. He claims that all previous philosophers errors in that they operated under the axiom that truth is desired/valuable. So I don't know why you think he said 'everything is lies' as if he cared about truths
the presocratic cosmological scheme was based on empirical observation of four basic elements, and an observed paradox of between things being impermanent and things being permanent (Being and Becoming)
the first attempt at a naturalistic physics was to ask what the underlying nature of reality of the perceived world really was
those schools which tended toward an emphasis on becoming tried to find which one of the elements was the "basic" element, or the really important prime mover. they naturally tended to pick water or air because these appear to be animate, self-moving, lively, capable of action and dynamism. this is primitive hylozoism. water/air are just thales and anaximenes disagreeing as to which element makes the best "base" matter, but both are more or less agreed that it's the most dynamic, self-moving one (i.e. the most Becoming) that then undergoes permutations into various forms of more or less inert Being.
it's a pretty sensible system based on what few observations they had.
heraclitus and others using fire, usually a grand return to fire at the end of some cosmic cycle, though also the stars being the "sphere" of pure fire peeking through the aether, is just another version of deciding which element is the most primordial. heraclitus' focus was on pure Becoming, that ALL Being is illusory or at least highly impermanent, so he saw the dancing, dynamic, self-animated fire, which never takes a real solid and stable form and yet is always fire, as the root of Being.
anaximander attempted similarly to dissolve all Being into a primordial ooze of Becoming, containing all possible empirical postulates, to apeiron. probably based off the idea of primordial chaos in the old mythic framework, which itself probably spawned natural physics by giving poets and sages increasing freedom to play with more "logical" or "clean" assortments of gods/creation stories/myths that explain reality, going from actual personalised gods to increasingly abstract elemental forces etc.
later thinkers try to resole the Being/Becoming distinction in clever ways but we don't have much left of their actual arguments so it is difficult
the thinkers immediately preceding plato and aristotle had the most elaborate models, usually syncretic combinations of earlier cosmologies, e.g. the atomists, late pythagoreans, etc.
>>7976757
>That presupposes that 'lies' are any more or less valuable than 'truths.' Nietzsche's whole platform is that the falseness of a judgement isn't enough to object to it. He claims that all previous philosophers errors in that they operated under the axiom that truth is desired/valuable. So I don't know why you think he said 'everything is lies' as if he cared about truths
So you haven't read Nietzsche and read a moral judgment into my post? Nice b8, but you're trying too hard to be retarded and it doesn't need that much effort.
>>7976779
I have read Nietzsche. Have you read the prejudices of the philosophers or nah
>>7976824
yes, and zarathustra claiming that lies are not even the opposite of truth. you need to read more nietzsche if you think that lies are at all a bad thing for nietzsche.
>>7976617
>he takes presocratics literally
you're retarded m8. When Heraclitus says the world is fire he means the world is change. He was known as the weeping philosopher because the nature of the world as ever changing precluded men from obtaining true knowledge which was interpreted as pessimism.
This is the core of Nietzsche, though Nietzsche overcomes the pessimism (but not himself sadly, this is something for very, very few men).
>>7976617
What's wrong with you?
What's your problem?
It's getting to understand how ancient people thought. Do you understand that they had to start somewhere? All they had available was to think up the world.
>>7977239
but the 'everything is fire' meme image of the asian schoolgirl is very optimist. wouldn't you say?
DUDE FIRE LMAO
>>7976759
9/10, would have been complete with a Bel-Air.
>>7976617
But those are just the Milesians (+Heraclitus) my man. Have you gotten to the pythagoreans?
>>7978113
OP is the only retard here if he fails to understand you read the pre-Socratics as a framework for future philosophical ideas.
Did he think they were going to explain quantum mechanics to him?
>>7978175
#420 BLAZE IT
WE GOT HIM BOYS
WE MADE OP WASTE HIS TIME
GOTCHA OP, YOU WERE TRICKED
The lesson learned, is to never trust unconditionally.
>>7976617
>doesn't sympathize with the presocratics for uncovering an entirely new way for people to think about LITERALLY EVERYTHING
you're either 12 or you're at the contemplative level of a 12-year-old.
you'll get why they're the cool cats in a year or two (if you keep growing as a thinking person)
>>7978439
Yes.
