Did Plato ruin philosophy.
"no"
>>1121048
No.
Can't say the same for everyone that was after him.
>>1121048
No.
Marx did.
While he was just wrong a lot,
No.
Philosophy ruined itself.
>>1121077
Define "ruin"
>>1121471
Define "define".
>>1121595
/board
>>1121595
define the definition of "define"
>>1121628
Define the definition of the definition of "define"
>>1121708
ok google
>>1121048
> it's an ad absurdum thread
>>1121983
>>1121048
He switched its focus from proto-science to ethics, so in a way, yes.
>>1122306
>presocratics were proto-science
wew lad
>>1122320
Aiming to understand the workings of the world through observation and rational thought instead of mythological narrative can aptly be called proto-science, yes.
>>1122336
A better word would be proto-metaphysics or proto-ontology although even that is kind of narrow. Parmenides is basically the early version of Spinoza, Heraclitus's Logos is also a thing, Anaxamander laid the ground work for the idea of forms.
Ethics are also just a derivative of metaphysics. For instance Heraclitus's views on war and violence are derivative of the theory of strife.
The thing is the Pre-Socratics basically did everything at a time when not only did the concept of a scientist not exist but neither did the concept of a philosopher or really any formal specialized study. They were basically polymaths that layed the foundation for everything in the Western cannon.
>>1121068
this desu
