I present you patient zero
>IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR, GUYS
>PRUSSIA IS CLEARLY THE BEST STATE
>DUDE REVOLUTIONARY JUSTICE LMAO
>>500617
What? WHY? How could anyone dislike this?
>>500655
hegel incepted all the wrong people, he's the head vampire so to speak
>>500649
You leave Plato out of this, you bitch.
>>500655
>dislike
He ended Western philosophy by revealing the historical roots of philosophical truth and ushered in postmodernism. His was the most maturely articulated form of transcendence of the subject-object dichotomy, a theme of postmodernism, which is almost a post-Western epoch.
He derailed it, but he was really just beat the game.
>>500649
Have you ever tried to be more retarded than you are right now? You probably can't.
>>500676
u just mad cuz im str8 outta da cave
>>500665
I should add that >>500658 is right. Hegel's legacy is largely a consequence of the way he made claims about philosophical and historical truth, i.e., interpretation as revealing an integral part of the higher meaning of a thing within the Absolute, as Zizek notes in The Sublime Object of Ideology when he discusses the different modes of reflection in Hegel. What makes this interesting is that Zizek gives Hegel Hegel's reputation in a way that Hegel himself never bothered to, because he knew that it would be made afterward if he just put his autism to the task of analyzing everything in a monist dialectical logic that has been hopelessly imitated since the owl of Minerva flew away from his deathbed. These imitations often claim to turn him on his head, and when they do they reveal that they don't actually care about reality. Marxism begins (in some of the worst forms it's taken) from the claim that it's counter-Hegelian. It means this ontologically. Ontopolitics is a fool's game. Anyone who plays ontopolitics with you is a charlatan and should be avoided. Hegel gets into this, too, but he can get away with it because of his historical role as the guy people from the future reference for the sake of affirming their own validity.
He was also an exemplary professional scholar. It was almost despicable, from some perspectives. From others, it's admirable.
>>500665
Well isn't that a good thing? Truth is a subject object relationship and philophical truths are just a historical conceptualization. Post-modernism is a wonderful thing. Now that everything has been deconstructed we have real power, everything can be questioned, and all things are now possible.
>>500686
It seems like you don't understand what "derail" means.
>>500649
>>500687
Nah, but I know that platonic forms fucked up biology for ages.
>>500699
Explain further?
>>500698
Sleep tight Plato
ALL HAIL THE KING
>>500702
Because species were thought of as an unchanging form, and this seemed to be detrimental to the development of ideas such as natural selection and evolution. which in hindsight seem much more intuitive than some of the earlier discovery's by Newton for example.
I'm not english, what does "derail" mean ?
>>500719
>It is often held that before evolution was developed as a scientific theory, there existed an essentialist view of biology that posited all species to be unchanging throughout time. Some religious opponents of evolution continue to maintain this view of biology (see creation-evolution controversy).
>Recent work by historians of systematics has, however, cast doubt upon this view. Mary P. Winsor, Ron Amundson and Staffan Müller-Wille have each argued that in fact the usual suspects (such as Linnaeus and the Ideal Morphologists) were very far from being essentialists, and it appears that the so-called "essentialism story" (or "myth") in biology is a result of conflating the views expressed by philosophers from Aristotle onwards through to John Stuart Mill and William Whewell in the immediately pre-Darwinian period, using biological examples, with the use of terms in biology like species
Essentialism in biology from wiki
>>500720
To leave the tracks
It's idiomatic, it isn't like "The train exploded"
It's like "The thing in question went in a new direction that wasn't expected or anticipated by anyone involved in the careful planning that was involved beforehand."
>>500719
>Because species were thought of as an unchanging form
Wouldn't be more logical to assume that there is an ideal form of every species and a the material versions of the species are continually evolving to become closer to the ideal?
Fixicity is not something that only exists in the world of forms. The material world is never fixed.
>>500720
To run off of the rails of a track, such as a train which gets disconnected from its rail and crashes. In the context of the OP, he's implying Hegel's contributions to modern thought and philosophy was a prime cause for why western civilization has seemingly been "derailed" from its path to an ideal future.
>>500720
>>500725
Institutional science didn't really exist to be held back until the modern era came about, to be perfectly honest with you, family. I know you like to believe in scientific progress but that's only because of your modern reliance on technology and subtle trust in Moore's law. There isn't any really good reason, barring religion, to trust that scientific, political, or evolutionary progress occurs.
>inb4 'muh scientific method'
Reread what I wrote, then.
It doesn't make much sense to blame Plato for this when it isn't even clear if he actually meant it. And Aristotle was a student of Plato; he was the biologist that people looked to for a long time when they were teaching and being taught biology. They didn't agree about everything.
>>500726
But I don't understand, what's the problem with Hegel ? What does it change that he's a derailer ? You mean that each sides of philosophy/political thinker claimed to be hegelian or to follow Hegel's legacy ?
>>500729
>the material versions of the species are continually evolving to become closer to the ideal?
That's not how evolution works, and if it were the case then the ideal form would have to describe a sequence of ever-changing forms resulting from the constant changes to selective pressures acting upon the species, and it can't be described as evolving towards something, more like adapting to the current conditions.
>>500739
>>500684
Go read about Hegel if you're actually curious, he's more interesting than I am. You'll find out why if you're philosophically inclined and somewhat intelligent.
>>500739
( OP ) I think i understand, it means than before Hegel, philosophy was supposed to imagine how the world had to be, but after Hegel the goal of philosophy was to analyze the world, i get it ?
>>500739
his fanboys are the problem, no hegel no problem
>>500735
I agree that there is no 'scientific progress' from the cultural relativist standpoint, but it could be said that science seems to lead to better understanding of complex systems (not well worded).
and I'm not certain, but maybe the correct use of Plato and Aristotle's ideas in biological theory would have been possible, but I'd argue that it did have a derailing effect because it did lead to some popular ideas which are now seen as false.
>>500623
underated
>>500745
The idea of the world of forms is highly flexiable.
Let's take a hammer for instance. There are many types of hammer in various shapes and sizes. Which one is ideal is going to vary from enviroment to evnrioment. One hammer will be better for smaller nails, one for very large metal spikes,etc. But there would be an ideal form of each.
Likewise for each environment there is going to be an ideal way for a particular species to exist in. I'll repeat this. The material world is in eternal flux, while the form world is fixed. Because the material world is in flux it may refer to different forms at different times.
The problem with Platoism is when it become appropriated by the religious.
>>500756
I'd argue that modern biology derailed Aristotelian biology more than vice versa because that's how paradigm shifts work but OK.
I'd say that Plato was a philosopher and a mathematician and not a scientist, and Aristotle was the first man worthy of being called a scientist, so I'm not sure what you're getting at, in the end. Blind positivism just seems idiotic to me.
>>500750
It's more that philosophy's ghost still hangs around, but oldschool philosophy largely died with Hegel. And the other things that happened around the time of the French Revolution.
>The problem with Platoism is when it become appropriated by the religious.
Some people didn't do it.
I'm reading some books on Hegel his and lessons on History, he said the best state has to look like prussia but if someone say this today, he would be like a fool.
So es Hegel's philosophy and analysis still useful and correct today ?
>>500784
>Blind positivism just seems idiotic to me
to me as well
What do you think of
"Essentialism—what I’ve called "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind"—stems from Plato, with his characteristically Greek geometer’s view of things. For Plato, a circle, or a right triangle, were ideal forms, definable mathematically but never realised in practice. A circle drawn in the sand was an imperfect approximation to the ideal Platonic circle hanging in some abstract space. That works for geometric shapes like circles, but essentialism has been applied to living things and Ernst Mayr blamed this for humanity’s late discovery of evolution—as late as the nineteenth century. If, like Aristotle, you treat all flesh-and-blood rabbits as imperfect approximations to an ideal Platonic rabbit, it won’t occur to you that rabbits might have evolved from a non-rabbit ancestor, and might evolve into a non-rabbit descendant. If you think, following the dictionary definition of essentialism, that the essence of rabbitness is "prior to" the existence of rabbits (whatever "prior to" might mean, and that’s a nonsense in itself) evolution is not an idea that will spring readily to your mind, and you may resist when somebody else suggests it."
Philosophy is really just a series of footnotes to Plato.
>>500000
>>500810
I don't really think it makes sense to see Plato as holding back evolutionary theory from being thought up. I don't really know what you want me to tell you beyond that. What are you even trying to do here?
>>500805
Read more, desu
>>500871
Just discussing an example of some biology derailing, of course Plato's importance outweighs the issue I brought up though.
The undisputed king.
Were the Crusades a logical conclusion or a derailing?
>>500617
please don't post that painting of hegel. it's as if you posted pictures of Steve Jobs when he was in his last moments.
>>500795
the dude made the strongest arguments for gnosticism while taking a shit at them because "muh beauty"
>>500956
Not at all, Plotinus spoke about one impersonal god above everything and without conciousness, all he said this world was good.
Gnostics said the contrary on everything.
>>500939
Hegel in his natural habitat.
Glorious Hegel
>>500617
I agree, OP. His insipid insistence on the linear progress of a unitary human spirit created a self-fulfilling obsession with teleology that is at the heart of the modern humanities. Rather than questioning why things frequently fail to maintain at least linear rates of progress, we flagellate ourselves and bemoan the fact that we have failed to meet such goals. This is quintessential conceit of the modern left.
>Progress for the sake of progress is the logic of a swift growing cancer
>>500698
Sleep tight Plato
>>500617
>IT WAS ALL A MISTAKE. SHUT IT DOWN.
>t. John Zerzan
>>500920
Logical.
>>500856
>series of footnotes to Plato
>A.N. Whitehead
I like his proto-process philosophy but my recent reading of Rorty makes me resent this statement. It's probably true though, lamentably.
>>501097
Rorty is philosophical quicksand par excellence. I almost fell into his trap. You gotta get out dude.
>>500698
sleep tight plato
>>501114
It is you that is mistaken, friend. Ironism is the realization that all is but competing memes (vocabularies) and we are their incidental vehicles. I agree though, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is overrated. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity is the real business.
>>500856
>Philosophy is really just a series of footnotes to Plato.
to empiricism
>>501000
That's not the bedroom of Schopenhauer's mother.
>>500698
sleep tight Plato
>>500698
sleep tight plato
>>500698
Good sleep Plato
>>500617
"How do you want your metaphysics fäm?"
>>500731
you used the definition to define itself idiot
>>500805
>but if someone say this today, he would be like a fool.
Ignorant aren't you. All prosperous Asian countries are right-hegelian, especially China. This is why Zizek is scared of non-western projects of Truth.
>>500781
in fact, the ideal form of the over hammer is perfect for all possible nails. That is to say, it is perfect for the ideal form of the over nail.
>>500863
what was it?
Don't even get me fucking started.
>>501522
this heretic right here
>>500980
>Plotinus spoke about one impersonal god above everything and without conciousness,
>who is abraxas?
>>501522
Hi Erik
>>500617
>Implying
