important difference

@TuerSchlossEnteiser
YESS

Brb again my client is phoning

First of all Aristotle continued the teachings of Plato in many ways and he was one of the first people to distinguish being and potentiality. Plato was extremely influenced by his teacher Socrates who was the first denialer

..we need a new generation of philosophers..
with an aim to REALITY

of order

got lucky, seems like I picked the right Scruton

And who was the starter of decadence in the west

Aristotles saved Platos ideas.. its he logical conclusion.

https://youtu.be/1eD9RDTl6tM?t=339

Plato couldn't explain basic iron smithing..
Aristotles could

agree, without German people fail at German ideas, horribly

Aristotle saved Plato, yes

"eeeh muh science and evolushion - philo useless cuz i have no clue about how to strcuture my worldviews"

look socialist failures all around the globe

without Aristotle then Plato would be a meme

Aristoteles explained how to create and organize
do usefull things with real things...

makes total sense what scruton says

@virtue Implying that this wasn't common to human nature in general

Plato could only explain moral philosophy.
Plato even avoided practical or technical issues

your introspective worldviews come from how well-of your ancestors were in having them

the only things that Aristotle was good for was his contributions to epistomology and the law of noncontradiction

it's not by reason that you v. asians v. africans (even high iq africans) come to completely different conclusions about ideal organizations

I mean, how huge the gap is, when a language is changed, is easy demonstrate by anglos love nietzsche in all his shiny endless stupidity and idiotic Calender Motti people hurl around as if they were of any value (which they are not)

(if it were by reason it would all be the same? and to the extent that it can you are no longer expressing preferences but methodology)

@The Living Paradox

It doesn't exactly, it wasnt common to human nature..
Humans are limited by common sense,
They need some way of organising or generalising
all human knowledge, philosophy

Without philosophy you can't have any justification for anything you believe in

specifically for race

...philosophy is about organising and generalise all human knowledge.

you don't need justification to trial&error, you just do it, society and law emerges, and whatever conflict resolution emerges and amounts to precedent is efficient. and gets ingrained in your "genetic morals" for lack of a better term

@The Living Paradox

at some point, every society needs to have an intellectual justification
for the neccessary things they are doing.
Common sense only works on small societies

Philosophy is about getting to conclusions of how knowledge is even possible @virtue

thats a very vague definition you gave there

what the sovereign (high) class tells the lower and what works in that communication is entirely dependant on the stock and this domesticated (genetically trained) moral. you're ugh, privileged, and don't even see it. fucking wypipo ugh

theres germanic morals v. french v. anglo v. so many

none of it rational

@The Living Paradox

so basically you say that philosophy is *knowledge about all knowledge*,
If you say its about understanding how knowledge is possible
and understanding how we can get knowledge.
Then basically,*philosophy is a general model for all knowledge and
the methods to use any and all knowledge*

rather it is rational only in the sense that enough people feel the same enough to abide by it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbqhmBKqqy8

i was told this is good

@Ozpin88 Trial and error is barely scratching the surface of level wisdom. You can make a mistake 1000 times and still not get to conclusions without fundamentally questioning the reasoning behind your actions