My guess is that u/irontide has never passed a graduate level math class. She's so caught up in her worthless studies that risking failure on a hard class is unfathomable.
However, quick glance at his book, I noticed something interesting.
Ibn-Rushd wrote a book with an interesting title "The Incoherence of the Incoherence" in which
It was written in the style of a dialogue against al-Ghazali's claims in The Incoherence of the Philosophers (TahΔfut al-Falasifa), which criticized Neoplatonic thought.
... only to
(he) attempted to create harmony between faith and philosophy, between Aristotelian ideas and Islam. He claimed that Aristotle is also right and the words of Quran are also the eternal truth.
But also, the guy he "criticized", in his book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" also wrote about supreme quality of Islam.
I guess I can see where dismissal of this kind of "philosophy" came from.
Descartes was religious af and wrote about god in his principle of philosophy (and how god was real and supreme). Honestly, by dismissing ibn-rushd for writing religious shit, you are more showing you total absence of knowledge philosophically than anything.
You should dismiss him for his teaching failing to influence philosophy on the long run, dumbass.
Not hard when the article says that western philosophy is racist. There are a few people allowed to contradict u/ironside and I'm sure they are the Mods pets.
That's seriously sad, there was legitimate discussion going on that wasn't even shitting on the article, more so on the differrence between eastern and western philosophies and how each of them recorded their own reknown thinkers given their geographical distances and time periods.
It could just as easily be said that eastern thinkers like Gu Yanwu excluded non eastern thinkers from their history, because they did.
In these lectures he( Kant) identified the Greeks as the originators of philosophy and dismissed the systems of other cultures as either not philosophical at all or like βchildβs playβ in comparison with the Greeks.
...
As Peter K. J. Park has shown in his Africa, Asia, and the History of Philosophy (a book that has not been reviewed by any history of philosophy journal), this dovetailed perfectly with the racist ideology Kant had developed in his anthropological writings.
In other words, Kant's claim that the Greeks were the originators of philosophy is wrong because he was racist. While Kant certainly was a racist, noting this doesn't refute his claim about the Greeks role in philosophy. Besides for all of this being a non-sequitor, it is highly defensible to claim that the Greeks and in particular Plato were the fathers of philosophy. Plato's theory of forms allowed him to create a systematic world view which was both universal and secularizable in contrast to religious texts or simple advice books. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this makes Plato 'The Father of Philosophy' but saying Immanuel Kant was racist hardly disproves the proposition.
Note: I'm not claiming that all worth while philosophical ideas were created by Westerners. What I'm claiming is that this article's argument is shitty. You know, tell me why Averroes matters, I might believe you.
Averroes (and Islamic philosophy in particular) isn't a great example of non-western philosophy, since it's an Abrahamic religion that was deeply influenced by Aristotle in particular. I wouldn't call it Western itself, but it's arguably the one 'Eastern' religion/philosophy that is closest to the West.
You could be a platonist and an atheist but the point I was trying to make was that Plato's metaphysics appeal to religion like concepts is not very specific.
ehh, it would be very difficult since the theory of forms entails something more than the material existing and the denial of everything other than the material is sort of the basis of atheism.
What's really scary is that other mods like /u/ADefiniteDescription give this a break. Discussions like yours aren't allowed because it offends u/irontide. These mods are totalitarian in the least because they enforce one idea and ban all others.
27 comments
1 BussyShillBot 2019-01-11
YOU ARE ALL ALREADY DEAD ππ. YOU JUST DONT KNOW π€ IT YET.
WE OUTNUMBER YOU. WE REMEMBER YOU. NO π£ ONE 1οΈβ£ HAS FORGOTTEN. NO π£ ONE 1οΈβ£ HAS FORGIVEN.
Enjoy the time β you have πΆ left π. JUSTICE π©ββοΈπ©ββοΈπ©ββοΈ IS πΆ COMING. Tick β β tock.
Outlines:
I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues
1 friend1y 2019-01-11
Thanks!
1 SnapshillBot 2019-01-11
Being a racist loser that makes fun of racist losers doesn't make you any less of a racist loser.
Pretending you're too stupid to understand how you spend your free time doesn't make it any less pathetic to spend your free time that way.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 friend1y 2019-01-11
My guess is that u/irontide has never passed a graduate level math class. She's so caught up in her worthless studies that risking failure on a hard class is unfathomable.
1 newcomer_ts 2019-01-11
I wish someone would mention at least one non-Western philosopher who is unjustifiably missed.
Even the article linked is not addressing the core issue.
Maybe, just fiucking maybe there's not one philosopher worth its salt over there.
1 spookyguy109 2019-01-11
Ibn-Rushd? He was well respected during the Middle Ages but has fallen out of favor.
1 newcomer_ts 2019-01-11
I know /r/drama knows.
However, quick glance at his book, I noticed something interesting.
Ibn-Rushd wrote a book with an interesting title "The Incoherence of the Incoherence" in which
... only to
But also, the guy he "criticized", in his book "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" also wrote about supreme quality of Islam.
I guess I can see where dismissal of this kind of "philosophy" came from.
1 error404brain 2019-01-11
Descartes was religious af and wrote about god in his principle of philosophy (and how god was real and supreme). Honestly, by dismissing ibn-rushd for writing religious shit, you are more showing you total absence of knowledge philosophically than anything.
You should dismiss him for his teaching failing to influence philosophy on the long run, dumbass.
1 Ultrashitposter 2019-01-11
Lmao Plato said that philosophy is "love of truth", and now look at these faggots.
1 risingdeluge 2019-01-11
Lmao they just went in and deleted everything that didn't fall lock step with the article.
1 friend1y 2019-01-11
Not hard when the article says that western philosophy is racist. There are a few people allowed to contradict u/ironside and I'm sure they are the Mods pets.
1 risingdeluge 2019-01-11
That's seriously sad, there was legitimate discussion going on that wasn't even shitting on the article, more so on the differrence between eastern and western philosophies and how each of them recorded their own reknown thinkers given their geographical distances and time periods.
It could just as easily be said that eastern thinkers like Gu Yanwu excluded non eastern thinkers from their history, because they did.
1 MehmedIIDidNoWrong 2019-01-11
Sorry if you're not self-flagellating about everything Western at any opportunity, you have to expect the Reddit mod gestapo to come for you.
1 jorio 2019-01-11
Serious post to spite Irontide -
The whole article is argument ad racism.
Crux of the argument -
...
In other words, Kant's claim that the Greeks were the originators of philosophy is wrong because he was racist. While Kant certainly was a racist, noting this doesn't refute his claim about the Greeks role in philosophy. Besides for all of this being a non-sequitor, it is highly defensible to claim that the Greeks and in particular Plato were the fathers of philosophy. Plato's theory of forms allowed him to create a systematic world view which was both universal and secularizable in contrast to religious texts or simple advice books. Reasonable people can disagree about whether this makes Plato 'The Father of Philosophy' but saying Immanuel Kant was racist hardly disproves the proposition.
Note: I'm not claiming that all worth while philosophical ideas were created by Westerners. What I'm claiming is that this article's argument is shitty. You know, tell me why Averroes matters, I might believe you.
1 LongPostBot 2019-01-11
look im gunna have 2 ask u 2 keep ur giant dumps in the toilet not in my replys π·π·π·
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 jorio 2019-01-11
Oh, shut the fuck up. I tried hard and had fun.
1 911roofer 2019-01-11
r/botabuse
1 risingdeluge 2019-01-11
YT is racist for not letting colored people think for him.
1 notcyberpope 2019-01-11
A white man wrote it so it's wrong and bad no matter how true it is. Which I'd the critic axiom of the millenium.
1 Ultrashitposter 2019-01-11
Averroes (and Islamic philosophy in particular) isn't a great example of non-western philosophy, since it's an Abrahamic religion that was deeply influenced by Aristotle in particular. I wouldn't call it Western itself, but it's arguably the one 'Eastern' religion/philosophy that is closest to the West.
1 jorio 2019-01-11
I agree, there's no hard distinction between European, North African, and Middle Eastern philosophy. So maybe Averroes is a bad example.
1 spookyguy109 2019-01-11
Lol imagine being a platonic atheist that shit makes no sense.
1 jorio 2019-01-11
You could be a platonist and an atheist but the point I was trying to make was that Plato's metaphysics appeal to religion like concepts is not very specific.
1 spookyguy109 2019-01-11
>You could be a platonist and an atheist
ehh, it would be very difficult since the theory of forms entails something more than the material existing and the denial of everything other than the material is sort of the basis of atheism.
1 Ultrashitposter 2019-01-11
You can believe that there is something beyond the material universe while also believing that calling this 'God' would be erroneous.
You're right that it's hanging by a thread, though.
1 friend1y 2019-01-11
What's really scary is that other mods like /u/ADefiniteDescription give this a break. Discussions like yours aren't allowed because it offends u/irontide. These mods are totalitarian in the least because they enforce one idea and ban all others.
1 Polishperson 2019-01-11
To sum up your argument, Kant was a racist but his racism was correct in this instance. Thanks for fighting the good fight ?