3. This was part of a pattern whereby Socrates & Plato (or Plato if Socrates is just his sock puppet) split everything: Platonic forms meant there was something “beyond” us, mind & body are separate, & morally it was our inner nature that counted.
-
Show this thread
-
4. This split led to the denigration of the body, and it inspired the Christians, Gnostics, and Stoics (only the Epicurians were unaffected). Indeed, there’s a sense in which the ressentiment of Christianity Nietzsche speaks of required Socrates. It’s built on Socrates.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
5. And so we have people scourging their bodies in different sects. The body is evil. The “split thinking” of Socrates carried right through to Descartes (mind/body), Kant (noumena/phenom), and beyond. This is partly why we’re still perplexed by conciousness today.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
6. Patrick notes that now is the time (1888) to find a way out, and that we must reconnect with the holism of Heraclitus (finding the wisdom of the body), which is also similar to Leibniz’s view of the monad—a universe reasonably organised.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
7. You can see this tendency in the late Victorian and Edwardian trend towards muscular Christianity and physical exercise. The Victorians, some of them, knew that we needed to get back to the body, and away from split thinking and denigration of the body.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
8. This also tallied with developments in science, such as Darwinism, which saw the world in terms of interconnected struggles rooted in biology. In our time, the philosopher David Stove contributed to this view by attacking the irrational nature of split thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
9. He name this error “the gem” or “the worst argument in the world”. He saw the logical fallacy in Platonic forms, Kant’s noumena world, the labour theory of value, Hegelian Idealism and so on. These all added an “extra layer” to reality that isn’t there.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @tomxhart
But it is there. You can't avoid the conclusion that ideal forms, concepts, etc. have some sort of independent existence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BaruchKogan
1. I haven’t made my mind up, but doubt it. This is why there’s such a thing as the “outside” political right. These are people who apply Darwin & nature dead cold. Everyone else, from the Marxists to the Christians lives in the veil of illusion. It’s analogous to the “red pill”.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomxhart @BaruchKogan
2. Once you just “say it as you see it” the illusions vanish and it seems intuitively obvious. This is what Heidegger means by having nature speak to us, I think. He also talk about an “unveiling”. Everything else is, admittedly sometimes useful, abstraction.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
3. This also chimes with Hindu and Buddhist ideas of the Maya, and the notion of modern physics that involves fields and, ultimately, the flux of energy—as Heraclitus suggested.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.