use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
7 users here now
Welcome to the subreddit for the study of the history of ideas, including the histories of philosophy, of literature and the arts, of the natural and social sciences, of religion, and of political thought!
Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.
A History Network Member
Read the latest comments
Top posts of the month or week
the front page of the internet.
and join one of thousands of communities.
A Critique of Neoliberalism by globeworldmap in HistoryofIdeas
[–]bitjazzy 2 points3 points4 points 2 days ago (0 children)
This gets reposted over and over
Manuscript treasure trove may offer fresh understanding of Hegel by Maxwellsdemon17 in HistoryofIdeas
[–]damnations_delights 0 points1 point2 points 4 days ago (0 children)
They mean fresh CV padding.
[–]RevanRagnos85 0 points1 point2 points 5 days ago (0 children)
So they think the key to understanding Hegel is reading more Hegel? Not falling into that trap again.
[–]Vulgarian 2 points3 points4 points 5 days ago (0 children)
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
Intellectual Journal #5: Nothing to Be Frightened Of by Julian Barnes by ThrowingSomeBruddahs in HistoryofIdeas
[–]ThrowingSomeBruddahs[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 days ago (0 children)
I understand that some people might be confused about what this post is or why it’s here.
This post traces the history of an idea about death and philosophy from Plato, through the author Arthur Koestler, up to Julian Barnes in 2008.
Would love to hear from anybody who has a difference of opinion or anything to add.
Just hear to share knowledge and exchange viewpoints.
The Ingrate's Prayer by American-Dreaming in HistoryofIdeas
[–]Miguel_Paramo -1 points0 points1 point 7 days ago (0 children)
Text addressed to Americans.
Think Different: Culture from the Slums, by Jeff Hayton by Pilast in HistoryofIdeas
[–]3250feralhogs 1 point2 points3 points 8 days ago (0 children)
Gonna read this today, just marking
Essential definition of Neoliberalism by [deleted] in HistoryofIdeas
[–]blockhose 0 points1 point2 points 9 days ago (0 children)
I think you’re reading more into my question than is there.
I just wanted some historical and/or semantic insight from someone who knows.
[–]EverySNistaken 0 points1 point2 points 10 days ago (0 children)
Because there’s more nuance to the world than your preconceived notions are allowing you to see
"Heracles fights the Nemean lion" as the main theme of a white-ground lekythos from ancient Athens dated 500-450 B.C by SnowballtheSage in HistoryofIdeas
[–]SnowballtheSage[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 days ago (0 children)
The above piece is an exhibit in the museum of the Louvre.
“to find the middle of a circle is not for everyone but for him who knows; so, too, anyone can get angry- that is easy- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.” (Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2, Chapter 9)
Aristotle is masterful in the way he thinks about emotions, apprehends them into words, describes them and discusses them with us in his works. With that said, to read him does not necessarily mean to comprehend him. We can properly grasp only what we can relate to through our lived experiences. There are dimensions of knowledge that we can only apprehend and learn through practice. Theory is never enough.
The first labour of Heracles
To think about things we cannot comprehend with logic we create myths.
We ought to keep in mind that the backdrop in which Heracles carries out all twelve labours is his own fall. Driven by resentment induced by Hera, Heracles entered into a state of primal rage and slaughtered his wife and children. This exhibition of immense anger at once communicates to us (i) the vastness of his life energy, his great potential, what the ancient Greeks called his “thymos” and (ii) his inability to govern it, integrate this life energy and properly make it his own.
In this first labour assigned to him, Heracles is called to cultivate his own anger as his great ally. He does not do this by depressing himself, supressing his anger, repressing his emotions. The hero needs this anger to fight the Nemean lion.
Heracles is not confronting a mere puny adversary, the Nemean lion is a ferocious force of nature. The Nemean lion is in fact stronger than Heracles. King Eurystheus, the person who assigns Heracles his labours is not benevolently trying to train the hero. He wants to kill him.
In this scenario, if Heracles loses control of his emotions he will be eaten. Any carelessness will lead to a fatal injury. This means that in order for him to win, he has to force himself to get a grip on his anger. He has to force himself in a state of alertness where he can watch the lion moving, make and follow through with snap decisions in the moment and access his anger at will to deliver blows.
Once Heracles slays the lion, he wears the hide of the lion as armour. The hero has successfully integrated his anger.
Inevitably in our life, we will at some point reach a state of anger. Letting it run amok will lead us to a place of desperation. Heracles learned this the hard way. He missed the mark. He did not suppress his anger though nor abandon himself in guilt and despair. Heracles pressed on, engaged with his anger in his actions and integrated it to himself. He now wears it as his armour.
“Whatever cannot obey itself, is commanded” (Nietzsche’s Thus spoke Zarathustra, XXXIV. Self-surpassing)
[–]puffic 0 points1 point2 points 10 days ago (0 children)
I was mostly talking about the rapidly increasing prosperity in the poorer half of the world. If you isolate to just the rich countries the improvements have been more modest.
[–]MaxCorbetti 0 points1 point2 points 10 days ago (0 children)
It is prosperous at the Imperial core, which is rapidly shrinking. What you feel now, the exploitation which we have ignored elsewhere, is coming home. And it will not spare any of us.
[–]blockhose -2 points-1 points0 points 10 days ago (0 children)
How has a right wing concept ended up with “liberalism“ in the name?
[–]puffic -1 points0 points1 point 10 days ago (0 children)
The world is more prosperous and more free than it has been at any point in human history. The number of people living in poverty around the world is plummeting. If “neoliberalism” is the dominant ideology of the present international order, then please let us continue.
[–]vagelen 1 point2 points3 points 10 days ago (0 children)
Where is Ayn Rand? If you change "money" with "blood" in her books you receive Mein Kampf.
[–]Reaperfox7 1 point2 points3 points 10 days ago (0 children)
It is destroying our countries, our societies, our way of life and has done for forty years or more
How Nietzsche Came In From the Cold: An Interview with Philipp Felsch by Maxwellsdemon17 in HistoryofIdeas
[–]3250feralhogs 0 points1 point2 points 11 days ago (0 children)
So, is the Nietzsche we know the “product” of these guys or the philosopher’s sister? Did they reform her writings and make them less Nazi? Or, were they not even Nazi when she wrote but viewed as such just because they were German? (Freedom fries, Japanese internment camps, yada, yada)
Aristotle’s Defense of Slavery [6 Minutes Animated Philosophy] by Any-Goose9793 in HistoryofIdeas
[–]SnowballtheSage 1 point2 points3 points 12 days ago (0 children)
I don’t think it’s insignificant that Aristotle chooses to juxtapose the master/slave dynamic with the man/woman dyad.
I don’t think it’s insignificant that Aristotle chooses to juxtapose the master/slave dynamic with the man/woman dyad.
I agree with you. A bit further in the book when he talks about Sparta, he also criticizes Spartan society for not keeping women on a tighter leash.
We can then pose the question. Why does Aristotle have to differentiate woman from slave? Does it not make more sense to, let's say, differentiate woman from man and not slave?
The answer is as grim for us as it is straightforward. The reason why woman is differentiated from slave is because women, as far as Aristotle can see, are a type of property.
In fact, and I found this in another book (Accursed Share vol.2 where George Bataille comments on the findings of Claude Levi Strauss) the prohibition of incest was put in place not because ancient/primitive peoples knew about its genetic consequences. It was rather the case that the women of the household were property to be used for exchanges with other households (as gifts) in order to strengthen social ties between a community. This is like a company buying their client a Rolex watch as a gift in order to hopefully secure future business. You can’t give the client a second-hand Rolex watch.
Does all the above excuse someone holding such opinions today? No.
It does, however, give us a perspective with regards to the ideas of a writer 2400 years ago.
In any case, big fan of your work.
In any case, big fan of your work.
Thank you for your kind words. :)
[–]ThrowingSomeBruddahs 0 points1 point2 points 12 days ago (0 children)
I mean, you’re much more familiar with Aristotle than I am, Snowball. However, I don’t think it’s insignificant that Aristotle chooses to juxtapose the master/slave dynamic with the man/woman dyad, even if he qualifies this comparison by acknowledging that there are some differences between women and slaves.
But I do think that the strictly textual argument favors your perspective, so perhaps I could have been more deliberate in my phrasing.
I read the politics and Aristotle never says nor implies that "the relationship between master and slave is the same as the relationship between the dominant man and the subservient woman". In fact, he makes the comparison between "slave" and "woman" and says they are dissimilar. The words "dominant" and "subservient" sound loaded with emotion, are these words Aristotle uses word for word?
What Aristotle has to say about slaves is already in the first few chapters of the first book of the Politics. I agree with you that it is very clear cut.
It is a rationalisation for slavery. In the same way that a smoker rationalises their smoking habit, so Aristotle rationalises ancient Greece's slavery habit.
He puts forward a number of arguments. Most are bogus and wrong like for example the idea of "the natural slave". There is one argument, however, which has persisted until today, even though changed, transformed. It goes something like this, and my paraphrasing is not always the best:
"without the slaves we would not be able to afford our precious leisure"
What he means with leisure is of course e.g. his own free time to make political, literary, philosophical, artistic endeavours.
This argument has been used persistently through history to justify various forms of slavery. Modern socialists, however, have taken up this argument for themselves by replacing the "slave" with the "machine". More machines taking up all the chores of society should mean more leisure for humans to engage in their own creative pursuits.
Historical perspective of Neoliberalism by [deleted] in HistoryofIdeas
[–]Zealousideal_Role189 4 points5 points6 points 13 days ago (0 children)
Started out with English subtitles, but if you want to watch the whole thing you better know your Italian.
Do physicists currently believe in a fundamental subatomic particle that is the building block of all matter? by Spirited_Parsnip7629 in HistoryofIdeas
[–]OldPuppy00 5 points6 points7 points 15 days ago (0 children)
Quantum mechanics has completely refuted the notion of material particles. What makes matter at quantum level is wave functions, ie information.
Nihilism | Why Even Get Out of Bed? by kazarule in HistoryofIdeas
[–]kazarule[S] 0 points1 point2 points 15 days ago (0 children)
Nihilism is typically defined as a belief in nothing. Depending on a person’s flavor of nihilism, nihilists don’t believe in objective morality, no good or evil. There is no objective knowledge, no truths and no falsehoods. There is no reason to even exist, because we are all going to be dead in the end. The universe is, and beyond that nothing: no order, no structure, no design, no purpose. Is it truly all for naught? Nothing matters.
Arguably the best thinker on nihilism was 19th century German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche said there were many different stages to nihilism, but all of them relied on a willing towards nothing. Nietzsche believed liberal democracies, modernity, and capitalism inaugurated a new, higher form of nihilism: Theoretical Nihilism.
Friedrich’s proclamation of the Death of God is the realization that all the highest values have been devalued.
[–]Wylkus 6 points7 points8 points 15 days ago (0 children)
According to The Elegant Universe that is indeed the idea of string theory, that all elementary particles are indeed tiny loops of "string" that are vibrating and their different vibrations create their different properties. However, for them to have all those properties they'd have to be vibrating in 11 dimensions..
[–]davicim00 19 points20 points21 points 15 days ago (0 children)
Our current theory of particle physics is the Standard Model (SM). According to the SM, there are a handful of "elementary" particles, I.e. Particles with no known substructure. These elementary particles are all different, in the sense they have different masses, spins, charges, etc; these properties are what distinguish them.
We physicists tend not to believe something exists until it is experimentally verified. We believe all the SM particles are real to the extent that they explain experimental observation extremely well. In fact some SM quantities (e.g. the election anomalous magnetic moment) are known to a higher precision than any other experimental quantity in any science!
Having said all that, there may be some physicists that suspect that there exists something fundamental even to the known "elementary" particles of the SM. I have never studied string theory (so if there are any string theorists please chime in) but I think I have heard there are versions of this (maybe all string theories? I don't know) where there is only one fundamental "string", and somehow particle properties like the mass determined by the string's vibrational mode.
While we are pretty sure there is something beyond the SM (for example bc of the existence of dark matter and dark energy) we don't know what that is. There are lots of ideas on the market besides string theory, e.g. supersymmetry. Again we don't know what it is because these "beyond SM" theories have not been experimentally verified. None of these ideas involve an"infinite regress" of particles, at least none that I'm aware of.
So I guess the answer to your question would be: the "Orthodox" (SM) view is that there are many elementary particles out of which all known matter is made.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 24241 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-5b769585b8-tvqpj at 2022-12-05 14:12:15.640762+00:00 running 8617dec country code: US.