Philosophy Now Forum

I called this essay, "Metaphilosophy", because I am talking about the overall question and nature about Philosophy and various schools of thought within Philosophy. I believe that "Metaphilosophy" may show some keys to how Philosophy works, the origin of Philosophy from a phenomenological and universal standpoint, which may possibly bring a synthesis to the exactness of Life in its entirety.

In my deep endeavors into various philosophical schools - being mainly in the schools of thought that are associated with metaphysics and spirituality; as well as looking a bit outside of that school of thought to expand my knowledge on the development of philosophy - I have started to grasp that every single philosophy, even though there are varying opinions of philosophy, discourses on one thing, which is Life. Of course, I do not believe that this is in any way a 'special revelation' to me, as there are philosophers whom have tried to find some sort of syncretism of philosophies; such as Kant, Hegel, and others such as possibly Deleuze (although I have not looked too deep into him and his philosophy, but do know at least some of the basics of it).

Life can be looked at in several different angles; the many schools of philosophy attests to this fact. There are those who are optimists, and those who are pessimists or nihilists. There are those who ponder upon Metaphysics, and then those who either skeptical of Metaphysics (Empiricism), or reject it altogether (Logical Positivism - an extreme of Empiricism). There are philosophies within religion, psychology, politics, social sciences, etc - all of these branches which have developed within the existence of humanity itself. It is quite obvious to many who study philosophy that the many schools of thought share differing viewpoints: the main viewpoints which have been most notable (in my opinion) are Rationalism and Empiricism. But then there are schools of thoughts within these two main camps; there are factions upon factions with different names that have differing dogmas that make up their philosophies.

But how are all of these philosophies the same? They are the same in that they are describing different ways and different versions of what existence, life, and being is; however, the reason of the plurality within Philosophy is that the schools of philosophy have a set of organized dogmas, much like religion, which allow and prohibit certain beliefs. The one example that I have talked about in my other thread was the debate between Rationalism versus Empiricism. It talked about the 'conflict' between those who believed that the mind has the answers to questions regarding life (Rationalism), and those who solely rely on sensory data for answers (Empiricism). You can view this thread here:

Rationalism & Empiricism: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=13366

Now the Rationalists are right in that we can think about things, to try and make sense of certain confusing things in order to find answers. Likewise, the Empiricists are also right in that the mind isn't always 'workable' in certain areas, such as Science; so thus, we use our senses to know for sure on things. However, both are also wrong in that they both limit the capacity to find human knowledge and Truth, to whatever part of a human body, or possibly beyond the human body (ie. consciousness).

Another example, which goes hand in hand with the prior example, is our capacity to gain human knowledge, and also, to discern Truth from the sea of knowledge. We are indeed capable of processing what is being seen or what is being told (a posteriori), and also capable of using intuition and thought as guidance (a priori). However, we are also limited in how we use these methods of inquiry, and how much information that we can possibly handle. It goes back to whatever school of philosophy one may be in, and as people searching for an identity, our attachment to certain beliefs and opinions are what determine our perspective on existence. For instance, I may know what I have learned and what I have made sense of based on the things that I have explored into (ie. Philosophy, Politics, History, Music, Spirituality); however, there are things that I do not know about; possibly because I simply haven't explored them but also because I may find disagreements in things that I do not know about or haven't explored too much further into.

So really, this has to do with our limitedness of ourselves, which has to do possibly with human nature and how much we test the boundaries of consciousness. It is pitted against the inherent limitlessness of Life itself; the vast sea of knowledge that may or may not have been touched to. The explanation would have to do with the paradoxical human condition: that we are both god-like, or perfectionists, and yet we still have this 'animal' side to us. This is something that not only philosophy, but religion, has delved into and pondered on for many years. It could possibly be true that we have fallen from the original condition of man, as stated in the Bible, and talked about in various metaphysical thoughts from Plato to Hegel. There is something that is still hard to grasp, which is why we don't seem to have gotten this puzzle fixed, which is shown in the plurality within Philosophy.

Socrates says in the Gorgias that "philosophy always holds to the same". Now, if philosophy always holds to the same, how is there "different schools of philosophy"? There is none.

2nd. Hegel ended tradtional Western philosophy. Hegel was a kabbalist and therefore not a philosopher. He rejected facts.

There is only one true philosophy. All the rest are sophists or sham philosophers.

Clinias wrote:Socrates says in the Gorgias that "philosophy always holds to the same". Now, if philosophy always holds to the same, how is there "different schools of philosophy"? There is none.

2nd. Hegel ended tradtional Western philosophy. Hegel was a kabbalist and therefore not a philosopher. He rejected facts.

There is only one true philosophy. All the rest are sophists or sham philosophers.

Philosophy goes way beyond Socrates, and actually does span countless opinions and perceptions. Though indeed there is Truth that exists in the world, it is a good thing that there is plurality in philosophical thoughts as many of us have varying opinions and experiences. If there was an imposing of one philosophy against the entire world, then there would be opposition from other people and there would be oppression as well in trying to force everybody on the same page.

Also, rejecting Hegel just because he was a Kabbalist does not discredit him as a philosopher. Kabbalah, as a matter of fact, is steeped into Platonic and Neoplatonic thought, which is found in the Tree of Life since I see that you are fond with ancient Greek thought which would include Socrates as well as Plato. You will also find that renaissance philosophers, such as Pico de Mirandola, Marcilio Ficino, and Henry Cornelius Agrippa, were interested in this form of mysticism. So thus, Kabbalah is a legitimate form of inquiry into Philosophy.

Another thing, can you please bring evidence that Hegel was a Kabbalist? Can you also answer how Hegel rejected facts?

At the risk of repeating myself...

I'm sure you're on the right track here. There is a "natural" aspect of humanity and there is an aspect that has been thrust upon us by language. Complicating this is that language once upon a time was part of the natural aspect of being human and many concepts related to this "animal" side of us survive in language. Now language is divisive and confusing where it once served primarily for communication. Now we think in language and this language imposes its own order and ideas on users.

I believe metaphilosophy would arise naturally from ironing out more of the weaknesses in language. I believe much of this would be automatic if we merely taught more metaphysics in schools from a very early age. The first thing a young child should be taught is the nature of scientific observation and the second thing is its meaning and applicability to knowledge ( metaphysics). This instruction in science should then focus not only on understanding processes and nature but on metaphysics as well right up until one gets his doctorate.

As is almost every "theory" is correct from its perspective and definitions. Those which are wrong will simply implode as more is learned.

We can't have a natural language ever again but we can do a better job of communicating. We can do a far far better job of understanding what we know and our limitations. If we don't come to do these latter things when man will someday actually be able to destroy himself or the planet rather than only in make-believe, then we will destroy ourselves when the ability becomes widespread. We may do so even sooner.

To Wanderinglands:

Socrates and Plato both were "combatting the sophists". That means that they were trying to preserve true philosophy from sham philosophy. ("not a sham philosopher", Rep. 485e; "not the sham philosophers", Sophist, 216c) Now, to have "sham philosophers" means that not every body who opens their mouth or puts pen to paper is a philosopher. Why make that distinction, if it wasn't serious; if there was no weight to false philosophy? The Sophists were NOT philosophers. Protagoras was NOT a philosopher. Just because someone says "I am a philosopher" is a philosopher.

Now Wanderinglands, if you checked the thread Origin of Philosophy there is a link to a book that discusses all your questions already about Hegel but I will post just the pertinent stuff here:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). The story is told that when a student of his observed that the facts contradicted his theory, Hegel looked at the man severely over his spectacles and said: “All the worse for the facts”. (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1990, 488, #1150) Hegel had an epiphany that human thought “ought to govern reality, instead of the other way around”. (Oxford, “Hegel”, p. 341) {From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates p. 54}

What Hegel is expressing is a "contempt for reality". If Plato defined philosophy as "the goal of reality", Hegel is NOT a philosopher. Hegel doesn't care for reality. And as the quote says from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, humans ought to govern reality. That is what progressives want to do. There are no facts. They do want they want to do. Hegel is an idealist, a sophist but not a philosopher.

Again:

This is all solidified by George Lichtheim, in his book The Origins of Socialism, who states in the form of a question, that the followers of Hegel realized that he,

-- “…brought traditional philosophy to a close”!
(p. 156) {From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, p. 55}

Now, to bring "traditional philosophy to a close" means that Hegel is NOT a philosopher. He has NO right to the title because the science of philosophy was created by the Doric Greeks; it is their science--their terms. Hegel knew exactly what he was doing.

And then check out Magee, Glenn Alexander (2001) Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press. Online library; retrieved from Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage
Learning. http://www.questia.com

Hegel was a Judiazer; he destroyed classical Western thought and brought in the Jewish way of thought.

“These include, in broad strokes, a Masonic subtext of “initiation mysticism” in the Phenomenology of Spirit; a Böhmean subtext to the Phenomenology's famous preface; a Kabbalistic-Böhmean-Lullian influence on the Logic; alchemical-Paracelsian elements in the Philosophy of Nature; an influence of Kabbalistic and Joachimite millennialism on Hegel's doctrine of Objective Spirit and theory of world history; alchemical and Rosicrucian images in the Philosophy of Right; an influence of the Hermetic tradition of pansophia on the system as a whole; an endorsement of the Hermetic belief in philosophia perennis; and the use of perennial Hermetic symbolic forms (such as the triangle, the circle, and the square) as structural, architectonic devices.” (p. 2)

The Austrian aristocrat Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who has done much study on the intellectual currents that formed Fascism, writes in a nutshell that

“…Hegel is the mentor of Marx and Treitschke, hence the trailblazer of socialism, nationalism and statism. Marx gave his doctrine to German, Austrian and Czech socialists alike. Treitschke, on the other hand, influenced Schönerer, and Schönerer influenced Hitler. Marx is also behind French socialism, which produced Sorel, who in turn is admittedly the spiritual father of the young socialist Mussolini, the admirer of Hus. And Mussolini influenced Hitler.” (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1993, 211){From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, pg 56}

Hegel is responsible for International Socialism and Fascism. The biggest killer of the 20th century was International Socialism, i.e. communism. Hegel--a philosopher? What a joke!

edit

Clinias wrote:To Wanderinglands:
Socrates and Plato both were "combatting the sophists". That means that they were trying to preserve true philosophy from sham philosophy. ("not a sham philosopher", Rep. 485e; "not the sham philosophers", Sophist, 216c) Now, to have "sham philosophers" means that not every body who opens their mouth or puts pen to paper is a philosopher. Why make that distinction, if it wasn't serious; if there was no weight to false philosophy? The Sophists were NOT philosophers. Protagoras was NOT a philosopher. Just because someone says "I am a philosopher" is a philosopher.

Philosophy simply means "love of wisdom", and anybody can partake in search of this wisdom. I agree that there are those who were that of the Sophists; however, this should prompt the individuals themselves to search for Truth and to see it through their own eyes, as each individual does indeed want to have their own path as they have their own identities. If we were to simply restrict philosophy to Plato and Socrates and impose it on everybody, then we would be just as dogmatic sheep just as we would be sheep if we were to follow any Sophists. There's always conflict and opposition, and so trying to destroy this opposition would amount to oppression greatly.

Clinias wrote: Now Wanderinglands, if you checked the thread Origin of Philosophy there is a link to a book that discusses all your questions already about Hegel but I will post just the pertinent stuff here:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). The story is told that when a student of his observed that the facts contradicted his theory, Hegel looked at the man severely over his spectacles and said: “All the worse for the facts”. (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1990, 488, #1150) Hegel had an epiphany that human thought “ought to govern reality, instead of the other way around”. (Oxford, “Hegel”, p. 341) {From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates p. 54}

What Hegel is expressing is a "contempt for reality". If Plato defined philosophy as "the goal of reality", Hegel is NOT a philosopher. Hegel doesn't care for reality. And as the quote says from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, humans ought to govern reality. That is what progressives want to do. There are no facts. They do want they want to do. Hegel is an idealist, a sophist but not a philosopher.

Again:

This is all solidified by George Lichtheim, in his book The Origins of Socialism, who states in the form of a question, that the followers of Hegel realized that he,

-- “…brought traditional philosophy to a close”!
(p. 156) {From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, p. 55}

Now, to bring "traditional philosophy to a close" means that Hegel is NOT a philosopher. He has NO right to the title because the science of philosophy was created by the Doric Greeks; it is their science--their terms. Hegel knew exactly what he was doing.

And then check out Magee, Glenn Alexander (2001) Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press. Online library; retrieved from Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage
Learning. http://www.questia.com

Hegel was a Judiazer; he destroyed classical Western thought and brought in the Jewish way of thought.

“These include, in broad strokes, a Masonic subtext of “initiation mysticism” in the Phenomenology of Spirit; a Böhmean subtext to the Phenomenology's famous preface; a Kabbalistic-Böhmean-Lullian influence on the Logic; alchemical-Paracelsian elements in the Philosophy of Nature; an influence of Kabbalistic and Joachimite millennialism on Hegel's doctrine of Objective Spirit and theory of world history; alchemical and Rosicrucian images in the Philosophy of Right; an influence of the Hermetic tradition of pansophia on the system as a whole; an endorsement of the Hermetic belief in philosophia perennis; and the use of perennial Hermetic symbolic forms (such as the triangle, the circle, and the square) as structural, architectonic devices.” (p. 2)

The Austrian aristocrat Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who has done much study on the intellectual currents that formed Fascism, writes in a nutshell that

“…Hegel is the mentor of Marx and Treitschke, hence the trailblazer of socialism, nationalism and statism. Marx gave his doctrine to German, Austrian and Czech socialists alike. Treitschke, on the other hand, influenced Schönerer, and Schönerer influenced Hitler. Marx is also behind French socialism, which produced Sorel, who in turn is admittedly the spiritual father of the young socialist Mussolini, the admirer of Hus. And Mussolini influenced Hitler.” (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1993, 211){From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, pg 56}

Hegel is responsible for International Socialism and Fascism. The biggest killer of the 20th century was International Socialism, i.e. communism. Hegel--a philosopher? What a joke!

I've read a bit of your paper, except for the section on Hegel, and I find it very interesting. However, there are some misconceptions to your view on Hegel. One, as Ginko pointed out, Hegel was an absolute idealist; his philosophy was based on finding absolute knowledge in separating it from the vast sea of perceptions. You can find this simply by reading Phenomenology of Spirit, where he goes into great detail of using what's called the 'Hegelian Dialectic' to find Absolute Truth. Also, the Nazis did not regard Hegel as a favorite philosopher. One such example is Alfred Rosenberg, who denounced Hegel in his book Der Mythus des Zwanzigsten jahrhunderts.

The Hegel Myth and Its Method by Walter Kaufmann: http://www.hegel.net/en/kaufmann1959.htm

Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. The Nazis’ official “philosopher,” Alfred Rosenberg, mentioned, and denounced, Hegel twice in his best-selling Der Mythus des Zwanzigsten jahrhunderts. Originally published in 1930, this book bad reached an edition of 878,000 copies by 1940. In the same book, a whole chapter is devoted to Popper’s beloved Schopenhauer, whom Rosenberg admired greatly. Rosenberg also celebrates Plato as “one who wanted in the end to save his people [Volk] on a racial basis, through a forcible constitution, dictatorial in every detail.” Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato.

Here's also "Wasn't Hegel a Nazi?" from the Hegel FAQ of the same website.

http://www.hegel.net/en/faq.htm#1.4

Nazi ideology is based on two key concepts: the subdivision of world's inhabitants into a hierarchy of biological races (and, as a consequence, anthropological nominalism); an irrational exaltation of force, action and violence on reason, thought and law and order. Both principles are utterly incompatible with Hegel's political philosophy.

Hegel's main concept, "Spirit", cannot in any case be identified with the one of "race". Already in the "Phenomenology" Hegel heavily criticizes pseudo-scientific doctrines which claim to be able to explain human behaviour through "exterior and accidental" details such as the form of the head or the characteristics of the body.

According to Hegel, one of the major conquests of Christianism (and then of the French Revolution) was the discovery of the concept of "human being" as such. In his "Philosophy of Right" (1821), he claims that it is no longer important whether one is called French, German, Jew or Italian, because these characterisations are sublated in the very concept of "human being".

Moreover, Hegel is a staunch supporter of law, codification and rationality against "tradition" and "feeling". In his "Philosophy of Right" he declares that the respect for the codified law is the "shibboleth" distinguishing the true philosopher from the dangerous fanaticist.

Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that Hegel's philosophy was explicitly rejected by Adolf Hitler in his Table Talks of 1940.

Another point mentioned is that Hegel may have influenced Marx, but Marx was more materialist while Hegel was more into metaphysics.

WanderingLands wrote:

Clinias wrote:To Wanderinglands:
Socrates and Plato both were "combatting the sophists". That means that they were trying to preserve true philosophy from sham philosophy. ("not a sham philosopher", Rep. 485e; "not the sham philosophers", Sophist, 216c) Now, to have "sham philosophers" means that not every body who opens their mouth or puts pen to paper is a philosopher. Why make that distinction, if it wasn't serious; if there was no weight to false philosophy? The Sophists were NOT philosophers. Protagoras was NOT a philosopher. Just because someone says "I am a philosopher" is a philosopher.

Philosophy simply means "love of wisdom", and anybody can partake in search of this wisdom. I agree that there are those who were that of the Sophists; however, this should prompt the individuals themselves to search for Truth and to see it through their own eyes, as each individual does indeed want to have their own path as they have their own identities. If we were to simply restrict philosophy to Plato and Socrates and impose it on everybody, then we would be just as dogmatic sheep just as we would be sheep if we were to follow any Sophists. There's always conflict and opposition, and so trying to destroy this opposition would amount to oppression greatly.

Clinias wrote: Now Wanderinglands, if you checked the thread Origin of Philosophy there is a link to a book that discusses all your questions already about Hegel but I will post just the pertinent stuff here:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). The story is told that when a student of his observed that the facts contradicted his theory, Hegel looked at the man severely over his spectacles and said: “All the worse for the facts”. (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1990, 488, #1150) Hegel had an epiphany that human thought “ought to govern reality, instead of the other way around”. (Oxford, “Hegel”, p. 341) {From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates p. 54}

What Hegel is expressing is a "contempt for reality". If Plato defined philosophy as "the goal of reality", Hegel is NOT a philosopher. Hegel doesn't care for reality. And as the quote says from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, humans ought to govern reality. That is what progressives want to do. There are no facts. They do want they want to do. Hegel is an idealist, a sophist but not a philosopher.

Again:

This is all solidified by George Lichtheim, in his book The Origins of Socialism, who states in the form of a question, that the followers of Hegel realized that he,

-- “…brought traditional philosophy to a close”!
(p. 156) {From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, p. 55}

Now, to bring "traditional philosophy to a close" means that Hegel is NOT a philosopher. He has NO right to the title because the science of philosophy was created by the Doric Greeks; it is their science--their terms. Hegel knew exactly what he was doing.

And then check out Magee, Glenn Alexander (2001) Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press. Online library; retrieved from Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage
Learning. http://www.questia.com

Hegel was a Judiazer; he destroyed classical Western thought and brought in the Jewish way of thought.

“These include, in broad strokes, a Masonic subtext of “initiation mysticism” in the Phenomenology of Spirit; a Böhmean subtext to the Phenomenology's famous preface; a Kabbalistic-Böhmean-Lullian influence on the Logic; alchemical-Paracelsian elements in the Philosophy of Nature; an influence of Kabbalistic and Joachimite millennialism on Hegel's doctrine of Objective Spirit and theory of world history; alchemical and Rosicrucian images in the Philosophy of Right; an influence of the Hermetic tradition of pansophia on the system as a whole; an endorsement of the Hermetic belief in philosophia perennis; and the use of perennial Hermetic symbolic forms (such as the triangle, the circle, and the square) as structural, architectonic devices.” (p. 2)

The Austrian aristocrat Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who has done much study on the intellectual currents that formed Fascism, writes in a nutshell that

“…Hegel is the mentor of Marx and Treitschke, hence the trailblazer of socialism, nationalism and statism. Marx gave his doctrine to German, Austrian and Czech socialists alike. Treitschke, on the other hand, influenced Schönerer, and Schönerer influenced Hitler. Marx is also behind French socialism, which produced Sorel, who in turn is admittedly the spiritual father of the young socialist Mussolini, the admirer of Hus. And Mussolini influenced Hitler.” (Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, 1993, 211){From The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, pg 56}

Hegel is responsible for International Socialism and Fascism. The biggest killer of the 20th century was International Socialism, i.e. communism. Hegel--a philosopher? What a joke!

I've read a bit of your paper, except for the section on Hegel, and I find it very interesting. However, there are some misconceptions to your view on Hegel. One, as Ginko pointed out, Hegel was an absolute idealist; his philosophy was based on finding absolute knowledge in separating it from the vast sea of perceptions. You can find this simply by reading Phenomenology of Spirit, where he goes into great detail of using what's called the 'Hegelian Dialectic' to find Absolute Truth. Also, the Nazis did not regard Hegel as a favorite philosopher. One such example is Alfred Rosenberg, who denounced Hegel in his book Der Mythus des Zwanzigsten jahrhunderts.

The Hegel Myth and Its Method by Walter Kaufmann: http://www.hegel.net/en/kaufmann1959.htm

Hegel was rarely cited in the Nazi literature, and, when he was referred to, it was usually by way of disapproval. The Nazis’ official “philosopher,” Alfred Rosenberg, mentioned, and denounced, Hegel twice in his best-selling Der Mythus des Zwanzigsten jahrhunderts. Originally published in 1930, this book bad reached an edition of 878,000 copies by 1940. In the same book, a whole chapter is devoted to Popper’s beloved Schopenhauer, whom Rosenberg admired greatly. Rosenberg also celebrates Plato as “one who wanted in the end to save his people [Volk] on a racial basis, through a forcible constitution, dictatorial in every detail.” Rosenberg also stressed, and excoriated, the “Socratic” elements in Plato.

Here's also "Wasn't Hegel a Nazi?" from the Hegel FAQ of the same website.

http://www.hegel.net/en/faq.htm#1.4

Nazi ideology is based on two key concepts: the subdivision of world's inhabitants into a hierarchy of biological races (and, as a consequence, anthropological nominalism); an irrational exaltation of force, action and violence on reason, thought and law and order. Both principles are utterly incompatible with Hegel's political philosophy.

Hegel's main concept, "Spirit", cannot in any case be identified with the one of "race". Already in the "Phenomenology" Hegel heavily criticizes pseudo-scientific doctrines which claim to be able to explain human behaviour through "exterior and accidental" details such as the form of the head or the characteristics of the body.

According to Hegel, one of the major conquests of Christianism (and then of the French Revolution) was the discovery of the concept of "human being" as such. In his "Philosophy of Right" (1821), he claims that it is no longer important whether one is called French, German, Jew or Italian, because these characterisations are sublated in the very concept of "human being".

Moreover, Hegel is a staunch supporter of law, codification and rationality against "tradition" and "feeling". In his "Philosophy of Right" he declares that the respect for the codified law is the "shibboleth" distinguishing the true philosopher from the dangerous fanaticist.

Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising that Hegel's philosophy was explicitly rejected by Adolf Hitler in his Table Talks of 1940.

Another point mentioned is that Hegel may have influenced Marx, but Marx was more materialist while Hegel was more into metaphysics.

Wanderinglands,

Yes, Hegel was an absolute idealist. Plato was an objective idealist, however, there is a good argument for him being a transcendental idealist.

Yes, Marx did turn Hegel on his head and reformulated his ideas into a materialist conception of history.

As you also point out the literature on this points is extensive.

First off, Socrates and Plato BOTH STRESS that true philosophy is only for a few. Socrates again stresses only certain types of character can do philosophy. Much of the Republic deals with character training, and training of the soul. How the Doric Greeks achieved generational true philosophers was by the rigourous training their boys started at the age of seven in their agoges! Intensive, ascetic, and virtue training. Virtue comes first in philosophy. No virtue---no philosophy. Another thing no vanavsos (banausos) can do philosophy. Philosophy needs leisure. Some people have a character for philosophy---many people do not.

Philosophy does not impose. Unless it is communally done like with the Doric Greeks. Wisdom/philosophy was done in service to the state and to the God. What is The Good for that nation? Then society is ordered to The Good. That is when it become autocratic. Otherwise, is a missionary activity. Socrates did not impose anything but set the example.

The only thing I am doing is preserving and teaching True Philosophy that was the creation of the Doric Greeks. The term was coined by Pythagoras, himself, like Socrates, an emulator, admirer and disciple of the Doric Greeks. Pythagoras is carrying Doric/Appoline teaching.

True again, Diogenes Lauretes (sp) taught there were two divisions (a) the dogmatics and (b) the skeptics. DL was not exact, half of his catalogue are not philosophers. True philosophy is dogmatic. You have to obey the good. You have to do the good.
-----

Onto Hegel. Hegel of course is not a National Socialist. Hegel influenced Schroneer. NAZI stands for National Socialist Workers Party. They were Socialists. In the book Elements of Socialism, all socialists were idealists! Hitler was a revolutionary. At the Beer Hall Putsch, he yelled "Let the Revolution begin". He was a great hater of the aristocracy and king. He was an egalitarian, a leveller. They all were. Nazi were idealists. Idealism is traced to Hegel and the Kabbala.

As I stated in the book, The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, if there was no International Socialism (i.e. communism) there would have been no National Socialism. Hegel is the progenitor of both. He started the path. Why? Because humans control reality and can decide what is real.

---

Hegel is very wrong on the idea of universals and particulars. He destroys particularity. If you know Jewish ideology, Jewish messianism requires the destruction of particularism. This is part of getting rid of reality. Particularity is Important. It has value. I discuss that in the book under Polylogicism. Philosophy, true philosophy does not destroy the Natural Order. See, the Natural Law is duality. There has to be universality and particularity. True philosophy will not destroy anything in the Natural Order. True philosophy is about respecting the Natural Order. Jewish messianism and Hegel's idealism seeks to mangle, destroy the Natural Order. That is NOT philosophy. The Natural Order is the product of the Logos. Philosophy is a servant of the Logos, a lover of the Logos.

Clinias wrote:First off, Socrates and Plato BOTH STRESS that true philosophy is only for a few. Socrates again stresses only certain types of character can do philosophy. Much of the Republic deals with character training, and training of the soul. How the Doric Greeks achieved generational true philosophers was by the rigourous training their boys started at the age of seven in their agoges! Intensive, ascetic, and virtue training. Virtue comes first in philosophy. No virtue---no philosophy. Another thing no vanavsos (banausos) can do philosophy. Philosophy needs leisure. Some people have a character for philosophy---many people do not.

The reason why I don't agree that philosophy is simply for 'the few', is because it is elitist in nature. The reason why people, or the 'banausos', are 'unable' to learn or do Philosophy, is simply because of the bureaucratic system(s) that has been put in place itself that segregates people into classes. Had they actually have gotten an education like those of the higher classes, instead of being forced into a specialized labor, they may have been able to do Philosophy.


Philosophy does not impose. Unless it is communally done like with the Doric Greeks. Wisdom/philosophy was done in service to the state and to the God. What is The Good for that nation? Then society is ordered to The Good. That is when it become autocratic. Otherwise, is a missionary activity. Socrates did not impose anything but set the example.

The only thing I am doing is preserving and teaching True Philosophy that was the creation of the Doric Greeks. The term was coined by Pythagoras, himself, like Socrates, an emulator, admirer and disciple of the Doric Greeks. Pythagoras is carrying Doric/Appoline teaching.

'True Philosophy' is not restricted to the Doric Greeks, especially considering when Greek philosophy is practically the similar to those of the eastern philosophies of Persia, India, Egypt, and Babylon. Socrates and Plato were one of many who were talking about the Metaphysical or higher realm of things, which have different names for this 'higher realm' (Ether, Forms, Planes of Existence, Nirvana, Heaven, etc); and Pythagoras was said to have learned under the Egyptian Mystery schools to learn about the esoteric knowledge of the Egyptians. So really, Greek philosophy, or Doric Greek philosophy specifically, is not so much as different especially in regards to talking of the higher realm, or 'the Good'.

True again, Diogenes Lauretes (sp) taught there were two divisions (a) the dogmatics and (b) the skeptics. DL was not exact, half of his catalogue are not philosophers. True philosophy is dogmatic. You have to obey the good. You have to do the good.
To the last point on Philosophy: skepticism is indeed a good thing to be encountered into, in order to actually know whether or not what you are believing of is Truth or not. Even Socrates used some form of skepticism, when it came to testing the Oracle's saying that he was 'the wisest man on earth' (there's also the Socratic method which involves asking questions for inquiry into things). Without having openness outside of your preferred camp, you would miss whatever piece that's outside your perception of things, and so you would have a limited world view. You cannot prescribe to a 'True Philosophy', without using your own thinking and logical reasoning (as well as observation) to find for yourself if it's correct.

Response is in blue.

Clinias wrote: Onto Hegel. Hegel of course is not a National Socialist. Hegel influenced Schroneer. NAZI stands for National Socialist Workers Party. They were Socialists. In the book Elements of Socialism, all socialists were idealists! Hitler was a revolutionary. At the Beer Hall Putsch, he yelled "Let the Revolution begin". He was a great hater of the aristocracy and king. He was an egalitarian, a leveller. They all were. Nazi were idealists. Idealism is traced to Hegel and the Kabbala.

As I stated in the book, The Case of the Barefoot Socrates, if there was no International Socialism (i.e. communism) there would have been no National Socialism. Hegel is the progenitor of both. He started the path. Why? Because humans control reality and can decide what is real.

The 'National Socialist Party' may have had elements of Socialism, but they were in also nationalists and indeed were aristocrats, in that they believed in the concept of the 'master' Aryan race. When they got into power in the 1930s, they downplayed the 'socialism' part and amplified instead the concept of race and nationalism, particularly German Nationalism. They were certainly not egalitarians.

Clinias wrote: Hegel is very wrong on the idea of universals and particulars. He destroys particularity. If you know Jewish ideology, Jewish messianism requires the destruction of particularism. This is part of getting rid of reality. Particularity is Important. It has value. I discuss that in the book under Polylogicism. Philosophy, true philosophy does not destroy the Natural Order. See, the Natural Law is duality. There has to be universality and particularity. True philosophy will not destroy anything in the Natural Order. True philosophy is about respecting the Natural Order. Jewish messianism and Hegel's idealism seeks to mangle, destroy the Natural Order. That is NOT philosophy. The Natural Order is the product of the Logos. Philosophy is a servant of the Logos, a lover of the Logos.

You should know that Plato himself wasn't interested in the concept of 'particulars' either, and had put a large emphasis on universalism, hence his Theory of the Forms. Hegel was also influenced by Plato, and so were Jewish philosophers, such as Philo of Alexandria, Maimonides, etc. Hegel was merely trying to find the 'Synthesis' within the particulars, or dialects; it does not necessarily imply the end of 'duality', but in fact shows the underlying synthesis between those two dualities, which are mainly the thing in-itself (individual) and the thing out-itself (existence), which is what Hegel has mainly been focused on.

The study of philosophy's proper place in the universe of thought is a study properly for philosophy.

Some strange comments on Hegel here. As an absolute idealist he would naturally endorse Kabbalism, but this would not make him a Kabbalist. He would naturally endorse the Upanishads, but without becoming a Hindu. etc.

The OP is interesting but doesn't seem to invite comments.The diversity in philosophy is unsurprising. Reality is good at hiding its secrets.

The source of this diversity is the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories, coupled with a widespread inability to 'grok' why they are absurd.

When we acknowledge their absurdity the diversity immediately evaporates, since they must be abandoned. This normalises philosophy on non-dualism -which was more or less Hegel's position.

>The source of this diversity is the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories, coupled with a widespread inability to 'grok' why they are absurd.

All? So nobody understands the actual truth of things? I'm fishing for what you mean because your user of "positive" here doesn't parse for me.

>When we acknowledge their absurdity the diversity immediately evaporates, since they must be abandoned. This normalises philosophy on non-dualism -which was more or less Hegel's position.

Non-dualism is wrong for the same reason dualism is wrong; that the truth is that both are true up to but not including the parts about the other one being wrong. Most versions of compatiblism are also wrong for various reasons. Strict deterministic materialism is true. But we exist on a metaphorical overlay of that Actuality that we call Reality, which includes things like compromise, mind, feelings, win/win, paradox...

>Virtue comes first in philosophy. No virtue---no philosophy. Another thing no vanavsos (banausos) can do philosophy. Philosophy needs leisure. Some people have a character for philosophy---many people do not.

Virtue ethics are insufficient because they do not account for circumstancial outcomes (consequentialism, roughly) or the duty to continually check the truth of one's beliefs. What is needed is Priority ethics, so that there can be an indelible understanding of Truth at the base, for everyone, followed by Virtue as the appropriate way of knowing how to Be in general to produce good effects, followed by Consequence, when virtue isn't sufficient, followed by Duty when Consequence isn't sufficient. Priority > Virtue > Consequence > Duty (Duty ethics are actually an abdication of moral authority but can be appropriate, like rules, as a fill-in when constructive knowledge is unavailable.)

"Philosophy needs leisure." is why even most philosopers, and especially academics, never accomplish anything; they've prioritized having a life or being subservient to the system. They simply don't have time to take many ideas to their logical extreme, which is necessary to check for defects. As for character, that demonstrates to the need for at least a dual-caste system of Eloi and Morlock. Not everyone wants, needs, or is capable of participating in higher-order (of complexity) thought, but higher order thought is necessary to create a sustainable and well-functioning society.

>The reason why I don't agree that philosophy is simply for 'the few', is because it is elitist in nature.

You've written that off as a bad thing but it's the Best thing. Elitism means the best people for the job have the job - the ultimate meritocracy. It's not a title that can be simply conferred by position (and it's certainly not appropriate to give to people because they were born wealthy). Philosophy is the most important thing in the human universe and cannot be practiced by everyone effectively, even though everyone should try. It's for the few because of natural ability, not to mention natural predilection. It's not possible or necessary for everyone, and that's inherent, not a limitation based on ego or power problems of others.

>The reason why people, or the 'banausos', are 'unable' to learn or do Philosophy, is simply because of the bureaucratic system(s) that has been put in place itself that segregates people into classes. Had they actually have gotten an education like those of the higher classes, instead of being forced into a specialized labor, they may have been able to do Philosophy.

*a reason. I've done more philosophy than most professional philosopers despite having no resources because i've "sacrificed" (they were never adequately available to me anyway) having a family, friends, life in order to do it. So access to philosopers isn't the problem for most people, especially in the age of the internet, it's time and interest. Having an education in philosophy sounds great, and is great to a point, but aside from introducing the concepts, most philosophy education is definitively inferior to the Stoa method. You'll easily find an old dude in the hood who can't read and write but is a better philosoper than a typical philosophy instructor.

>The only thing I am doing is preserving and teaching True Philosophy that was the creation of the Doric Greeks. The term was coined by Pythagoras, himself, like Socrates, an emulator, admirer and disciple of the Doric Greeks. Pythagoras is carrying Doric/Appoline teaching.

You presume that the original idea of philosophy is better somehow than a modern version. That is a logical fallacy. Even to the extent they had things right, a modern understanding is necessary to determine how, because they knew fuckall about the universe.

>True philosophy is dogmatic. You have to obey the good. You have to do the good.

Heh. No. Dogma is belief without reason, the polar opposite of philosophy.