Sophism: unknowable universe = no higher concepts = no rules for reality = no moral rules for humans. Inevitably this devolves into Platonist authoritarianism along the lines of “it doesn’t matter WHAT we agree on, but we have to agree on SOMETHING in order to get along”.
Platonism: Plato was the original dualist, despite that being so often credited to descarte. But the ultimate issue that pulls any dualist system apart is the “interaction problem”. The interaction problem is problem of correlating the “physical world” with the forms/numena/brahman/etc “other world” of the dualist system, eg: “how does the higher spirit influence my life?” Sub components of this include the argument from contradiction of consciousness, the problem of evil, and the conflicts of laywisdom vs “the experts”.
Aristotelianism: The main issues are the problem of free will (ie: free will vs determinism) and the “attributes vs essences” problem (eg: “where is the humanity in ‘man’?”).
The cycle goes as follows:
1) Sophists ask good questions, but engage in Sophistry while providing no useful answers.
2) Platonists propose real answers, but couched in an “other” that partially concedes the sophist argument, but at least offers any solution to sophist hedonism. Plus, they solve issues aristotelianism (at least historical versions) doesn’t such as free will (eg: your spirit is in the “other”, unlike your body). However, the interaction problem causes the gap between the esoteric thinkers and those who deal with concrete reality to widen until the disconnect it causes trust in Platonist systems to collapse due to lack of trust.
3) Aristotelian essences or related systems restores that trust by bridging the gap: the “other” is actually WITHIN the physical thing it pertains to. However, inconsistencies in HOW this works causes trust in this system to collapse. This combined with “the problem of free will” (ie: if everything follows laws and is causal, then how can objectivity be possible? Wouldn’t the contents of my mind, thereby, just be what circumstance MAKES me think, true or untrue?).
4) Trust in the reliability of the higher orders of concepts set up by Platonists and refined by aristotelians get “critical theoried” apart until they are treated as “constructs” or “optional” or “subjective”. From there, the cycle returns to sophistry.
It is no coincidence that this follows Spengler and the common “4th turning” meme… the “great men make good times. Good time make weak men. Weak men make hard times. Hard times make great men” meme. In fact, this cycle is concurrent with it and serves as a foundation explanation of it.
quoting note12vl…nw8gSeriously. The more I see “Kant and Hegel via pinker, and Plato via Marx, but not the OGs” the more annoyed I get at the state of modern academia.
ALL philosophy students should start with the sophists (Heraclitus and Parmenides), then Plato and Aristotle, THEN work towards the present from there. It is only by following philosophy chronologically and tracing its history can one see the patterns and the triggers for the cycles we see in history. Only through THIS insight can one see the flaws in each philosophical system that permits these cyclical transitions, the pros/cons of each system and, therefore, where the major problems of philosophy that allow these shifts lie. note1gcm…p00a