Who destroyed philosophy?

Enlightmen destroyed classical philosophy, back then we wondered and pondered upon simple things, how they were made, how they function ..etc, now that they'r explained, discovered and clarifyed it's just about getting on using various knowledge.

Soc and Ari wasn't the only philosophers in history, sure some of their principles still stands, but that's only minescule.

Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?

someone2010 wrote:

Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?

Well, to be logical we must consider when these four were born, right? Because assuming that all of these men philosophized and that that wouldn't have been possible had philosophy been destroyed, then it doesn't seem as though we would have a strong case to say that a philosopher that died way before another who philosophized, destroyed philosophy.Example: How would we make the case that Kant destroyed philosophy, if we know that Wittgenstein philosophized 150 years later? And, since we know that there are modern day philosophers, even the man with the latest death in your bunch (Heideggar, 1976), doesn't seem to a suspect for the destroyer of philosophy.

So, in conclusion, I submit that none of these men destroyed philosophy.

That is right, and the question remains, what is the philosophy which is supposed to have been destroyed?

kennethamy wrote:

That is right, and the question remains, what is the philosophy which is supposed to have been destroyed?

I suppose he meant that the activity that is philosophizing, or critical thinking, was in some way tainted or disturbed by the works of these particular philosophers. What that means exactly, I do not know.

Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?

someone2010 wrote:

Was it kant, wittgenstein, heidegger, or nietzsche?

Quote:

none

inotherwords to destroy philosophy means to destroy thought

hasn't happened

I don't think he meant a particular philosophy, or even specific works of a philosopher. I think he was speaking of philosophy in the abstract. X philosopher destroyed philosophy, is some way of saying that X philosopher abused the idea of philosophy in some way. It would be akin to someone saying, "Steroids are destroying baseball!". Some people have said such things, and they mean that steroids are unsportsmanlike, and that the unfair advantage is making the sport look bad. Maybe he meant that one of those philosophers was giving philosophy a bad image, or was misusing or convoluting the term "philosophy" in some way. I don't know what else it would mean.

HexHammer wrote:

Soc and Ari wasn't the only philosophers in history, sure some of their principles still stands, but that's only minescule.

I thought that the point was the charge that philosophy had been destroyed. But if philosophers still do what Socrates and Aristotle did, then how can philosophy have been destroyed? Of course Socrates and Aristotle were not the only philosophers in history, but those who claim that philosophy has been destroyed ought to explain what they mean when they say that, if they do not mean that what Socrates, and Aristotle, (and Descartes or other philosophers) did has not been destroyed, but remains. What, then, has been destroyed?

kennethamy wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Soc and Ari wasn't the only philosophers in history, sure some of their principles still stands, but that's only minescule.

I thought that the point was the charge that philosophy had been destroyed. But if philosophers still do what Socrates and Aristotle did, then how can philosophy have been destroyed? Of course Socrates and Aristotle were not the only philosophers in history, but those who claim that philosophy has been destroyed ought to explain what they mean when they say that, if they do not mean that what Socrates, and Aristotle, (and Descartes or other philosophers) did has not been destroyed, but remains. What, then, has been destroyed?

Just because we use a few % of classical philosohy, doesn't mean it's alive. I don't see how "spontanious genesis" is valid, I don't see how ANY of Kirkegaard has any meaning, but delusional naive ramblings ..etc.

If philosophy is not alive, then what would it be for philosophy to be alive? What (according to you) is it not?