This had a way of obscuring Aristotle, at least for me
Something Oedipal going on here perhaps?
This is a problem that is probably intrinsic to philosophy itself- even if you’re right about something the philosophical spirit rubs off on people and they are driven to challenge you. So, things that are right get turned upside-down.
In fact I’m doing that very thing to a few mentioned in the highlighted text right now! I’m not going to presume they were wrong to turn to Socrates, let’s just take a look at Heidegger’s own opinion about it
Aristotle dealt with this basic phenomenon of δóξα quite often and in various ways. It is the phenomenon that is widely discussed in the late Platonic dialogues, above all in the Theatetus, Philebus, and Sophist. It is a self-evident, hermeneutical rule that these phenomena discussed by Plato can be approached through Aristotle, where they are extended further and become clearer than they are in Plato. The perspective is opened up for that which Plato did not see
δóξα = doxa = unreflective opinion
So, Plato wrote about doxa in a way that was itself doxa, at least according to H.
That’s my definition of doxa above at least- H’s is “having a view about something,”
“about that, I am of the view,”.
Doxa is appearing, seeming. It is that which is deconcealed (aletheia). This is similar to nomos vs. physis. One has doxa about physis.
Doxa is contrasted with ζήτησις, seeking. In seeking one is following the telos of a doxa. The telos of doxa is deconcealment.
Like I’ve said, even with a beginner’s understanding of the Greeks one sees how things “move” better than most people. There’s a legitimate science (Επιστήμη, Episteme) to this stuff. And knowing how to follow the telos of a doxa can get you in lots of trouble with the Jerusalemites who live purely in doxa.
Even more- follow the telos of the doxa of rightism and one will reach places many will find cold and inhuman. That was always the point of Platonism, to remove what is all-too-human from the Forms.
While some of these distinctions made might seem tedious at first glance I think they demand meditation
δóξα is no longer a seeing, but stands at the end of seeing… although it is a yes, it is still not a knowing.
I.e. there’s something quasi-philosophical about adopting an opinion. We have an opinion because we believe we have the logos of X or Y, and in a sense we do. There’s not ONE opinion on earth that people believe purely randomly, there’s always some logos behind it, however slight.
Zoom-out for a second and reflect on how H’s writings on Aristotle are more in the form of a treatise than a dialogue. The dialogue form is one of Plato’s strengths over Aristotle in my opinion, because there’s less “telling” you what to believe. Aristotle’s treatises are more or less a dialogue with Plato’s dialogues themselves though, and H is in dialogue with them. And the ones who took H’s Aristotle courses and turned to Socrates are in dialogue with H. And now we’re in dialogue with them.
It’s kind of funny how 99.999% of dialogues ARE opinions, and not about WHAT opinions are. People who really know what they’re talking about, I’m sure.
“Aristotle is boring, I only like it when you talk about how people need to be publicly hanged.” Grow up. Without people like Aristotle you’ll never know if you’re in fact the bad guy who needs to be hanged.
Everyone thinks they know what the truth is. One cannot simply “critique the jews”, one must also seek the truth and not dwell in negation.
The letter ω looks like boobies – there, are you happy now? This is the letter Omega, I’m sure the “omega males” will appreciate this one. Seriously though, what is it about breasts that make you have the thought to trade the whole world for them? Spooky magical powers connected with hunger, and the eternal infant that lives in each of our brains. If you think I’m going to give you a telos of the doxa of breasts, you’re wrong, I’m dropping the subject. Women are going, “No, that’s my POWER!” You can have the power of the Greeks and your breasts at the same time, imagine that.
It’s possible to be in the clouds and in your body at the same time, you know? I’m truly not sure if women and other bioleninists do know this. And I take it as an open question in the current year whether abstraction can be learned. Probably some type of monastic setting is required, because the doxa of their supposed “friends” keeps them in a muck-pit like rubbery slime. My site has easily gone beyond any existing feminist literature by the way, so your loss if this only makes you “mad”.
“The telos of doxa about the hebrews makes me sick!!” Okay, then you do not have the physis for an episteme about that. I like to pretend I’m speaking to rational adults who have the capacity to understand ANYTHING. The infinite potential of the human soul. And usually I’m proven wrong.
“Okay Jimmy Neutron, what about the telos of the doxa of hot dogs and corn, and horses!” I already knew about this years before I became the object of scapegoating. People use that only to hide everything I say because they can’t leave their doxa. I am at the moment unfolding the telos of this doxa, and they are unable to seek any further than where they are, because that is their telos. If you “boobies” level consciousness people really want to know, in my experience vaginas have varying sensitivity, so I’ll probably have to find a woman without the female equivalent of erectile dysfunction which is the plight of many whores who wear it as a badge of honor.
Know that when I speak of the “rabble” a significant part of what I’m implying about them is that they are “crackheads” in a sense. Yeah, sex is an important part of life. The question is, can you talk about that AND be abstract? Usually the rabble has no faculty for philosophy at all. They live for pleasure and the avoidance of pain like animals and don’t think about things. I don’t think I’m the bad guy for wanting them to put more effort in. Having a soul is about effort, it’s easy to talk about how much of a crackhead you are.
Be thankful I join you down here in the world. Most academics reading this H course will not say these things to you, because they know how the mob reacts to particular doxa being telos’d. They don’t understand, they are not born for anything besides doxa, and they will only hate you for making an episteme about their physis.
Anyway, some of these Greek words are baffling. It doesn’t feel right to rely on H alone for their interpretation, and I wish there were more major thinkers who discussed the vocabulary of the foundation of western philosophy.
προαίρεσις for instance means anything from “moral character”, “will”, “volition”, “choice”, “intention”, or “moral choice” and we find H making the following statement
It should be noted that προαίρεσις had been interpreted by previous philosophy, by Plato, as a certain kind of δóξα.
Remember, this post began by speculating about whether H’s students were right to turn away from Aristotle. Looking at these old courses of his, it’s clear that none of them were able to match him, so I’m reconsidering my own “devil’s advocate” turn myself. Maybe H was just right, maybe we have to admit it. Hipster millennials, you can use your own telos to stop being a hipster millennial.
Know what would be a relief to me? If someone followed the telos of the ZOG doxa in a convincing way. Unfortunately I only find bad faith actors with corrupt natures that pretend to do that.