u/aleppihno

Good evening everyone,

As a passionate student of ancient philosophy, I was thinking about this connection starting from Aristotle's idea of God, which becomes pure actuality and therefore the first final cause toward which everything tends.

The Stoics define Nature in a very similar way, as something toward which everything tends and which allows everything to reach its best form.

What do you think? Is this comparison too risky, or are there actually similarities between the two ways of thinking?

Here an article that I wrote trying to explain that

Good evening everyone,

Thinking about this connection starting from Aristotle's idea of God, which becomes pure actuality and therefore the first final cause toward which everything tends.

The Stoics define Nature in a very similar way, as something toward which everything tends and which allows everything to reach its best form.

What do you think? Is this comparison too risky, or are there actually similarities between the two ways of thinking?

Buonasera a tutti,
da appassionato di filosofia antica avevo ragionato su questo collegamento partendo dall'idea di Aristotele su Dio, che arriva a diventare atto puro e dunque causa finale prima a cui tutto tende.
Gli stoici definiscono la Natura molto similmente come ciò a cui tutto tende e che rende così tutto nella sua migliore forma.
Che ne pensate? E' un paragone troppo azzardato o ci sono effettivamente delle somiglianze nei due ragionamenti?

Qua sopra un articolo scritto da me che prova ad argomentare le cose dette...

Let me explain: Parmenides argued that true reality is accessible only through reason while the senses show a world of change and contradiction, lead only to false opinion (doxa).

On the other side solipsism made a different but quite similar move saying that the only thing we can be certain of is our own consciousness and everything else might just be a projection of the mind.

Parmenides wasn't a solipsist — we can't say that - but both philosophies share a big distrust of the senses, and a search for a certainty that cannot be doubted.

​

So what do you think? Are they actually similar? Can we say that Parmenides is a protosolipsist?

​

Here a short piece exploring this connection, would love to hear what you all think: https://oltrelacaverna.lovable.app/articoli/la-radicalizzazione-della-certezza-parmenide-solipsismo

Although Gorgias lived more than two thousand years before the internet, some of his reflections on logos seem surprisingly relevant to the modern problem of fake news.

​

In the Encomium of Helen, Gorgias describes speech as a powerful force capable of influencing emotions, beliefs, and judgments. Words do not simply communicate reality; they can shape the way reality is perceived.

​

Fake news appears to follow a similar dynamic.

​

A false claim begins as communication, generates beliefs in its audience, and can ultimately influence how people interpret the world around them. Even when the content is false, its consequences can be very real.

​

This raises an interesting question: does Gorgias anticipate the idea that persuasive communication often shapes perceived reality more powerfully than truth itself?

​

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on whether this comparison is philosophically convincing.

​

Linked here an external article that try to explain that.

​

​

​

​

​

Although they belong to very different philosophical traditions, both seem to reject the idea of a fully completed human being existing prior to experience. Aristotle's concept of the mind as a tabula rasa and Sartre's claim that "existence precedes essence" raise an interesting question: how much of who we are is given, and how much is built through experience and choice?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on whether this comparison is philosophically convincing.

Ciao a tutti,

Negli ultimi mesi ho lavorato a un progetto personale chiamato Oltre la Caverna, una piccola rivista online di filosofia.

L'idea non è tanto quella di presentare singoli filosofi, ma di seguire il percorso delle idee attraverso epoche e autori diversi, cercando di mostrare come certi problemi e concetti si trasformino nel tempo.

Mi interesserebbe sapere cosa ne pensate del concetto in sé e se trovate utile questo modo di raccontare la filosofia così da migliorarlo sempre più nel tempo.

Ogni critica o suggerimento è ben accetto.

Hi everyone,

Over the last few months I've been working on a personal project called Oltre la Caverna, a small online philosophy magazine.

The idea is not so much to present individual philosophers, but rather to trace the journey of ideas across different eras and authors, showing how certain problems and concepts evolve over time.

For example, some articles connect ancient themes with contemporary issues, such as the relationship between Gorgias and the modern phenomenon of fake news.

I'm interested in hearing what you think about the concept itself, and whether you find this approach to philosophy useful or engaging.

Any criticism, feedback, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi everyone,

I recently started a philosophy blog/magazine focused on connecting ideas from different thinkers and historical periods.

I'm currently trying to improve both the writing and the user experience, so I'd be grateful for any feedback regarding readability, design and article structure.

Thanks in advance! Please give me your opinion!

Hi everyone,

I recently launched a small online philosophy magazine as a personal side project.

Instead of focusing on individual philosophers, the articles follow the evolution of ideas across different historical periods.

The project is still in its early stages.

Thank youu

Hi everyone, I’have just published my own philosophy web sites that points to prove how the same philosophical ideas and thoughts change along the time…I advice you to explore this web sites and just give your opinion about the sites’ idea and the articles that I wrote…thank you

Hi everyone,
I recently launched a small philosophy website called Oltre la Caverna.
The main idea is to explore how philosophical concepts and questions evolve across different thinkers, historical periods, and perspectives. Rather than presenting philosophy as a collection of isolated theories, I try to highlight the connections between them and how similar ideas reappear in new forms over time.
I've written the articles myself, and I'd genuinely appreciate some feedback and opinion  on both the concept of the site and the articles.

Thank you!