/lit/ - Literature

>>6046477
>>6046479


There are many things which we don't apprehend with the senses, but rather with the intellect. Numbers and formal objects for instance.

Science is extremely valuable. That doesn't mean it has a full purchase on the truth.

>>6046452

You would be kind of wrong.

>>6046445

You need to go back and read the Greeks or else nothing I could say would possibly make any sense to you.

>>6046422

It's pretentious, pedantic, and it tries to make not knowing jack shit about the history of philosophy into a badge of honor.

This wouldn't be so bad if they had actually accomplished anything that they had promised to do but instead they just turned philosophy into a giant word game circle jerk that goes nowhere but pretends it's a science. And this wouldn't be so bad if they didn't have their noses up in the air about the rest of non-analytic philosophy being "nonsense."

If people started with the Greeks analytic philosophy wouldn't exist. It's literally the worst movement in the history of philosophy.

>>6046392

There's much more to the world than empirical data my fedora wearing friend. Maybe before posting in a Hegel thread you should go back and start with the Greeks. :^)

>>6045259

Because analytic philosophy has failed to put philosophy on the course of a secure science and therefore its injunction to forget the rest of the history of philosophy should be disregarded.

Analytic philosophy has only been groping at the problems of philosophy for around a hundred years. If analytics ever bothered to educate themselves on the history of philosophy they would realize that people had already thought through most of the shit they're trying (and failing) to understand. The analytics set philosophy back 2000 years.

If you actually study the history of philosophy it will explode whatever notions you have of analytic philosophy having some kind of special purchase on the truth. Analytic philosophy seems laughable and childish when compared with the accomplishments of the greats.

tl;dr you'll gain a much better understanding of the problems of philosophy if you study the tradition as a whole instead of the pathetic analytic attempts to resolve the questions of philosophy.

>>6045807

To the best of my knowledge Spinoza doesn't really address the question of Being.

>>6046104

Read Plato.

>>6045446

Nothing.

This is perfectly conceivable within any particular metaphysical system. This has implications for physics perhaps, but not metaphysics.

>>6045290
Post-modernism has nothing to do with solipsism.

>>6044999

Modernism is basically enlightenment era thought. Belief in the power of reason and science to increase our understanding and better humankind.

Post-modernism is a reaction against and a critique of modernism. Post-modern thinkers think modernism gets caught in lots of false dichotomies that fail to cut reality at the joints such as subject-object, fact-value, and so on. Another common trend in post-modern thought is the critique of scientism and nihilism.

These are both somewhat superficial definitions but this is a very tricky subject.

>>6044272

Someone tell me if this is bait because I really can't honestly tell.

>>6044924
I will be monitoring this thread because I am curious to see what kind of stupid things christians will have to say about this.

To the best of my knowledge no such argument exists.

>>6043388
Yes he was.

The Greeks inhabited Anatolia for quite a long time.

>>6044649
This is the best Zizek bait I've read in a while.

Can we just hijack this into a general Zizek thread?

Anyone have his latest book? I'm quite enjoying it atm.

That said, I don't think he is a great philosopher or anything just a fun guy to read with some keen political insights.

>>6044017

You appear to not have filtered me.

Do you have any idea what the guy I was trying to get to explain himself was trying to say?

>>6044009
Don't worry, I'll be back every day to call people like you out on their bullshit.

Think of me as a gadfly on the face of /lit/ (that's an Apology reference just in case you don't actually read fucking philosophy outside of wikipedia articles)

>>6043998

Do you have anything besides vacuous shitposting to back up your arguments or can I go to bed now?

>>6043986

I couldn't agree more right now. :^)

>>6043977
[citation needed]

Also, do you just not have an argument that the noumena is a contradiction in terms?

Why are you saying this if you can't back it up?

This is supposed to be philosophy not the /r/muh opinions

>>6043965

It's getting late so I'm not going to respond to everything you said.

Okay, so Hegel didn't say it. You could have said that much longer ago.

So this is simply a conclusion you have arrived at on your own.

Why?

Give me your argument that the noumena is a contradiction in terms.

>>6043930
>being this ignorant
>2015

stay mad bro

>>6043949
I'm talking about the picture of Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel, which is of the 4 main German Idealists,

not the picture of Plato, Nietzsche, and Kant, which is just about the fact that German Idealism fits within the philosophy section generally.

I can't believe I'm taking all this bait right now.

You still have yet to address the main issue at hand.

How is it the case that the noumena is a contradiction in terms and where does Hegel say this?

>>6043955

>Hur dur why don't I just teach you Kant

Kant never maintains that the concept of the noumena is a contradiction in terms.

Can you define contradiction in terms? I don't think this phrase means what you think it means.

>What are you even asking for?

I'm asking for you to show me where Hegel says that the noumena is a contradiction in terms. Is it in the Logic? The Encyclopedia? The Phenomenology? A page number or at least a chapter I could look at would be helpful.

>>6043936

>Implying I'm the one embarrassing myself here.

You came here with your opinions and I asked you to account for them. You have so far failed to do anything to clarify them besides send me to wikipedia articles which don't say anything like what you remotely said.

How is the noumena a contradiction in terms?

Where does Hegel say this? Or do you mean to tell me that he doesn't actually say this to the best of your knowledge?