/lit/ - Literature

>>22673022
Same as it ever was.

Your argument has the appeal to consequences / wishful thinking fallacy baked into it btw.

Consider how many versions of Christianity there are, and how many ways there are to justify different actions under Christian theology. There are versions of Christianity which advocate slavery, and now there are versions which preach tolerance and gay marriage. Furthermore, consider how many other religions there are, advocating many different things, from percentage of charitable giving to human sacrifice to genocide. Religion does not provide the certainty you hope it does.

>>19224202
>"We intuitively believe in something and we're going to try to prove why we're right with utter bullshit"
This is my experience with a fair amount of philosophy. I saw an interview with Peter Singer, the interviewer asked him if his ethical model of minimising suffering lead to anti-natalism, he replied that it's an unpleasant conclusion so he argues against it. Literally the logic of pic related.

Theses days I'm often led to argue with my best bro on ignorance
My bros and the pthers often says that ignorant people cannot change, as by definition they think that they are right, and are too ignorant to ever become aware and change, thet people are either ignorant, or prone to change

But me and my endless optimism keeps thinking that they can change, whatever how long or hard it will be for them to do so, still, exterior things often "prove" them right, and I cant give a lot of examples because when someone change, then they say that they didnt have this "ignorant" status from the beginning

However, this conclusion is very sad, and Ihave problems accepting something like this, I like my optimism, thats why I also ask for opinions and thoughts here: Can an ignorant ever change his mindset and become aware on his status ? Isnt the ignorant term by itself just an insult as it lock someone in a case though ? Or is this "case" real and are there really people who can't, by themselves or others, change ?

>>14743316
>how do i grow out of nihilism?
By recoiling in horror at the true extent of what it entails and cowardly retreating back into illusion, taking comfort in magical thinking, self-aggrandizement and self-delusion.

See
>>14746149
>>14746164
>>14747446
>>14747300
For examples.

>>12917899

Does Singer and other vegantards even have an answer to this if you think yes (other than pic related)? It's supposed to be this whole "haha I've caught you in a moral conundrum" thing but it isn't really.

>>12590183
>How does someone believe in anything spiritual nowadays?

see pic

PHILOSOPHY BTFO

>>11508468

>I've accepted that materialism is a terrible way of living
Just buy a hooker, lose your virginity and you'll get over it.

>>9603637
> atheists like the world
> god created the world

> therefore I was special enough to be born into the one true religion out of the 4000 around today and countless dead ones through all history

> "because: Jesus said so" unironically

Every cult ever makes it's claims based on things that are known to be true. Just because one cult tapped into the same ideals many other cultures earlier and later tapped into doesn't mean they are right about all these unrelated unfounded claims. "L Ron Hubbard told me if I don't worry about anything I"ll be happier, guess i have a brainwashed alien soul living inside because he was right on this one thing"

The Bible is a decent book though, I normally don't like the whole scientism stuff but that reasoning is just painful. I clicked this thread to see people trash talk Zizek

What are the refutations, if any, against the cogito?

Also, are there any arguments against logic itself? Who gets to say that deductive reasoning works?

>>8119494
Look here faggot >>8114628

>>8119505
>all these assumptions
Also philosophy is not supposed to be interesting you degenerate faggot.

>>8119541
>There's no reason to believe perfect simulations of reality are possible through technology in this universe, the computing power required would be immense to the point it would need quantum computing, which is probably impossible.
Ah right quantum computing and... stuff I guess, or some math too... or huh yeah, yeah you seem to know what are you talking about, you convinced me. I bet you hold degree in phil from some third league uni, judging how sloppy your thinking is comparing to how willing you are to discuss.

Ahh fuck, this thread.

English, philosophy, art history, and film studies are interesting to me but I'm also weeaboo trash into East Asian cultural studies.

What the fuck do I choose, /lit/. Any essential texts in any of these subjects that'd give a better picture of the field?

(Doing STEMfag double major ftr.)

Also what are your major(s) and what are you doing now?

>>5715095
>tfw Hegel wanted you to reject his philosophy of history so that you can finally attain freedom and thus prove him right

>>4593192
Mathematics deals with the abstract in a rigorous, logical and intelligent manner. Philosophy on the other hand means "I choose to believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me". Philosophy is the perpetuation of infantile religitardation under the guise of pseudo-intellectualism.

>>4574861
>philosopher
>can't think outside the box
Why am I not surprised?

>>4574869
>philospher
>too autistic for common sense
Why am I not surprised?

>>4526476
How does studying philosophy give you better qualifications when talking about ethics? Does philosophy put ethics on an objective basis?

>>4526497
What is the objective philosophical answer? Can philosophy answer that question without "muh feelings" garbage? Can philosophy produce tangible results? Please tell me. How would a philosopher answer your question, objectively?

>inb4 hurr durr it isn't objective
Then how can your question be an argument in favor of philosophy, if it only demonstrates how philosophers fail to answer it?

>implying it is possible to fail a philosophy exam
>implying there is anything objective in philosophy
>implying you can't write any inane garbage and declare it "philosophy" as long as you making sound pseudo-intellectually loquacious

>>4400721
>Yes, there have been; though not as big as Godel's.
[citation needed]

>metaphysics [...] is in fact is the foundation(s) of physics
Top lel. You clearly know nothing about physics.

>the most intelligent board of 4chan
That would be /b/.

no

>>4363128
What contemporary philosophy? There is no contemporary philosophy. Philosophy died in the 19th century when science and math made it obsolete.

Hard mode: What is transcendental?

I heard "You must change your life" by contemporary philosopher Peter Sloterdijk combines philosophy with self help. Also, it is like 700 pages or something, but since Sloterdijk is, as far as I know, an important philosopher (despite looking like a mad redneck) people won't laugh at you for reading such books.

Also, his name is pronounced Slaughter Dyke. What more could you want?

I'm actually looking for opinions on it, I haven't read it yet.