/lit/ - Literature

>>4634233
forgot pic

MUH ESSENTIALISM

Things have essences, get over it. The "everything is constructed, there are no essences" philosophy is patently absurd.

How has Aristotle changed your life?

>>4113153
>muh prose
Plebeian.

Alright, so this is not the perfect place to ask.. but out of all the boards, this seem the most appropriate.. And I mean you're all a bunch of faggy pseudo-intellectuals so how bad could this go..

I'd like to see what philosophy is all about. Where do I start? If you could pick one book to introduce you to philosophy, which would that be?

And possible further discussion - why the hell do people take sides in these theories? I mean I shouldn't try to seem like I understand it all before I have studied it - but it's my understanding that philosophy is just a bunch of reasonable arguments one way or another with no proof to anything what so ever.. (even the philosophies about what one may know or not).. So what the hell is the point in taking a side? Isn't it better to just take it all in and like.. be open minded from that point?

So /lit/

I've been wondering....

How hard is it to become a professor of philosophy? Do you have to get a PhD? Also, what other jobs can one get with a philosophy degree if not a professor?

Are there any private trackers or similar sites for ebooks? Specifically textbooks. I'm trying to find Introduction to Logic 14th edition by Copi & Cohen, and the price to rent the book from the school for two months is $100, which is fucking ridiculous.

Are aesthetics and ethics always circular logic?

I WARNED EM I WARNED HIM NICE AND CLEAR BUT WHAT WHAT WHAT AWE SHIEET BITCHES MAFUCKIN UP SHIT NIGGGGGGGS

So Aristotlers,

I'm writing a paper for my ethics class comparing what Aristotle and Mill would think on three different topics. My topic: capital punishment. The primary text for Aristotle is Nicomachean Ethics -- we can't use anything else.

So, to start my argument I want to contrast what the two think about KILLING, and whether or not it is intrinsically evil to kill someone. In 1107a 18 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that MURDER is under all circumstances base. Making sure I've got the language correct here -- by murder he means the wrongful killing of someone, under law, correct? He's not actually saying killing is at all times base? And if not, does he ever specifically say that? Am I completely off base to begin my argument saying that neither Mill nor Aristotle believe killing to be intrinsically evil?

If Aristotle is the Antithesis of Plato, why has over 15,000 pages of Neoplatonic commentary on Aristotle survived to this day?

Hi /lit/! I am in need of ideas. I have a 2000 word paper to write utilising Arisotelian persuasive appeals (Logos, Ethos, Pathos, Logical Fallacies, Logical Manipulation etc). What should I write the paper about? Ideas, please.

My favourite style of persuasive writing is satire.