/lit/ - Literature

>>18572337
You can find many similarities between different ideologies, but it never goes beyond being a fun exercice in intellectual thought.
Your opinion is fine. Just provide arguments.

>>18478713
Question of freedom of will is not the question of neuroscience.
Of course you can read brain scans. You could also invent the Laplace's demon and predict everything. That's not the point.
When people talk about freedom of will they mean that some thoughts are inherent to a person, whether they have a cause or don't. It's a question of definitions and classifications.
You still have to make a choice every morning, don't you?
Even though you choice of cereal in the morning is determined in a way, it's still your choice. You can't blame others for it.

>>18451700
There is no reason for the split - it's a matter of taste.
There is a 100-year-old argument about skepticism vs naive realism.
Skeptics (almost every postmodernist) claim that we have an access to our experience, but we have no access to the reality
Naive realists (Moore et al.) claim that we have no access to our experience, but there is an access to reality as it is.

Common trend among analyticists is to spit on skepticists because Moore's philosophy is too hard for them to comprehend.

>>18198800
>More people are able to live comfortable lives now, more can read and write, is this not an advancement?
This implies the existence of objective values like comfort and literacy, albeit there is no such thing as objective values.
The problem is that the claim "being literate is better than being illterate" is subjective normative statement.

>>18157326
>Peterson has some valid psychology
You know that both of them basically are fans of Lacan, right? Their philosophies are based on the fear of the Real and finding the ways to cope. They are very similar

>>18131570
This is me irl

>>18124107
The best option is to ask your dad.
If you don't have a dad or your relationship is bad...well, it sucks. Go ahead and join the military.

>>18121204
It's fine. I'm gona post this video again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvTGaPzF4

>>18093310
Don't read him - it's much better to watch lectures about him, because his own schemes don't make any sense outside of his philosophy and you will just be laught at if you mention them.
Literally any lecture of Lacan would be better.

>>18035549
>trammels the valid axiom of reality being independent from what we petty humans feel or think.
What do human really feel or think? Is it verifiable?
What is the nature of reality?

>postmodern philosophy, which, although clearly heterogenous, is deeply irrational
Irrationality is not a thing in philosophy

>I get angry when I hear these ideas
Examples?