/lit/ - Literature

>>11794598
>i meant that philosophical inquiry doesn't respond its own question
that's why a guy like bateson matters. it's about learning to ask questions in the right way, such that in a sense philosophy comes more to resemble or at least borrow from the experimental hypotheses you get in science. we have to bring a theory about knowledge with us and refine it as we ask questions, sometimes revising it or throwing it out altogether and starting with something new.

i kind of like bateson for this reason. it means that you have to basically bring something to the table with you. but it's not the same thing as critique of ideology, where you're always just dissecting critically whatever is there in front of you and reducing it to atoms. it means ideology is inescapable, it's just part of your own conatus in a sense. the point is not to reduce the world to your level, or to just drown in sentimentality and mysticism, but to find that resting point of productive disequilbrium and inquiry. where we aren't just engaged in ever-deeper levels of trying to fool ourselves out of confirmation bias by way of language games.

philosophical inquiry may have this irreducibly critical dimension that maybe can be internally reversed into becoming something more like experiment and less like moralism. but it's a personal thing, perhaps inductive more than deductive. that's my sense, anyways. but i'm really just a brainlet with this stuff anyways.

>and the single unique times it actually does, some 100 faggots come later and try refute you in all ways possible so you are leveled with the rest of the unachieving ponderers

so do you like anon? who's your favorite philosopher atm? not baiting you, genuinely curious. or about whose legion of unachieving ponderers is irritating you the most.