/lit/ - Literature

infused with knowledge i am god almighty

struck with vigor and strength i rinse the world and wash away unpleasantries

much love to myself in pursuit of Onee

how far I have to go

still

What is your opinion on this man?

>>12046875

>>11993917
>you are like a little baby

>>11993800
fuck off newfag

The most important thinker of all time.

1) Does philosophy ever impact anything? You always see philosophers take credit for advances made in other fields like mathematics, physics, psychology, politics, etc. but these claims always seem dubious. Honestly it just seems like philosophy never accomplishes anything and instead just tries to steal credit for the achievements of other disciplines. On a personal level, it also seems unable to actually change people. It's very unclear to me if devising new ideas about morality or intuition or thinking actually changes the way anybody acts and reasons, including the author of these ideas. What are some concrete examples of philosophy's impact?

2) Does philosophy ever progress? This question is closely related to my first. It seems to me that philosophers are always talking in circles, never able to come to agreement on anything. Often times, there will be a fundamental issue hidden in a philosophical problem which is impossible to get two sides of the debate to agree on. The same issues that Plato discussed thousands of years ago continue to stump philosophers. No other field of study is stuck like this. With the sort of questions philosophy is interested in, there are too many many interpretations and assumptions you can make as your foundational axioms, so progress seems impossible.

3) Can you prove philosophical theories wrong? I think the reason philosophy doesn't progress is because you can't prove most philosophical theories wrong, provided they are logically sound. I can come up with a beautiful theory about how the particles in an atom interact, but if it doesn't correspond to the physical or mathematical evidence, then my theory is wrong. Philosophers however come up with beautiful theories about subjects you can't really study, like the mind, and so you can't really prove a philosophical idea "wrong." Because of this, you end up with a large amount of competing philosophical stances that are in epistemological deadlock.

>>11884718
Disgusting. I've read most of Plato but I'll leave this quote here from the Republic.

>Nor have they listened sufficiently to fine and free arguments that search out the truth in every way for the sake of knowledge but that keep away from the sophistications and eristic quibbles that, both in public trials and in private gatherings, aim at nothing except reputation and disputation.

How time consuming is philosophy for you /lit/?
Is it even necessary to read this whole list just to read 19-20th century philosophers? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic?pli=1

Were any of the Greek philosophers ever seen as divine or semi-divine? I feel like the popular image the West has of these figures is that they were a bunch of enlightened rationalists who sat around discussing philosophy / politics over wine and food and were only respected to the degree that they were "great minds" but nothing more.

However, the more I learn about things like Pythagorianism, Neoplatonism, etc. I get the sense these men were revered not just as "mere humans" but as prophets or enlightened figures of some sort. I can't imagine the Platonic Academy in Athens just regarding their founder as a just a "wise person", for instance.

Am I correct in thinking this? Or am I pulling stuff out my ass?

>>11782165
>AYYO FUCK POETS

Summarize Plato for me

Are these the most necessary philosophers to read in order to read and understand the 19-20th century philosophers starting with the Greeks?
Plato
Aristotle
Aquinas
Descartes/Liebniz/Spinoza
Locke/Berkeley/Hume
Kant
What should I add or remove /lit/?

>>11409285
>duality began with Descartes

What the fuck is happening in Timaeus? The book very briefly talks about the demiurge and the forms before descending into seeming non-sequitur nonsense about how eyes are made of fire and other bizarre physical claims? Where does the assumption come from that everything is made up of precisely shaped Platonic solids of fire, water, air, and earth? Is there some earlier work or previous philosophers I need to read to make sense of this stuff?

Good fascist and far right literature.

continued from >>11388654

Can someone give me a good Neoplatonic reading list? I already know a basic amount but I'd prefer something that covers everything.

>dictatorship
>meritocracy
>hierarchy
>natural law (darwinism)
>eugenics (selective breeding)
>romanticism aesthetics
>social conservatism
>biological racism
>ultranationalism
>corporatism with socialist characteristics
>these elements sacralized into a political religion

is this the most perfect ideology ever?

>Ooga booga fuck sophists n shieeeet
Wow so profound

What is the most horrifying philosophical concept or theory to you? For me, it's Parmenides.

The lines of time are just a dimension. Our existence is like a roll of film. Our beginning from start to finish is being recorded as we live. However when the recording is done our existence will remain for eternity. We live in one never ending moment and our perception of time is just a perception. Everything is completed and frozen in a changeless and eternal state. We are both already dead and never dead at the same time.

What books does /lit/ consider their bibles other than the bible?

I want to read books with useful life advice. so far I have in my list upininashads , Bhagavad Gita, and The dhammapada. What other books does /lit/ recommend I add to my list?

Stop writing.

Can someone explain to me why are the books from the Western Canon important? I'm not saying anything negative against it, I honestly have no opinion as I'm mostly uneducated. I would like to see some good arguments other than the 'muh tradition, patrician's choice bla bla' and the usual autistic /lit/ rant.
I've read quite a few classics and some I enjoyed quite a lot whitout having any academic background. I genuinely want some arguments from more experienced, educated and probably older anons.