/lit/ - Literature

>there exists a universe where all bachelors are married
What the fuck did he mean by this?

>well actually this study concludes
stfu retarded anglo

I wish I could say that the answer is right there but it becomes more rewarding the more prior reading you have done. BotNS will have to do until then.

I know I'm about cause I dream

What philosophers/works should I start for as an introduction to philosophy? I have read Eutyphro and I'm currently reading Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, and they've been quite easy to understand. What else should I add to the read list to master all the basics?

>>23022469

IF IT IS TRUE I AM SKEPTICAL OF OTHER MINDS, AND THAT I AM THE ONLY MIND THAT EXISTS, THEN I AM GOD. I HAVE INTERNAL DIVINITY, AND MUST BE EVERYONE, EVERYTHING, THE ONE, AND ALL.

autist making up ridiculous situation in his head to make himself intelligent

>>22649396
fuck you bitch ass nigga

>>22374086
>>22374187
>like you can find in Dutch people
I mean that you can find this pink/red undertone in some Dutch people's skin, and I personally find it the most beautiful kind of skin. But see again another example among the many others, where is this kind of skin tone in Descartes?

>>22026266

>>21908712
ergo

Sick of seeing the Internet ranting and raving about AI. In my opinion what currently exists and what is possible with this technology will never come close to the behavior of real organisms. It will never act according to its own will. I use the word behavior here because I don't believe in the concept of intelligence at all, nevermind artificial intelligence. For me all of human activity is explained by behaviorism, and it is a grave anthropological error to think that humans are objectively in any way different from any other species on Earth.

I am not a dualist and I disagree that there exists the Cartesian ego, a concept which our entire modern civilization takes to be a self evident truth. From the most dedicated scientist to the most illiterate street thug, all believe "I think, therefore I am". Enlightenment philosophy especially always loved to stroke its own ego by bloviating on the virtues of rationality and how man is a godlike being endowed with superior powers of reasoning and awareness compared to his bestial brethren. Hence the modern misguided and pointless discussions on philosophy of mind, consciousness, and so-called artificial intelligence. These are "problems" of the Cartesian ego which the narcissist and the dualist find impossible to abandon. They are trying to research something that doesn't exist. Thus, the term artificial intelligence is attempting to describe something that exists as a philosophical concept only. What I want to reach is the objective phenomenological value of this technology, free of the assumptions and bias of Cartesian dualism.

Does Heidegger touch on this topic? I do know he rejected Descartes and rationalism outright which is already drawing me toward him. I have studied Husserl a bit but again, I found him too much of a Cartesian for my liking.

>"Because I lack them, in a negative sense."
?

The D, huh.

>>21422770
>frater rc
>renatus cartesius

...

Descartes is ideal for this. His classic "Discourse on the Method", for example, the free pdf scan by Google is only 115 pages (84 pages of actual content; that is, minus the scan of the front & back cover, in between pages, and introduction).

>>20853676
Where did you get that summary from, anon? It reminds me of somebody.

>The present treatise contains everything that I have been able to accomplish in this area….. What I have done is to take merely the principal and most important arguments and develop them in such a way that I would now venture to put them forward as very certain and evident demonstrations. I will add that these proofs are of such a kind that I reckon they leave no room for the possibility that the human mind will ever discover better ones.

>… But although I regard the proofs as quite certain and evident, I cannot therefore persuade myself that they are suitable to be grasped by everyone.

>… In the same way, although the proofs I employ here are in my view as certain and evident as the proofs of geometry, if not more so, it will, I fear, be impossible for many people to achieve an adequate perception of them, both because they are rather long and some depend on others, and also, above all, because they require a mind which is completely free from preconceived opinions and which can easily detach itself from involvement with the senses. Moreover, people who have an aptitude for metaphysical studies are certainly not to be found in the world in any greater numbers than those who have an aptitude for geometry.

>… I do not expect any popular approval, or indeed any wide audience. On the contrary I would not urge anyone to read this book except those who are able and willing to meditate seriously with me, and to withdraw their minds from the senses and from all preconceived opinions. Such readers, as I well know, are few and far between. Those who do not bother to grasp the proper order of my arguments and the connection between them, but merely try to carp at individual sentences, as is the fashion, will not get much benefit from reading this book. They may well find an opportunity to quibble in many places, but it will not be easy for them to produce objections which are telling or worth replying to. –

René Descartes.

Why do some philosphers believe that the idea of God = God? I like Aquinas because he has some really compelling arguments for God's existence, but guys like Descartes who just say "well my idea of God is that he is perfect and exists, so of course he exists" just makes me feel like a lot of these guys were:
>afraid of being labeled as blasphemous
>just were too religious to deny God exists
But I also feel like I might just be missing some historical context and maybe there was thought process or reason at the time to believe that the idea of God = God. Am I missing something?

>>20019905
> how does it influence science
Go pick up a history book and read about the enlightenment, retard.

Writers and philosophers who were NEETs? Descartes used to sleep 12 hours every day and had irregular employment, I guess you can call him a NEET

>day cart

>>17108150
Is this a Descartes quote?