/lit/ - Literature

>>11076676
That’s not what that means

>>11076676
>brainlet reads a philosopher
>brainlet misinterprets him
>brianlet makes absurd conclusions, derived from his own misunderstanding
>brainlet discards given philosopher as a brainlet
woah, who would've guessed

>>11076676
How can you take yourself seriously with that kind of reasoning?

>>11076683
It really pretty much is. Descartes is not good. The first two meditations are great, from there it all goes to shit. It's like he was succesfully sceptical of everything and then got scared and said well of course god is real it would be too confusing if he wasnt.

Youre right OP it is fucking stupid. It's a roundabout justification for him just believing what he wants to believe. Spinoza isnt perfect either but absolutely much better than Descartes. Dont expect /lit/ to admit that though, these are drones who either dont actually do the readings or when they do take the canon writers at their word completely because theyre canon and never read anyone else or think for themself. Im not trying to make a strawman, there are smart Cartesians, but there's a lot more dumb ones.

Good on you for actually reading him and not being seduced by his canonical status alone.

Oh shit I picked the wrong image by accident

>K-pop nigger can't into entry level philosophy
Color me surprised

what is the best category of literature and why is it kpop?

This is why people worshipping dead white male philosophers is dumb. Only worthwhile philosophy has been written within 20 years ago.

>>11077454
Almost no good philosophy has been written in the past 20 years, and the good stuff has been written by white men.

>>11076683
he is artificially introducing the "I" just like OP is artificially introducing "God"

god exists anyway, but not for those reasons

>>11077454
i mean Nick Land and Moldbug are good, but THAT good? there's no need to exaggerate

>>11077582
Both white men

>>11077600
Moldbug isn't, and Land is probably a cyborg sent from the future

>>11077608
>Land is probably a cyborg sent from the future
I know the theory is fun, but as a /sci/ guy I'll just have you know, time travel isn't possible. It's not a matter of super-intelligence.

>>11076676
The active, first person, "I think" phrase is indeed not what a proper skeptic would posit as a fundamental truth.
Descartes is flawed, but that's part of his appeal. You give him to high school students to see who can pick him apart.

>>11076676
The last part where he says he doesn't want to bother with submiting his papers to critique because he thinks that it would be a waste of his time is pretty pretentious.

>>11077615
You can time travel into the future by freezing yourself
It's also possible that some time into the distant future the world would be exactly the same as today, or as in 20 years ago. The only difference between the real past and the future past being the point in time. Therefore you can end up in the future version of the past and thus travel back in time too.

>>11077343
get this crap out of here; kpop sucks

>>11077691
What the fuck are you talking about

>>11076683
>>11076696
>>11076702
I think therefore I am is a common Descartes quote, so you must be objecting to the «think of god therefore he exists», which is exactly waht Descartes talks about. This was a common rationalist approach to reality, that if something is thinkable it must exist in some potential form; for Descartes, perfection is the concept that makes the idea of God not only possible but actual. Good job outing yourself for not having read Descartes though.

>>11076696
who is brian and who did he let come to the wrong conclussions?

>>11077691
>You can time travel into the future by freezing yourself
you can also do it just by waiting, not sure why involve your fetish with fridges

>>11076696
>philosopher makes contradictory statements or spouts retarded shit
>an army of fans defend him by saying that everyone misinterpreted him or that he was being wrong on purpose or that you need to read W by Z to truly understand X by Y
I'm not talking about Descartes btw, OP is a retard indeed

>>11077624
But if he thinks that it must be true

>>11076676
Hey buddy, normies can only read the first 2 meditations, to read the 3-6 meditations you actually need a philosophical education.

>>11078986
"philosophical education"
you mean mind-rotting kantian propaganda

>>11078996
Most schools are analytic as fuck, bro.

>>11077615
>as a /sci/ guy
hahahahahahahahahahaha oh my god hahahahahahaha reddit hahahahahahahahaha holy shit fucking christ hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>>11077727
>>11078996
Kant is shit on in most phil depts, analytical autism rules everything

>>11077576
>god exists anyway

>>11079028
>Kant is shit on in most phil depts, analytical autism rules everything
>>11079008
>Most schools are analytic as fuck, bro.

not where it matters ;)

>>11078996
t. butthurt thomist

>>11079028
>Kant is shit on in most phil depts
>t. never been in a university philosophy class
I had to read Kant for classes in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political theory, and I know someone who did an animal rights course and even that had Kant readings in it. I wrote half my philosophy papers on Kantian metaphysics/ethics and I graded with honors.

>>11076676
>I can think of god therefore he exists,
That's not Descartes that's Anselm

>>11077710
>He doesn't realize that time is a circle
Read a book sometime kiddo

>>11079326
You people piss me off, you know there is are not one, but TWO philosophic encyclopedias online? Just fucking google it before shitposting ffs
>Descartes was not the first philosopher to formulate an ontological argument. An earlier version of the argument had been vigorously defended by St. Anselm in the eleventh century, and then criticized by a monk named Gaunilo (Anselm's contemporary) and later by St. Thomas Aquinas (though his remarks were directed against yet another version of the argument). Aquinas' critique was regarded as so devastating that the ontological argument died out for several centuries. It thus came as a surprise to Descartes' contemporaries that he should attempt to resurrect it. Although he claims not to be familiar with Anselm's version of the proof, Descartes appears to craft his own argument so as to block traditional objections.

>>11079326
>Descartes doesn't have an ontological argument for the existence of god

You stopped at the third meditation didn't you? Good for you to be honest.

>>11079333
>he thinks Neech was doing metaphysics

>>11079338
>>11079359
I just started reading about Anselm and Aquinas and haven’t made it to Descartes yet. Please forgive me.

>>11079816
not them but i forgive you

>>11079816
I'm 338 I forgive you too anon. you're on the right path

>>11079816
359 here, I forgive you too. Just so you know, even fucking Gödel has an ontological argument for the existence of god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

>>11079816
disgracefur