/lit/ - Literature

>>13557799
When I read Deleuze and the presocratics

>>13557799
About 2 days ago

>>13557799
Nietzsche

The moment I realized I knew nothing at all.

>>13557799
When it divorced itself from theology.

Poor baby got filtered

>>13557799
There's a wide variety of philosophies try a different one.

>>13557799
When classical Antiquity ended.

Also, when Christianity replaced paganism.

>>13557799
When I read guenon

>>13557799
finding a philosophy and living your life by it is the key. Inanely arguing finer points of varying philosophies with unhygenic undergrads misses the forest for the trees. I would much prefer a militant kantian to a waffling "philosopher"

>>13557812
well put

When I read Jeremy Bentham for school and realized that almost everything that came after that babbling faggot was pure nigger shit

>>13557799
>highlights half a page of Heidegger

Keep telling me how it's philosophy that's bullshit and not your reading ability.

There's a few points Heidegger is making here but his claim that the world is already given before we do anything is eminently reasonable.

He is trying to show how metaphysics has gone astray with Plato. Plato viewed the flux of the existing world as an imperfection of ontology and then created a world of forms which inverted the primacy of these two world's i.e the world of flux and the world of forms.

Heidegger's conception about the threefold ecstasies I don't buy though and most people think division 2 of Being and Time is the inferior half.

>>13557799
I tried to leave the permanent autism that was engineering, went to study philosophy and realised it's the same autism, but with words instead of components. Why do I need to prove that I believe something? I believe it because I do, people are inherently trying to be better because they are, but society works against self-expression by definiton, fuck writing out autistic logic theorems to explain that. I shouldn't need to write 80 pages on that simple strand just to "prove" the obvious. I care to help people, I don't care to wank about how my perception of reality is the right one and post hoc justifying my emotionally-driven beliefs.

>>13557799

>>13557799
Just read on, retard

>>13557799
>Meno
>Ecclesiastes
done

>>13557825
Filter me now, faggot.

>>13557799
Philosophy exists to fill in the gaps of what we don't or can't prove scientifically. I think there's merit in studying philosophy from a historical point of view, but I don't see the point in contemporary philosophy or studying historical philosophy like one would with other literature.
I don't understand why people champion figures such as Kant and Heidegger the way they do as though we still can learn from them. It feels like pointless academia, more of a game than anything substantial.

Monê
Prodos
Epistrophê

>>13557799
Isn’t this a philosophical interpretation?

i will never let my life getting ruled by some attention whoring pseud from hundreds of years ago who was seeking so desperately for confirmation that he had to write a book

When I realized that everything has consciousness down to the sub-atomic particle and up to and including the universe itself, that death is nothing more than the loss of the ability to move about, and that philosophizing in any way does not create any purpose in life any more accurate than to experience existence.

>>13557799
Anybody think more books should be printed in A4 but with text in A5, so you have fat wide margins to make annotations in?

>>13559479
>Philosophy exists to fill in the gaps of what we don't or can't prove scientifically.
cringe take. Read more.

>>13559479
>Philosophy exists to fill in the gaps of what we don't or can't prove scientifically.
What the fuck, this is worse than "god of the gaps" bullshit

>Marks half a page (Heidegger in English - lmao)
>OP is too retarded to extract meaning from the text
>All Philosophy is BS
>kys

>>13557799
You use this like it's a word salad, but Heidegger uses terms, words, and concepts that are particularly defined. His earlier passages establish these, and then they're expounded upon. This isn't necessarily an attempt to come up with something entirely new, but to define the words and concepts to particular definitions so they can be communicated.

>>13559947
Explain what ''temporality already holds itself ecstatically in the horizons of its ecstasies'' means.

>>13557799
Never Because It's not.

>>13557799

>>13559957
Explain what ''temporality already holds itself ecstatically in the horizons of its ecstasies'' means.

>>13558350
Plato says that not every soul can ascend to philosophy. If it's any consolation know that your soul was defective before it entered your body and you never had the possibility of being anything more in this life.

>>13560100
The mode of temporality's existence within it's ecstatic horizon is itself ecstatic.

>>13560132
>temporality already holds itself ecstatically in the horizons of its ecstasies

>>13557799
Don't confuse 'French philosophy' with philosophy anon. Only the former is bullshit.

>>13557852
lmao no, aren't you bored of shilling this smelly faggot yet?

>>13560448
Sartre/Focault make a lot more sense than Heidegger though.

>>13557812
based Platonist

>>13560197
You just reworded it slightly. Stop pretending like you understand Heinigger, pseud.

>>13559479
Holy cringe
You're probably one of those people who watch neil degrasse or whatever he's called and wears a "i love science" t-shirt

>>13559888
How is it wrong though.

>>13557812
I only know I exist

when trump god emperor won
maga own the libs!!!

>>13559479
Agreed, most of the valid points made by those philosophers have been absorbed into society/science already.
Contemporary philosophy is now either theology, or some sort of science fiction, for instance Moldbug's Patchwork, Bostrom's existential risks, Bohm's quantum panpsychism.
The latter, the problem of consciousness, I think is the probably the most interesting problem left for philosophy, at the crossroads of introspection, reason and science

>>13559888
>>13559937
>>13560651
Notice the retards responding to this post can't and wont present an argument to the contrary. Philosophy should be used as a mode to live the best life possible, not to discover truth about the universe. Philosophy has done absolutely nothing to reveal inherent truths about the universe, to the contrary, it has lead people astray, and convinced them of the existence of things with no evidence. Science has completely and thoroughly destroyed philosophy (in terms of discovering truths) for good.

>>13560651
Wrong on both counts, but it seems telling that I got such a reaction out of you. So tell me what Kant can give me that the scientific method can't.

>>13562868
science and philosophy do not overlap any further than philosophy of science. there is no reason to compare the two when they each have completely different goals and means to strive for said goals

>>13563516
Categorically incorrect, while some philosophy is about modes of living the ideal life, a large portion is about discovering the truth/nature of the world. Science is the same as the latter, except it is based off of hard data rather than pure speculation.

Philosophy is unavoidable, prove me wrong (spoiler: to attempt to do is to engage in philosophy. Checkmate, acognitivists)

>>13563533
>hard data
plenty of sciences are more prone to observation than data, for instance astronomy and linguistics
>pure speculation
you mean observation

>>13560475
by french he means Deleuze and Derrida

>>13563618
>philosophy is based off of observation, just like science!
Philosophy is not based off of observation, but pure speculation. If I say "Everything has a fundamental form that exists in another reality" based off of an observation of character traits, that is not the same as saying "I observe nitrogen in our atmosphere." One can be tested, one is complete conjecture.

>>13560100
>>13560132
Time (temporality) presents and sustains itself as outside-itself (ecstatic) in the world or realm of its outside-itselfness (ecstasies), which, in relation to being-in-the-world (Dasein), can only be in the past (because Dasein fixates and directs itself to an object/task).

>>13563815
Word salad, can you explain what that means as if I'm a normal human being? If you can't put it in simple terms, it must be meaningless

>>13563774
>Everything has a fundamental form that exists in another reality
you seem to be under the impression that Plato was a philosopher. he was actually just addicted to hallucinogenics and liked to rant about random shit

>>13563826
I don't want to waste time on your sealioning so I'll just copy and paste things from Wikipedia.
On Ecstasy:
>One's consciousness, for example, is not self-enclosed, as one can be conscious of anOtherperson, who falls well outside one's own self. In a sense consciousness is usually, "outside-itself," in that its object (what it thinks about, or perceives) is not itself. This is in contrast to the termenstasiswhich means from "standing-within-oneself" which relates tocontemplationfrom the perspective of a speculator.
>In temporalizing, each of the following: the past (the 'having-been'), the future (the 'not-yet') and the present (the 'making-present') are the "outside of itself" of each other.
On Dasein:
>Daseinis always a being engaged in the world: neither a subject, nor the objective world alone, but the coherence ofBeing-in-the-world. This ontological basis of Heidegger's work thus opposes the Cartesian "abstract agent" in favour of practical engagement with one's environment. Dasein is revealed by projection into, and engagement with, a personal world—a never-ending process of involvement with the world as mediated through the projects of the self.
If you used your noggin a little bit you could understand my previous post. The only weird term that I used was "outside-itselfness" but I think what I was going for was clear. Hope this cleared up some terminology, but I know you don't care. You just want fuel for your belief that philosophy is the collective ramblings of obscurantists.

>>13557816
This.
>>13559855
Also this.

>>13563912
>consciousness is not self enclosed because people think of other things
Do you seriously read this stuff and feel like you've gained some real knowledge about the world? It's clear these guys are so deep into their own mind they forget that everything the say is absolute conjecture, nothing of substance, literally just opinions. What is the point of saying "Daseinis always a being engaged in the world: neither a subject, nor the objective world alone, but the coherence ofBeing-in-the-world." What does that even mean? I know you people want to appear intelligent but you still for some reason have not been able to put into simple terms what is being said here. Why is it so difficult for you?

>>13565716
>what does that even mean
there's an entire book about it, consider reading it

>>13565729
>incapable of explaining basic concepts
Why should I read the book if you can't explain it after having done the same? Why are you so obtuse?

>>13561557
It wasn't presented with a reason backing the conclusion in the first place. But I digress.
Because philisophical questions are such that they are impossible to be answered by science, and science is itself a subset if philisophical thinking, with it's greater body of work and knowledge owed to the vastness of potential empirically experiences and happenings in the world, rather than a deeper set of questions. Most science, though not all, revolves around common sense observation in the meat if its labor.
Science cannot answer philosophical questions, and the reasons why were even anticipated in the earliest days of the modern scientific method, with Hume's Is/Ought distinction, Kant's phenomena/noumena, and even Descartes' famous epistemology (Cogito Ergo Sum, though he didn't say that directly, I think). A more modern and related take would be the Quine-Duhem thesis. Even further, in the Greeks, the reasoning for why can be found, in questions of Nominalism and Universalism, and Plato's Theory if Forms.
But these are things a survey class for philosophy might teach you, and that anyone calling themselves a philosopher in the Western tradition should know. Thus, "read more."

>>13557799
Non analytic philosophy is bullshit

>>13563912
lmfao none of this terminology has any usefulness at all. what a complete joke of a """"discipline""""

>>13559479
>Philosophy exists to fill in the gaps of what we don't or can't prove scientifically
Science is a branch of empiricist philosophy moron

>>13557799
it was revealed to me in a dream

>>13565809
>It doesn't heat up my hot pocket in the microwave
>Ergo, it's not """useful"""

>>13565831
>it doesn't do anything at all
>therefore (speak English!) it's not useful
ftfy

>>13565839
What does it have to do, and who does it have to do it for, and why does it have to be done for them or for you? What do you mean by "do?"

>>13565842
>What does it have to do
something useful
and who does it have to do it for
one or more human beings
and why does it have to be done for them or for you?
to justify expending time """"learning"""" about it
What do you mean by "do?"
serve a useful function that improves somebody's life in some way
wow, those were some tough questions. clearly you are very smart and deep

>>13565842
>yes the words are useless but who even said they have a use or meaning?
Glad we agree

>>13565821
based and dreampilled

>>13565730
>why can't someone sum up an entire philosophical position with highly specialized terminology to me without using words I don't like

I'm not who you were talking to, but heres Heidegger in an absolute nutshell: We talk about being a lot, it seems that we have no idea what that means, not REALLY, not with the clarity that we have for other concepts, and this one seems important, so lets fix that.

Anything more than that, read the book and stop being such a stemsperg.

>>13565868
literally jaden smith tier lm absolute fao

>>13565851
They weren't meant to be tough questions, but you gave the most brainlet and insectoid answers possible. What's the "value" of you even being on /lit/, shitbag? You're not changing anyone's mind and haven't provided a single reason for us to abandon philosophy, and do nothing for us or yourself but use motivated reasoning to cement your ego. Heidegger actually did change people's lives, because he made them think about reality in new ways and affected their lifestyle and worldview in the process, and that kind of revelation is the only absolute reason people the world over don't still love in caves, shit in the open, and hunt for subsistence. Consider drinking Antifreeze.

>>13565868
I wasn't asking him to explain the entirety of Heidegger's work, but rather the absolute word-salad of a statement
>temporality already holds itself ecstatically in the horizons of its ecstasies
But regardless of this, saying "we don't know what being is" and attempting to solve this problem with "philosophy" is probably one of the more retarded things I've heard in my life. Philosophy is fundamentally incapable of discovering truth, because it is based off of raw conjecture.

>>13565877
sorry i bullied your gay hobby, einstein
>and that kind of revelation is the only absolute reason people the world over don't still love in caves
damn nigga i had no idea the first people to build huts and tents were so concerned with how exactly to define "being". boy is my face red

>>13565877
Au contraire, if our early ancestors had concerned themselves with such retarded questions posed in philosophy, we would have never left the caves in the first place

All philosophy is just linguistic proliferation completely divorced from the actuality of real life. Literally nonsense.

>>13565875
I explained as if I were talking to a retard and it looked like it worked TOO well because here you are too.

>>13565885
If not philosophy, what would be the proper domain to deal with this question? Genuinely asking. What would be better suited?

> Philosophy is fundamentally incapable of discovering truth, because it is based off of raw conjecture
Oh I can't wait until you inevitably talk about empiricism and science as if its somehow not philosophy, just let me have it already and stop being such a tease.

>>13566046
fwiw, as much as i like dunking on /lit/tle men, i 100% agree empiricism is a philosophy and that science is inescapably therefore philosophy's bitch. i just find "d00d, maaan, like, what do we really know about, like, anything maan" in le serious intellectual drag funny as shit

>>13562868
The "best life" is a function of truth. How can you know whats truly best? Pragmatic philosophy must subordinate itself to philosophy for sake of philosophy

>>13562868
>gets called retarded
>is too retarded to figure out why
>seeth posts

>>13563774
>only empiricism is valid for observing reality
Science can only handle questions that are testable and falsifiable. Ifa question is neither, materialist will assume it doesnt exist at all, which is nonsense

>>13559479
>science can solve ethical dilemmas without relying on a pre-existing school of philosophy
Words cannot describe your stupidity.

>>13562868
Computers literally would not exist without philosophy. Computers operate using Boolean algebra, which is a branch of mathematical logic. Mathematical logic is itself a branch of formal logic which is the direct consequence of philosophy.
You’re probably a Midwesterner who thinks philosophy is just Foucaults rambling about power structures. Philosophy conceptualised things like predicate and propositional logic you brainlet.

>>13566162
Why is it nonsense? If you can't prove something exists in the material world why should I take your word it exists at all?

>>13566226
>If you can't prove something exists in the material world why should I take your word it exists at all?
So I assume you don't believe in numbers then?

>>13566217
>computers would not exist without philosophy
Stopped reading there, holy fuck

>>13566226
Why is material existence the only valid existence?

>>13566366
>numbers are a metaphysical concept
You are a blatant retard

>>13566376
Are you implying that numbers are material and tangible?
Please empirically demonstrate a 3

>>13566376
Show me a number then. Not a quantity, not a character, not a numeral, show me a number. Should be easy I assume.

>>13566383
>>13566390

Three rocks

>>13563516
>saying philosophy and science is different thing to refute one claim
>>13566217
>saying philosophy and science is same thing to refute the very same claim
It just shows how truly retarded and dogmatic philosophy is

>>13566397
>not a quantity

>>13566405
"Quantity: the amount or number of a material not usually estimated by spatial measurement."
Are you being willfully ignorant?

>>13566397
You have shown me rocks, where is three?

>>13565885
You're question is extremely retarded. It's like asking a physicists to explain the a single part of the Bohr equation to someone who never studied physics. Heidegger has his own system of language which is extremely complex. If you you're not willing to invest time understanding it, it will seem like nonsense to you. That doesn't mean it is nonsense though

>>13566411
How many rocks are there?

>>13566409
But all you did was count how many objects there were. Were asking you two retards to prove that numbers are an object themselves. You have not done this.

>>13566413
As many as there are, and once they get separated, why should we assume that the concept that held them together as a collection would survive? Does three only exist when three objects come into connection? Then we still only have objects with a non-physical class attached to them.

I repeat, you have shown me rocks. Counting the rocks appeals to something that is not physically present, which you do not believe in. Three is nowhere to be seen, still.

>>13566413
>unironically believing numbers are material
I've seen many retards on this site but you beat them all.

>>13566414
>It's clear these guys are so deep into their own mind they forget that everything the say is absolute conjecture, nothing of substance, literally just opinions.
Any opposition on this though?

>>13566437
No there not just opinions. You don't understand what Heidegger is saying because you don't understand his language. Fuck you're dumb

>>13566409
>the amount or number of a material
>of a material
You only showed me the material in question, rocks, and pre supposed numbers to do so, rather than demonstrating the number itself. Why is it three rocks instead of four?

>>13566217
>You’re probably a Midwesterner
This is why it makes me smile to think that you were (and are) bullied.
>>13566414
>muh super secret made up language
Amazing.

>>13566422
>But all you did was count how many objects there were.
Yes, a number refers to the amount of something
>Were asking you two retards to prove that numbers are an object themselves
An object like a teapot? What are you even saying here? Numbers are the method we use to refer to reality, I never said a number is an object, it's part of our ability to think in the abstract. Our thoughts are chemical and electrical impulses, fundamentally material. If you want to see what a "number" looks like (essentially a thought) you'd have to observe someone's brain.
>>13566424
>Does three only exist when three objects come into connection
The raw number three exists in our brain, it is a mode of explaining reality. We can think of three either outside of an amount of objects or as part of it.
>Counting the rocks appeals to something that is not physically present
Thinking is objectively physically present, and there are objectively three rocks

>>13566444
Because we ascribe a word based off of the amount of objects we observe, we use the word one to describe a single object, two to describe a second object, etc. The material is there, yes, but the amount of rocks is there as well, in the same way that calcium or iron are present. We can observe them through science.

>>13566458
The original question was if numbers could be demonstrated empircally
Are you sayin the existence of numbers can be empircally proven by observing brain chemicals? Wouldnt that necessitate the use numbers to conduct measurements and therefore be circular reasoning?

>>13566446
>super secret language
Are you really that retarded? How is it different to studying physics or mathematics in that regard? You understand the language to grasp the concept behind it. It has nothing to do with a secret language, but you need a certain language to convey certain ideas.

>>13566458
>unironically being a monist
If you’re not a process trialist then you are doing it wrong. Read Sir John Eccles (1963 Nobel Laureate)

>>13566458
>The raw number three exists in our brain, it is a mode of explaining reality.
Oh man this is fucking rich. So any mode of explaining reality is physical because it is a brain state and therefore empirically valid? Is this honestly what you're trying to hang your hat on?

>We can think of three either outside of an amount of objects or as part of it.
If three is outside of an amount of objects then it ceases to be physical, now doesn't it? Making it...wait for it...metaphysical.

>Thinking is objectively physically present, and there are objectively three rocks
You still haven't done one bit to show where you're getting "three" from, since now you've switched the grounding of the concept from the objects, as you initially claimed, to brain states.

>>13566463
Observation through science pre supposes the existence of numbers a priori. That does not prove their existence.
>we ascribe a word
I wasnt arguing semantics. When I say why isnt it 4, I mean the concept of 4 rather than the word.

>>13566468
>Wouldnt that necessitate the use numbers to conduct measurements and therefore be circular reasoning?
No? How would that be circular reasoning?

>>13566442
What if he was askimg whether the concept of Dasein is absolute conjecture or not, independent from understanding of his language?
What if he read the wikipedia article but still has questions on whether this is all about absolute conjecture or not?
What if he read SEP and secondary literature on this but still has questions on whether this is all about absolute conjecture or not?
What if he read the entire Part I of BT but still has questions on whether this is all about absolute conjecture or not?

>>13566483
>using numbers to prove numbers
Unless you have a way to evaluate brain chemicals without numbers, your logic is circular.

>>13566478
>So any mode of explaining reality is physical because it is a brain state and therefore empirically valid?
Yes, do you have any argument against that?
>If three is outside of an amount of objects then it ceases to be physical, now doesn't it? Making it...wait for it...metaphysical.
This is why I asked what you define an "object" is; numbers are physical in the form of electrical and chemical impulses in the brain, which are also known as thoughts.
>grounding of the concept from the objects, as you initially claimed, to brain states.
You brain is part of physical reality, as well as your thoughts.
>>13566479
>Observation through science pre supposes the existence of numbers a priori
No it doesnt

>>13566490
This also presupposes that we have some definite, consistent, confirmed brain state that corresponds with "three" such that we can get three as a physical object from it. We aren't even close to this, not by a mile.

>>13566473
According to this lil nigga here >>13565868
>heres [sic] Heidegger in an absolute nutshell: We talk about being a lot, it seems that we have no idea what that means, not REALLY, not with the clarity that we have for other concepts, and this one seems important, so lets fix that.
Wow, seems perfectly intelligible in plain English. Almost like this gay "language you have to study" is just obfuscation because the point is extremely basic and unimportant. But, you know, keep stammering "y-you're retarded for not reading about fart huffers all day". That's working for you. No, really.

>>13566490
Since numbers exist in our minds as physical reality, the only place we could find the thoughts that represent numbers is in our brain. If you were to put aside your argument and assume this was true, how else would you expect individuals in a world where numbers were a physical reality to prove they were physical? You would say it's circular logic in both cases, not because you actually believe that, but because you are trying to win an argument.

>>13566497
>Yes, do you have any argument against that?
You don't see how this can cause any problems? How could we ever say that anyone is wrong about anything since their incorrect thoughts/models are technically brain states and therefore empirically valid according to this batshit theory you're proposing.

>numbers are physical in the form of electrical and chemical impulses in the brain
Where are you getting this from?

>>13566488
Read the fucking thread faggot. He was asking for an explanation of a very specific sentence and wanted other anons to break it down into dummy language. He also said that he wasn't willing to learn about Heidegger language, because to him it was nonsense anyway, because he didn't unterstand shit.
At no point did I claim you can't question Heidegger ideas, but in order to do that you have to understand what he's saying first.

>>13566508
You should added this on the last:
>inb4 "that guy is actually strawmanning"

>>13566508
>Trying to figure out what being actually means is not important
ok retard. It's only the one question that humanity has struggled with for literally thousands of years

>>13566512
The point is that numbers exist and are also non physical.
There is not possible way to demonstrate the physical existence of numbers without referring to numbers as proof.
I've known schizos who think 3 is interchangeable with 4. This is because of their brain chemistry, which physically exists. Your argument is from subjectivsm, so this would necessitate that there is no set state of being that a number embodies, thus contradicting your entire argument that numbers exist in an absolute state.

>>13557809
based

>>13559479
>>13566226
>>13566409
>>13566376
Oi faggot, if you actually knew anything about mathematics and science you wouldn't be spouting such bullshit.

Philosophy has many different thoughts, just like science does (You can't compare quantum mechanics to classical mechanics, or even on the extreme end, zoology). Each has a different goal and purpose and tackles a different problem, just as science does.

Now since you're convinced that value, and by extension truth, can only be derived using empirical and physical evidence, I want you to show me an irrefutable proof of infinity, or perhaps 3+nth dimensions, or why not just something that is actually quantifiable, like an explanation and categorisation of the cases of wave-particle duality of subatomic particles? Now since if you actually can, using the scientific method and empirical evidence, prove the existence of any of these, please do and I will hand you your Nobel myself.

So just as there is use in theorising and proof-backed belief, there also is use in philosophy. Whether it be in trying to quantify ethics to base laws and AI behaviour on, or simply just metaphysical thought experiments that try to make sense of existence and give meaning to life. Now KYS virgin.

>>13566532
>muh myth of Sisyphus
Pushing a rock uphill is a waste of time regardless of cope. Since all this anxiety is just caused by nitpicking definitions, the rock isn't even rolling downhill of its own accord, you're literally pushing it back every time you get to the top lmao.

>>13566533
Yes numbers exist but not empirically but metaphysically. You were arguing before that nothing is real except that which is material. So following your own logic numbers aren't real

>>13566517
>How could we ever say that anyone is wrong about anything since their incorrect thoughts/models are technically brain states and therefore empirically valid
I'm not talking about correct or incorrect, I'm talking about thoughts being physical processes. This is getting off track.
>Where are you getting this from
Basic neuroscience. We've been using brain scans to map which areas of the brain correspond to certain thoughts and memories. Your metaphysical claims, on the contrary, are based on pure conjecture.
>>13566533
Yes, and these schizos brains are damaged. Our brains have evolved to categorize certain objects with traits. "Three" is how our brains evolved to categorize the amount of objects that we all agree are three objects. Again, the concept exists in our brain not because of individual choice, but because our brains are hard wired that way. It's the same as mathematics; the universe has a fundamental nature, we use our brains to categorize and create patterns that attempt to make it coherent. But if we did not exist, and our brains with us, math and numbers would not exists either.

>>13566565
You're confusing me with the other anon. I'm the one who initially said there's more than physical reality and started the argument

>>13566563
Right, you, the biggest retard on a site full of retards, doesn't believe the question of being is important, while literally everything humanity has achieved and strives for is fundamentally rooted in that problem. Therefore, it's a really basic and unimportant question

>>13566548
>Brainlet pretending to be intelligent
These concepts exist in our brain through chemical and electrical impulses, they do not exist outside of these electrical and chemical impulses, because we are capable of abstract thinking

>>13566568
How can you justify that your brain wiring is correct and theirs is wrong with regards to numbers?
Arent all brains wired uniquely anyway?
When you say rocks proves the existence of 3 tangibly because of brain chemicals, you make the argument subjective
Your materialist argument is just a big hole of unjustifiable statements

>>13566574
Sorry about that, my bad. Keep up the good work putting retards in their place

>>13566582
Because the majority of people (brains) agree that a given thing is true. The number exists only within the chemical and electrical impulses of our brains.

>>13566577
So did the brain chemicals create the concept? If so, why does bridge construction follow Laws of Physics? Brain chemicals invent Laws of Physics? No, we dont generate the ideas, we conform to them because they already exist. Theres a difference

>>13566591
>argument from consensus
Wew lad. Literally the weakest argument that exists
So if we all agreed 2+2=5 it would be true?
There is often consensus about various things, encompassing all subjects, that turn out to be wrong

>>13566575
>literally everything humanity has achieved and strives for is fundamentally rooted in that problem
Nah.

>>13566519
Actually it is you that need to read the fucking thread. The reason He was asking on this is because the terms are incredibly obscure. The response come with suppose-to-be average explanation, aka with the dummy language(more like "dummy" language, because it was clearly not). It was after that he doubt the willing to learn about Heidegger because he stunned by how pure speculative it is, not unreasonable as as you said.
And questioning something should be independent from understanding of its questioner, especially if you want to compare with the science.

>>13566593
"Physics" is a human method of explaining reality; without humans physics would not exist, because there would be nobody to categorize or observe the universe

>>13566598
>if we all agreed
Evolution has nothing to do with "agreeing"

>>13566601
>The universe wouldnt function without humans to observe it functioning

>>13566601
Chill

>>13566605
>a tree makes a sound if nobody is there to hear it
Imagine being this retarded

>>13566508
>>heres [sic] Heidegger
Literally neck yourself

>>13566577
>they do not exist outside of these electrical and chemical impulses
Kek, so the concept of infinity and nth dimensions is useless? It has never been used to prove countless mathematical and scientific theories we regard as fact today?

>Brainlet pretending to be intelligent
You haven't addressed half my questions, just spouted some bullshit statement.
Please do, again, attempt to answer and prove my questions, empirically that is.

>>13566591
Then why did humanity struggle with the concept of 0 until about a thousand years ago?

>>13566601
So all the other celestial bodies we can observe existing and conforming to physics hundreds of years before out existence are just fugazi?

I don't get your argument, you said empiricism is the only truth, and now you're spouting some brainlet regurgitation of subjectivism?

>>13566604
>evolution determines truth
So 3 exists only because we evolved to think so?

>>13566611
So the Laws of Physics only exist because humans say so?
Good luck justifying that

>>13566600
Some terms can't be dumb down though. It's the same in science.
>And questioning something should be independent from understanding of its questioner, especially if you want to compare with the science
How can you question something you didn't understand?

>>13566598
mathematics is good enough defined to have its basic functions and processes logically and rigorously defined. Thus addition and multiplication is just a form of class concatenation. Thus 2+2=4 is true regardless of your definition of "sum".

Don't highlight the whole page dick head you'll never internalise anything.

>>13566623
My point is that reality exists independently of human consciousness

>>13566613
>Kek, so the concept of infinity and nth dimensions is useless?
You are such a retard jesus christ. I said they are concepts in the mind, this has nothing to do with their usefulness
>Then why did humanity struggle with the concept of 0 until about a thousand years ago?
They didn't, see egypt. You're too focused on greece (I wonder why)
>So all the other celestial bodies we can observe existing and conforming to physics hundreds of years before out existence are just fugazi
We use physics to explain how these bodies function, without us there would be nobody to observe or categorize natural phenomena. So when people say physics existed before humans, they are categorically incorrect.

>>13566620
>>13566616
>so our current conception of reality is based off of how our brains evolved?
Holy fuck lol

>>13566623
>Thus 2+2=4 is true regardless of your definition of "sum".
No, there are definitions of "sum" where 2+2=1, see eg. the group of natural numbers mod 3.

>>13566629
Read husserl

>>13566629
if you are a mathematical realist, yeah

>>13566642
does that make 2+2=4 false? No, (2+2=4)%3=1 thus my point is needed for your point.

>>13566621
Dasein must be one of the most important term in Heidegger's philosophy, and you just said that kind of term cannot be dumb it down. Then, it should be Heidegger's fault who found his theory on strictly obscurantism phase.
I mean I'm afraid to critique Heidegger so I didn't do anything to that but it was You to dissolve the theory this badly. Good job mate, maybe we are in the same side.
>How can you question something you didn't understand?
That is how knowledge works, you didn't go to school and asking teacher about something you didn't understand about?

>>13566656
could you people stop with the "Heidegger" shit? It's worse than Bible thumping. It's a kind of degenerative cult-like hivemind thinking. "Thus said Heidegger, Thus did Heidegger".

>>13566666

>>13559479
>>13562868
>Philosophy has done absolutely nothing to reveal inherent truths about the universe
>>13566633
My man, I thought you believed empiricism is the only way of quantifying truth, and if so why are you contradicting yourself?

>I said they are concepts in the mind, this has nothing to do with their usefulness
It defies your empiricist argument nonetheless. We cannot observe infinity, but only philosophise and theorise it to explain natural phenomena (Black holes, etc.)

>They didn't, see egypt
Yes they did anon, it was the Arab mathematicians that quantified and defined 0, and before that most of what we take as middle school fact used to be considered so bizarre and alien that they considered it witchcraft (Pythagorean theorem)

>without us there would be nobody to observe or categorize natural phenomena
And now that is another question and statement that is purely philosophical and metaphysical, so which is it, are you for or against philosophy?

>>13566653
>thus my point is needed for your point.
Nah 2 + 2 mod 3 = 2 mod 3 + 2 mod 3 = 2 mod 3 + (-1) mod 3 = 2 - 1 mod 3 = 1 mod 3.

The more central point, which defeats my argument is that 1 = 4 in that group, but still the more important point, I think, is that addition can be defined in many ways, even ones which do not correspond to the definition in the natural numbers.

>>13566639
>conception of reality
Your argument is again circular. Evolution is a product of Reality and its process exists independently of our minds. Are you going to claim evolution only exists because of chemicals in our brain?
Is there a difference between the Apparent and the Real?

>>13566639
>>13566714
I should add that my argument from the beginning was the our subjective conception of reality is separate from the truth of reality
My whole point was the reality exists independently of our minds
I want to restate my question, and I want a direct answer. Does 3 exist only because we evolved to think so?

The innate problem with Philosophy is that it results in infinite regress, however, Logic derives from Philosophy, and is the basis for Science, to overturn Philosophy would be to eradicate our current understanding of Science.

>>13566697
defined here is misused, I said that summation has a proper definition thus making 2+2=4 true regardless if you use + in your own way

>>13558350
Wittgenstein is revered for the little he wrote.

>>13566613
>Literally neck yourself
But I'm having so much fun.

>>13566684
>incorrect in every response
>thinking is philosophy
>egypt had no conception of zero before the arabs
You've proven yourself a retard, we're done
>Does 3 exist only because we evolved to think so
Yes

>>13566778
please kys, get out of the gene pool. Your idealism is obsolete and irrational

>>13557799
When i noticed you can literally justify anything with everything.

>>13566778
So evolution created 3 and all the laws of physics with it
Bridges only stand because of chemicals in our brain
Good Lord, you're retarded

>>13557799
>when did you realise a love of wisdom is bullshit?

>>13566778
Empirically prove infinity to me, or kys

>>13558078
Based af.

This thread should be printed out and distributed among undergrads to show why philosophy is important. Some random asshole, rather than admit that numbers are metaphysical constructs like every other non-nominalist mathematician since Frege, decided that to justify this position, it was worth going down a weird road of half-informed claims about neuroscience, worse claims about evolution, and the worst union of idealism and materialism I've ever seen. Only thoughts are real but thoughts are just brains so checkmate metaphysics? Holy shit good job guys this is some A++ psuedery. All you had to do was read Frege and Russell but instead you're walking around thinking shit like this. Un fucking believable.

>>13557852
cringe

>>13566905
Reddit tier "I love science!" materialism
The west is in shambles because philosophy is neglected

>>13566371
they're right, pseud

>>13566905
based. philosophy not being taught mandatorily is a huge mistake

>>13566778
Im surprise no one brought up the most philosophical argument against your material monism. If all mental and cognitive states are correspondent to some neural equivalent (which I emphatically agree with), the fundamental ontological questions are still left unresolved. These premises were already in philosophic discourse since Spinoza and likely earlier. If the concept of a number is reduced to a neural state and we evolved to be able to conceive of it, that still doesn’t explain ‘why number and not something else’. The concept of evolutiom presupposes an ecology for the development of mind and a genealogy. In other words, evolution (besides the concept of it) is already something that logically precedes our mental state. If we evolved to think something, you are accepting that evolution itself is not a neural state but something/process in the “world”, it has formal existence. And here is where your monism fails logically. Even if numbers are neural states (which i agree) that does not mean they are not out there in the world, because then you would have to have an explanation as to their origin without recourse to some externality.

>>13560428
is pic supposes to be an illustration of what the sentence means?

>>13566905
based and fregepilled

>>13557799
when I realized I could make my own values and didnt need to find them or have people tell me they are in fact arbitrary.

>When did you realize philosophy is not bullshit

When I realized that culture is downstream from philosophy, e.g. marxist philosophy can and did influence culture

>>13566601
So the universe is all in your head? There is no space, just you feelings and senses? Useless info, theres a reason why math and physics are sciences, they accomplish things. Read Kant, you seem like you don't read.

When Christcucks started using "philosophical" "arguments" to defend their delusional beliefs

>>13566633
Natural laws exist, and physics attempt to explain them. You are stupid, read Kant. People here talk so much shit after reading some wiki pages, thinking they are later and greater than older philosophers, which isn't the case.

>>13566684
Btfo

Finishing this thread stimulated my appreciation of philosophy. Everyone should read critique of pure reason.

>>13557846
Dang anon, you must be old as balls.

>>13567495
This thread was the biggest dumpster fire philosophy ever. If anything, I would have assumed it would turn people off of it

>Symplectic topology is the study of the global phenomenon of symplectic geometry. In contrast the local structure of a symplectic manifold is, by Darboux's theorem, always equivalent to the standard structure on Euclidean space. Hence there cannot be any local invariants in symplectic geometry. This should be contrasted with Riemannian geometry where the curvature provides such local invariants. These local invariants severely restrict the group of isometries and give rise to an infinite dimensional variety of nonequivalent Riemannian metrics. In symplectic geometry the absence of local invariants gives rise to an infinite dimensional group of diffeomorphisms which preserve the symplectic structure and to a discrete set of nonequivalent global symplectic structures in each cohomology class.
Hmmm this introductory paragraph to symplectic geometry is pretty dense, with specialised terminology:
>symplectic
>Darboux's theorem
>invariants
>isometries
>diffeomorphisms
>cohomology
Yet no one says the entire discipline of topology is "a bunch of bullshit", or that there's a "secret language" that they're trying to use to obfuscate meaning. Hmmm, yes, interesting.
Now what if the topic changed to ontology, but it kept the use of specialised terminology related to the field? Hmmm.

>>13557812
You have just inspired me to live a Socratic lifestyle. From now on I won't make assumptions unless asked for, I'll just question people's worldview and mold my own in the hope that one day I'll be able to at least know myself. Thanks, Anon.

>>13568055
u type like a fat man.

When I realised that the only reason philosophers reject relativism and positivism is because it would put them out of a job.

>>13568055
Because it uses well defined terminology, that everyone that knows about it agree what it means, not using mundane words out of nowhere and creating word salad. Meanwhile, philosophy have people straight up calling each other charlatans, and even big name philosophers such as Foucault outright admitting that several philosophers deliberately obfuscate meaning simple to sound smart.

>>13568055
The difference is that in symplectic geology those terms mean something, whereas in philosophy the terms are used to put distance between what is being said and the raw fact that it's just some dude's opinion and can be dismissed out of hand for any reason or no reason at all on that basis.

Observe:
>Kant thinks that...
"I don't give a fuck what Kant thinks."

Boom. Philosophy defeated.

>"but you could do that with anything!"
No you couldn't, because bridges fall down or stay up regardless of what I think. Kant's philosophy, on the other hand, ceases to exist the moment I cease to give a shit about it.

>>13568697
>topology is geology
A 4 second skim through the first line of the Wikipedia article on topology could've held you back from commiting that mistake there

>>13568880
I did in fact read it as geology to start with, then noted it was geometry not geology and thought "that would be an embarrassing mistake," and then apparently subconsciously typed geology anyway.

What a shame.

>>13566905
Based

>>13566217
>b-but it has utility! it gave us nintendos!
Never do this. You sound like a Christian apologist or somebody that likes NASA for Tang and space blankets.

>>13557799
During high-school, had to read up on a bunch of different authors like Augustine of Hippo and Descartes.

>>13568677
>out of nowhere

>>13568697
>I dont give a fuck what [philosopher] thinks
Philosophy is not for you

>>13569387
Not him, but he is kind of right. Any philosophical system only holds if the basic underling axioms are agreable, but often they aren't and often amount to "I think so, therefore it is true", and if the philosopher rejects having a system to begin with then you honestly are just dealing with some guy hot opinions in the end of the day.

>>13569414
Logic as a system is absolute
It's not "lol I just made up bullshit"
It has to go through a very particular rigour which conforms to universal law. Anyone who thinks philosophy is just subjective bullshit which the veracity of can just be ignored is fucking retarded

>>13569435
That is why I said axioms. You can arrive to any nonsense in a logical fashion if you use the "proper" axioms for it. Literally any math graduate will tell you that an axioms is ultimately just an educated guess in the end of the day.
For example:
A-All foxes are made of gold
B-Plato is a fox
Therefore, Plato is made of gold.
Of course, it bullshit, but despite that it was a conclusion that was achieved through logical means.

>>13557799
When it stopped looking for truth and became pure navel gazing or excuses for justifying ideological power.

Back to theology for me. At least they got metaphysics right.

>>13568677
Why is it that you think this only happens in philosophy and not any other field? Have you never heard of Einstein's quote "god does not play with dice" or Schroedinger's cat?

>>13569435
>Logic as a system is absolute
My man I really think you should reconsider this statement if you're trying to defend philosophy with it

>>13569414
Yes and no, if you outright reject someone's axioms, that doesn't reduce your opponent to opinions, it only puts the burden on you to explain why these axioms should be rejected, to a reasonable degree, assuming both parties are arguing in good faith. If you aren't in good faith, then nobody should care what you think anyway.

Basically, if you want to dismiss Kant, you should be Hegel, not just some half-literate jackoff.

>>13565730
>>13565716
Why do you blindly assume that everything, even the most difficult enterprises (thinking about thought or existence itself) should be reducible to simple "explain like I'm 5" propositions? Do you seriously adhere to that stupid Einstein quote "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"? It's people like you who watch a documentary on quantum physics and then delude yourselves into thinking you now "understand" quantum physics without ever looking at one equation. At a certain point of difficulty and unexplored territory, things simply aren't reducible.

>>13566664
I don't even dislike his work, but I've come to disdain every single one of his words and deeds. He's like a biblical fucking plague.

>>13557799
Hmm good question, maybe it was while reading Hume.

>>13571223
one of the classiest post i've ever seen on this barren hellscape

>>13560170
Most people are impressed more by dick size than how much philosophy you know.

>>13572191
Is philosophy a cope by dicklets?

>>13559289
Is Witty worth reading?

>>13557812
based

>>13569737
cringe

>>13568697
lol the entire canon of thought defeated by a 4channer