/lit/ - Literature

>>14647679
That’s a real philosophical take you got there.

How would you distinguish a definitive answer from a pile of bullshit?

>>14647736
nah, it needs more something something metaphysics something something material reality

>>14647746
There are no solutions.

>>14647679
Philosophy can be fun, a nice look at the history of people trying to answer questions as the world changed around them. There are plenty of philosophers who give answers, but most of it boils down to tautology or solipsism once you strip away the lingo. mendeleev's dream provides a nice history, where philsophy, chemistry, physics, medicine and math were all under the umbrella of "thinkers" As reductivism starting providing useful tools, the fields of though separated and evolved. Hell, putting philosophy in its own box was crucial to taking empirical evidence and running with it, instead of dissecting what empirical was. As the other fields developed and got us to the modern world, the questions
philosophy was a useful tool for shrank. It's living history, trying to keep it's relevant by gnawing on the leg of science under the pretense of "questioning grand narratives" You won't see any field mentioned by postmodernism ever mentioning it in return. Hell, watching a post structuralist fail to come up with counter examples that might cause legitimate introspection instead of obfuscated criticism is embarrassing.

>>14647679
only though gnosis can infallible knowledge be achieved in this life.

>>14647679
The point, I would think, is precisely that. You aren't duped by the supposed definitive answers given to you.

>>14647758
No. By positing the proposal you are engaging in a course of thought, that when extrapolated, leads on to a philosophical debate.

>>14647758
Without philosophy there is no reason to do anything. Even an anti philosophy is still a philosophy, like an antithesis is still a thesis. Even if you say we do things just because you are engaging in it.its inescapable.

>>14647679
>>14647848
Both of these posts were obviously made by pseuds who've never read a philosophy text, and have read pop sci articles, and nothing else.

>>14647885
Found the pseud

>>14647884
This is true

Nothing gives definite answers. Does that mean that there is no point to anything?

>>14647679
So there is only a point to shit that we know to be true??? Kill yourself then my friend that's your only gurantee

Not quite. We just don't pay attention to the philosophy which has a really fixed consensus. Think stuff like Frege's work on thought or Husserl's critique of psychologism. Things like Kant view of phenomena also come to mind. They kinda structure everything.

>>14647898
Whatever's faggot. Oblivious ignorance based on vague dismissals and no arguments or substantial facts doesn't make you wise.

>>14647913
>Oblivious ignorance based on vague dismissals and no arguments or substantial facts doesn't make you wise.

They don't have substantial facts either yet you listen

We also always forgot the use of philosophy in fields of study. Philosophy of biology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of education, philosophy of economics etc. There philosophy underlies those fields and limits what they claim and the concepts and methods that are used in their studies.

>>14647918
Who? Philosophers? You show even greater ignorance, then, because philosophers use natural phenomenon as analogies and proofs all the time. And you would know this had you actually read primary sources.
You would know that philosophy, at it's foundation, is built on rational argumentation and defining terms. That's one of the first and key points if the texts of the narrative of the Trial and Death of Socrates. Socrates asks people to define what they mean by ideas like justice and piety, and often show their circular reasoning and lack of rational grounds in the process.
Philosophy isn't speculation about the natural world. It's the use of reasoning and teleological thinking.

But my main point is that your type never cites any primary texts, and builds any logical arguments with those premises. Where's your historical reasons? Where's your use of reductive and inductive reasoning? Because to me, it's clear your whole thesis is based around anachronisms, not on clearly defined historical facts. Plenty of physicists on the 20th century had an interest and intersection with philosophy.
What you accuse philosophers of doing is what you're doing.

>>14647993
*Deductive reasoning is what I meant.

>>14647679
>He doesn't see the point to questions

>>14647679
Nice try but did you know that... uh... the being of Being is not itself a being!?

>>14647679
Scientific method would not exist if there was no philosophy

>>14647679
The questions are answers in themselves, establishing a non-critical truth. For rebirth to be made room.

>>14647679
>but gives no definitive answer
The point is to get something from a text that you can use. We cant use whats in most a text, or even most of a text its self.
Someone doesn't read Nietzsche and use everything he wrote, but can find and idea in his writings that they can use.

>>14647679
just like Joker(2019)...

That's becuase you have a bad philosophy. In contrast, my philosophy is pretty useful.

>>14647885
how you didn't attack my typos is beyond me.
Would you let me look at your seethe?

https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/28/12/4136/4560155

>>14647679
the point is to annoy other people, and to tell them that their understanding of Nietzsche is fundamentally wrong.

>>14647884
>Without philosophy there is no reason to do anything
If you are hungry, you go hunting. Pretty untuitive and unphilosophical. Most things are like this. When life is a cup of coffee, philosophy is the package around the sugar.

>>14648935
*intuitive

All philosophy leads to religion
All science leads to religion
See the trend?

>>14648935
that's a pretty nice metaphor you got there. if you want to sweeten your coffee you add a sugar pack. see what i did? i glossed over the details. like you're hungry and you hunt? sounds like there were some details left out. can you imagine thinking all those books you read taught you something and you get triggered by an unimportant consumer?

>>14648962
No

>>14648962
I sure do

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

do you?

>>14648807
>Yeah? Well here's a basically unrelated science paper, bro. Bet you didn't see that coming. Tough luck, pal.

>>14647911
>They kinda structure everything.
they structure institutions created by retards

>>14647679
Haha yeah it is as absurd as saying that people think and that that thinking is bad because they don't have an absolute authoritarian power to make them conform to the objectifying power of nature wherein simple facts reign as supreme scientific philosophic truth.

>>14649260
Would you let me look at your seethe? The technology is there.

>>14647679
you are the point. that's literally the fundamental difference between philosophy and every other field of study/discipline. you are the point. you are the answer. now figure out which questions you answer. figure out what you are the point of.