/lit/ - Literature

>>14779395
yes philosophy is a meme study stem

>>14779399
>waste 4 years studying STEM
>realize I could have done anything else and my life would have been more enjoyable

You've awakened

>>14779395
>waste 30 hours reading a philosophy book
Which one?

>>14779420
Fanged Noumena

You guys should stop reading loads of philosophers all over the place. Seriously, follow the chronology and either get specific works in that chronology, or get a compendium. Start with Plato (apart from Zeno, anything earlier is largely worthless), then move on from there. Hopping about all over the place is just a waste of time and you'll land up wasting it with bullshit (like pretty much anything Continental, especially that Baudrilard moron).

Anyway, gj on the timewaste, mang. And yes, you can look at short introductions or wikis to get a flavour. Although Stamford Online is the best online resource.

>>14779412
no you will suffer anway there is no point in what you do just die

>>14779423
Then those hours were truly wasted. Fortunately, what you were reading had nothing to do with philosophy.

>>14779443
People on this board assured me it was a masterpiece of contemporary philosophy. If that's the best philosophy can do, then I'm not impressed. Don't pull a no true scotsman here. This WAS philosophy, and it was awful.

>>14779451
>People on this board assured me it was a masterpiece of contemporary philosophy.
You are simply spitting a lie. Or you got baited like an actual fucking retard.
In both cases I have no sympathy for you. Fuck off to your 5min deep youtube shorts.

>>14779395
>He thinks philosophy is about getting some piece or collection of pieces of "information" which can be removed from the context of the argument that produced it
>He thinks that a youtube lecture can substitute close study of the text

Philosophy isn't for you, go read Hitchhikers Guide and Pop Sci and be a good little STEM magpie collecting shiny "facts" and trinkets to show off.

>>14779395
what did you learn?

>>14779491
Mad STEMchads make infinitely more money than you? What do you do for a living, faggatron? Still living with mommy? Aww that english degree not helping you get any jobs? Ah bloo bloo

>>14779451
People on /lit/, in general, have no idea what philosophy even is.

>>14779495
Big words for someone making $50k a year with a comp sci degree, about to be replaced by some H1B pajeet who cheated his way to better grades than you studied for. STEM is a meme for 99% of people, mediocre nerds trying to ride the "muh jobs" bandwagon as if the economy needs or can handle year after year of programmers or low-level engineers.

>>14779495
Why do you assume everyone interested in a subject is majorong in it? And that they don't just pursue a simple career or trade after, of they are? You obviously have no true interest in your gay major. Other than enabling a Prussian educational system where the dumb peasants get locked into vocational training, perhaps.

>>14779475
You only need 1 minute to explain any philosophical stance you coping raging autist, as it is, like everything, based on objective and ultimate logic. If it isn't, then it's inheritely bullshit.

>>14779395
>waste
Compared to what? This is a value judgment. Just what exactly could you have done in those 30 hours that is more worthwhile? Can you justify why it is more worthwhile?

>>14779525
Explain Hegel.

If you’re reading philosophy for the sparknotes of what’s being said you’re actually stupid. The reasoning is the most important part. Locke has great conclusions but his reasoning is shit.

>>14779395
Random question:
Would an atheist to theist spectrum with varying degrees of confidence (gnosticism: 100% confidence. agnosticism: 0% confidence) best be graphed with a square where there is an x and y axis, or a single axis from gnostic atheist to gnostic theist?

This is philosophical, although in regards to logic, I was wanting some assistance as to which graph would be the best.

Since atheism and theism are a dichotomy, and both are not the other, if we use a single-axis where agnosticism is the middle, how would the single axis make sense if agnosticism is not "not atheism" or not "not theism." Wouldn't it be its own third option?

>>14779533
Can't because I don't know who that is or what they've done. However, if it makes logical sense which is a requirment for a healthy thought, his philosophy can be put in a nutshell with the central idea and everything else follows logically from the idea.

>>14779540
Number of variables = Number of axis

>>14779545
Depends how big your nutshell. I bet you have a really small nutshell that all the girls giggle at. My nutshell is fucking massive. You can easily fit two Hegels in my nutshell.

>>14779546
So would a single-axis be applicable? I am asking because the person was debating that agnosticism is the same as atheism. Therefore agnosticism is not a third option, and a single-axis would make sense.

>>14779540
Let's say each view on this spectrum is a logical syllogism.
But that presumes that the individual elements and statements of any belief on this hypothetical spectrum are both quantifiable and have equivalent measured. They're qualitative judgements, and each judgement making the position interlinks with the rest.
These statements, both logical and qualitative, cannot be measured mathematically measured. What can you measure in the syllogism but the premises and the logical train to reach the conclusion? But how can these be numerically equivalent to another syllogism?
So, to answer your question as best I can, I think it's asinie to assign these mathematical values to logically derived principles. Quantitative reasoning doesn't precede logic, for this reason.

>>14779540
Gnosticism is not the opposite of Agnosticism. I wish you fucking retards would stop perpetuating this.

>>14779562
>"I know" is not the opposite of "I don't know"

>>14779545
Point is: You're full of shit, about everything you just said.

>>14779546
>>14779560
>>14779562
>>14779563
So to sum it up, having a spectrum for this is retarded. There should be an axis for every variable. Knowing is not the opposite of not knowing. I am more confused, thank you.

>>14779570
so THAT'S what satori feels like...huh, interesting

>>14779570
You can't just remove the A and assume it means the opposite. Gnosticism means something completely different. This dumbfuck usage only appeared a few years ago, it seems from atheist circles. Please don't promote this misuse of words.

>>14779395
I don't get it. I'm not really into philosophy, but isn't the point of it to make you think for yourself, rather than simply knowing the author's opinions? You could probably watch a short Youtube video and memorize what it is about, but would that give you a greater understanding of the self and the world? If you read a 30 hour book without gaining any insight, I doubt you would gain something from a 10 minute video.

>>14779578
Someone who actually gets it. The point of a philosophy book is to work through the author's train of thought yourself and to find areas of disagreement and try to resolve differences.

>>14779545
>>14779525
While most concepts can be summed up with a few careful sentences, the actual and EXACT meaning must always be explored and described.
What you are demanding is a dumbed down version of everything so it can fit in some shitapp like blinkist where everything has to be boiled down for the completely crippled attention span of retards so they don't feel left out when the discussion of philosophy arises.
As >>14779538 points out the reasoning is the most important part and the reduction to a few short hot takes, that are just the right stuff for a calendar everyone can hang in his kitchen to appear sophisticated, is counterproductive to the emergence of new ideas.

>>14779547
Girls laugh at my nihilistic nutshell, yes :(
Anyhow, Wikipedia page on Hegel contains his logic and too expanded even.
>>14779569
If your thinking is not based on logic, you are brainwashed. Otherwise, if it is, like in mathematics, you just need couple of axioms and everything else is a consequence
>>14779570
~P is opposite of P
>>14779614
Bad reasoning gives bad results. If a reasoning produces all the right results, then the reasoning is correct. I don't see your point, why would you need to expand on the core of the idea when everything else is already present by logical progression, you are just stating the obvious.

>>14779673
Bad reasoning with the right result is just a guess. It doesn’t make you a genius for guessing or being hopeful that you have the right answer (though it can appear that way from the outside to everyone else). It makes you lucky.

>>14779761
I said "all" right results. If something produces all the right results, then doubting its validity requires a lot of proof and explanation. A single right result, of course, might have been just a lucky guess. Contrary, a single bad result weights more than all the right ones and invalidates everything.

>>14779769
Multiple lucky guesses are a thing. Using Locke as an example, it’s not that the reasoning he does use is bad (though it is many of times), its what he doesn’t say is whats especially bad. It’s like building a brick wall with a bunch of gaps and missing bricks but the wall still stands. Or he’ll spam appeals to god.

>>14779857
But my point is always how with philosophy, you are only required to build the bottom layer of the wall and the rest of it builds itself. What do you mean by bad though? If it's a void in logic, then it invalidates everything he says.

>>14779769
>Contrary, a single bad result weights more than all the right ones and invalidates everything.
Anon this is crazy, I'm not even the person you're responding to but nobody believes this in philosophy or even in the natural sciences.

>>14779881
It is void in logic in many places. However what he says isn’t invalidated because it was put into practice in the US Constitution.

Many of his conclusions are bad too. I wanted to enjoy what he wrote so badly but reading him after Hobbes made him look like either a shit philosopher or Second Treatise was written for exclusively militiamen/revolutionaries and his other work that I havent gotten to yet is fine.

I disagree though, it differs per philosopher. Many of the best all write the whole wall brick by brick. Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume. Plato is a good example of the wall building itself. Though i’ll admit my experience of that kind of philosophy is much more limited than i’d like it to be.

>>14779903
Scientists are hacks who to an invalidity of their theorems insert bullshit like pic related. As for philosophers, autism won't allow them to admit they are spouting nonsense.

>>14779914
They are free to write it all and explicitly state it. And naturally, you are free to read it if you like it. But to say how stating it is necessary, or how, what some others may say, you need insight on author's situation, if true just makes it invalid because that's the consequence of illogicality. Hell, I would gladly read some philosopher's journal where he complains how a woman fucked him over for money and how that made him change his life perspective, but that is unnecessary to grasp his philosophy if it makes sense in the first place.

>>14779395
thanks doc

>>14779495
>MUNY!

>>14779540
Look up the Ineffable One and the Unknown God. The Arrhetos and Aphorretos.

>>14779451
>people
You mean Nick.