/lit/ - Literature

Literally never. If you come up with even a remotely plausible argument against any one of his arguments, you'll be come in instant academic phenomenon and basically become a household name across philosophy and likely science departments overnight.

>>14917174
Who dis boy?

>>14917174
Really does seem like everybody just dismissed and ignored him because his arguments went so against common sense, but they couldn't give any reasons to why it was incorrect.

How does /lit/ recognize philosophers from their portraits? Do you anons masturbate to writers after having read their works?

>>14917338
I just remembered you can search Google for the image by right clicking. What a dumb dumb I am.

>>14917338
Most of us arent redditors and know what reverse image search is.

>>14917174
Is he holding a gun? My gamma is very low

>>14917338
Do you not?

>>14917174
Kant

>>14917338
Not patrician

>>14917174
In fact Husserl refuted his visual philosophy of constant pictures which was quite funny.

>>14917228
Carlyle.

>>14917228
Jacobi.

>>14917523
You lie sir

>>14917526
Golly look at all these liars. GASP

>>14917228
A young [Schopenhauer](that's a Nick Fuentes reference for you).

>>14917494
wrong

>>14917228
charles barkley

Guenon (pbuh) refuted him, along with all other philosophers.

>>14917338
>How does /lit/ recognize philosophers from their portraits? Do you anons masturbate to writers after having read their works?

I dunno. You kind of just associate a name with the picture after you've seen them enough.

>>14917542
that rotten little goblin!

>>14917639
While Guenon bemoans philosophical "idealism" Berkeley's idealism actually has many parallels with the Advaita Vedanta that Guenon bases himself in, the later British idealist FH Bradley is even closer to Vedanta, in fact Bradley on his own came up with and published an identical argument against the reality of causation that the Advaita philospher Sriharsa had already written about in the 12th century. Just be careful with the refutation posting and use a bit of nuance is all I'm saying

>>14917174
Doesn't quantum physics and how particles only exist in a state of probabilistic potentiality until they are observed prove him right? Berkelian idealism has pretty much been confirmed by the most advanced modern science.

>>14917338
Usually they have a few well known portraits every article or book on them includes. That, and they often have some distinctive feature or garb. Berkeley with his weird hat, Locke with his schnoz, Hume with his morbid obesity.

>>14917542
That behavior doesn't seem very in line with the categorical imperitave, WTF Kant?

>>14917174
Kant showed how we can’t know whether it’s ideal or not. He explains why and how perception is situated within modes of categories, but we cannot know for sure. It’s a very sophisticated and mature way of saying “yes, but we can’t know for sure”. Hegel comes in and says that this “yes, but we can’t know for sure” is the unfolding of history, a leap of thing in itself to itself, something the ancient mystics knew all too well and scientists are now proving.
>But what’s the truth
start with the greeks

>>14918620
Elaborate

>>14917338
A lot of profs include a few pictures of the philosopher whose work they're expositing in their power point presentations.

Imagine not knowing the Bishop

>>14917174
almost worse than Marx when it comes to philosophy. Really jack crap. Spinoza level of uselessness, but at least Spinoza was an important step in philosophical progress

>>14918901
>implying the Locke, Hume, Bishop steps weren’t important

Geez, pretty slow tonight

>>14918901
Retarded hot take. Berkeley is a big step in the British Empiricism staircase

>>14918620
>a state of probabilistic potentiality until they are observed prove him right?

No, because we don't actually know that this is the case. This is an ontological supposition added on after the fact. If the wave function is not ontic, or something else altogether, then this can't be the case. And even if it was, the wavefunction would still be an existing object in the world - hence quantum state "realism".

>>14918920
A staircase that ultimately led nowhere, that Kant had to plaster off for safety reasons.

>>14919290
>If I can't understand it and it's implications it's nowhere and others should be prevented for going there for safety reasons

>>14919290
>implying it didn’t lead to Kant

>>14917228
Russel

>>14917338
wtf are you talking about? Are you brain damaged? Most philosophers have like one or two really well known pictures, or have some rather distinctive traits. For Berkeley its both. This is the picture people use, and I cant think of another philosopher that wears that Reverend neck tie.

For neitzche there's no mistaking that mustache, and For Kant you think of that big brain pic. I sometimes confuse Plato and Aristotle, but Plato usually has a longer beard. Locke is a skinny fuck, and Descartes is all three musketeer looking. They are all mostly pretty unique looking.

Maybe its because you live in a non white country? I know Asians think Euros all look alike like euros think assians do since we arent as familiar with each others facial features.

I have refuted him.

>>14919290
>Critique of abstraction is not important
>Moreover, Empericism is not important (the most practically useful strain of philosophy)
>Moreover, its effects on German Idealism are not important (Which is important even for contenentals)

Occasionalists rise up!

>>14919416
B-but only do it occasionally.

>>14917338
The opposite way from how I remember names. I only remember philosophers names thanks to their portraits.
If you have poor third eye acuity, don't bother with philosophy.

>>14917228
Hume