[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 90 KB, 960x540, virtuvian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093029 No.15093029 [Reply] [Original]

I've read 20% - 80% of
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Kant
>Spinoza
>Rousseau
>Cicero (and other meme stoics)
>Homer
>Sophocles and Euripides
>Shakespeare
>Marx
>Nietzsche
>Emerson
>Zhuangzi
>The Bible
>The Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita
>Boethius

And other literature/ philosophy.

Ask me anything or troll me or something.

>> No.15093032

>>15093029
I notice you don't have the Dhammapada on there.

>> No.15093034

>>15093029
are you happy, content, have you found meaning?

>> No.15093036

>>15093029
Doesn’t matter

>> No.15093041

Did you enjoy them?

>> No.15093049

>>15093029
Guru Granth Sahib
I Ching
Tao Te Ching
Quran
Dhammapada
Yoga Vasistha
Tai Chi Classics
Art of Peace (Morihei Ueshiba)
A Course in Miracles
Carlos Castaneda books
Prometheus Rising
New Thought books

>> No.15093052

>>15093029
And you’re still an idiot

>> No.15093054

>>15093032
Never head of it

>>15093034
No. I traveled the world, biked across the states, and lived in China for a year seeking a meaningful life. In doing so I lost the love of my life who gave up after 7 years of waiting, I was recently betrayed by a friend, and I currently work a manual labor job. All I have is knowledge and the book I'm writing to keep me going. Personally I'm lonely and oscillate between hating life and loving it.

>>15093036
Depends on a lot of assumptions

>> No.15093067

>>15093054
Well if you oscillate between hating and loving life that’s only half bad. Nobody is forcing you to read either. You can fix your loneliness.

>> No.15093069

>>15093041
In general yeah, there was a baseline of enjoyment. Occasionally though epiphanies come that are unlike anything else in life, and are without a doubt the best moments of my life. You never know when they'll come. That's what kept me going.

>>15093052
In my personal life yeah, no doubt. As a philosopher? I might be remembered 500 years from now. Time will tell

>> No.15093078

>>15093069
Time will tell that your a fucking schizo and your lies will catch up to you

>> No.15093081
File: 27 KB, 400x281, 2080683661_0e4ddeb9d7_o[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093081

>>15093029
>didn't read pic related
It's a shame anon

>> No.15093083

>>15093029
Have your readings granted you any novel insights into contemporary philosophy/theology/politics?

>> No.15093124

>>15093078
What are my lies? Ask me a philosophy question to test me. If you know enough to ask interesting questions.

If you hate me, its only because you want to read the books I've claimed to and you have no idea how to self actualize. Sorry about it, honestly, I don't know how to get you to follow your dreams.

>>15093081
whodat?

>>15093083
I think so. My book revolves around the idea that consciousness experiences reality locked in an illusory Solipsism- which means that fundamentally all things are interconnected. As a result subjectivity and objectivity can be reconciled, in the sense that subjectivities interact with each other and refine each other to, in a sense, overcome zero sum games, which will culminate in a hegelian end of history scenario where all subjectivities are harmonized such that they can attain their ends simultaneously and without parasitizing or oppressing each other. As far as modern philosophy/theology/politics:
Modern philosophy needs to drop materialism and become Spinozan, i.e. mind and matter are both reflections of the same fundamental substance. (analogy: mind and matter are a piano and a violin, both playing the same sheet music but manifesting in different ways (sounds).
Theology: Christianity's flaw is Satan's eternal severance from God, creating an unbridgeable dualism which has created the modern outlook of death being non-being and modern materialist atheism. Satan is saved in the end. The final judgement is not God looking down on us, but all consciousnesses realizing the reason behind everything, and as a result judging everything to be necessary and therefore forgiven. Freedom is not libertarian, it is a state of alignment with our nature.
Politics: The form doesn't matter (rule by many, few, or one) what matters is the attainment of eudaimonia. All concepts and states of affairs in the world are only ever instrumentally good; the Good lies in consciousness and its self-evident assessment of life

>> No.15093136

>>15093054
>>15093124
You seem pretentious. Impressive reading to have under your belt though, I’ll give you that

>> No.15093156
File: 126 KB, 458x333, 1563440842923.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093156

>>15093029
That's all?

>> No.15093163

>>15093124
>Ask me a philosophy question to test me
why did plato hate music so much?

>> No.15093228

>>15093136
People tell me I'm pretentious so I must be. But its hard not to be when you try to discuss politics, religion, and other things with people who don't know any history or philosophy and can't think outside the paradigm they've been indoctrinated into. They can't even see the paradigm. So yeah, I'm actually pretentious, but part of it is just intimidation and an appearance of pretentiousness that comes from others being unable to keep up intellectually. The alternative is to act like I don't know more than them, which I usually do now because normal people don't give a shit if you've given yourself an actual humanities education.

>>15093156
yes

>>15093163
I don't think that he did. In the Republic Socrates exalts mousike and argues it should be part of the fundamental education of the leader caste. I think Plato's issue was with animal instinct and the music/ arts that inflamed it. Like, you can't grind in a club to Pachelbel's Canon in D. You need heavy bass beats to awaken that sort of movement, or at least, that sort of music most naturally evokes our animal desire to dance wildly and sexually. So Plato would dislike that music because it enflamed the animal passions in the masses and drove them to improper behavior that did not align with reason and temperance. The same principle goes for all Art in regards to Plato. Mousike in general, however, he did not dislike

>> No.15093363

>>15093228
What do you think of drugs? Ethically or otherwise.

>> No.15093394

>>15093228
What's your philosophical life goal?

>> No.15093399

>>15093228
How many languages you speak?

>> No.15093462
File: 382 KB, 1600x1257, babel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093462

>>15093363
Society should generally look down upon drug use. The truly individualistic will seek them anyway, and conformists will be better off being indoctrinated into thinking they're bad. Alcohol and drunkenness should be thought of as a way to build deeper relationships with friends, psychedelics might have some place in coming of age ceremonies/ life transitions because they reveal our unconscious desires to us. Casual drug use should be scorned.

>>15093394
Write a book that synthesizes Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, and Kant with post modernism, reconciling objective morality with relativism and subjectivism. Reawaken a sense of the mystical and teleological aspects of life. Reawaken the knowledge that man has a nature which must be cultivated, not dissipated in aimless freedom.

>>15093399
English, enough Spanish to hit on Columbian women. Not enough game to bed them, unfortunately.

>> No.15093534

>>15093029
>Cicero (and other meme stoics)
Imbecile.

And yet another example of an utterly useless individual with no worthy accomplishments of his own.
In awareness of his complete lack of any achievements he turns to reading books!
For now he can say :
>Behold me! I am no longer a worthless depressed drone of society! I have now read the works of some wise men! I must have accumulated their knowledge and justified my pathetic existence.

>> No.15093579

>>15093534
but you sound like a miserable drone

>> No.15093601

>>15093462
>Reawaken the knowledge that man has a nature which must be cultivated, not dissipated in aimless freedom.
and when that doesn't happen what next?

>> No.15093636

>>15093534
Holy cringe. I went through a Nietzsche worship phase too man, try some Plato and Aristotle and it'll clear that up. Seriously though, holy fucking cringe.

You're right, I'm a book reader not a man of action. I spent a lot of time trying to be, and life experience showed me that it wasn't in my nature and didn't bring me fulfillment. Nietzsche full of self loathing, he isn't someone for you to idealize or emulate.

>> No.15093655

>>15093228
You acknowledge that you're pretentious but you fail to understand why people call you pretentious.
And no, it isn't because we "can't keep up intellectually."

>> No.15093676

>>15093601
I'm writing a book not leading the movement. I don't have any doubt that it will eventually happen, I believe its fundamentally true, which means our denial of it has consequences. Society will sooner or later recognize this, the same way a man who denies fire is destructive realizes he's wrong when he sticks his hand in the flames. In Hegelian terms, the internal contradictions will make themselves known over time and incite their own synthesis. All I plan to do is write my books and play the role I'm fated to play.

>> No.15093682

>>15093655
Can you explain? I'd like to know, I don't want to be pretentious. I just don't know how not to be

>> No.15093692

>>15093029
what did you get out of spinoza

>> No.15093693

>>15093636
Can you form a single coherent thought without resorting to mentioning book daddies?

>> No.15093704

>>15093693
I think so.

>> No.15093725
File: 23 KB, 359x480, ug_4_016.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093725

OP, respond to this with your thoughts on this statement.

"Thought is not the instrument for achieving anything other than the goals set before us by our culture or society or whatever you want to call it. The basic problem we have to face today is this: the cultural input, or what society has placed before us as the goal for all of us to reach and attain, is the enemy of this living organism. Thought can only create problems; it cannot help us to solve any.” Thought comes with a built-in program to create the next goal to be achieved – be it an educational degree, a house purchase, a promotion, a start-up, poverty alleviation or even enlightenment. Once one goal is met, another is generated automatically. Thought makes sure that happiness lies in the future, not in the present moment. How can such an instrument help us live a peaceful life ever?"

>> No.15093743
File: 570 KB, 736x573, 12932342.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093743

>>15093636
>Holy cringe. I went through a Nietzsche worship phase too man, try some Plato and Aristotle and it'll clear that up
>Philologist of the Greeks who refuted the Greeks is refuted by the Greeks

>> No.15093751
File: 13 KB, 206x335, UGpostcalamity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093751

>>15093725
>>15093029
This as well OP

"Thought in its birth, in its origin, in its content, in its expression, and in its action is very fascist. When I use the word ‘fascist’ I use it not in the political sense but to mean that thought controls and shapes our thinking and our actions. It has helped us to create our technology. It has made our life very comfortable. It has also made it possible for us to discover new laws of nature. But thought is a very protective mechanism and is interested in its own survival.” Just like a Hitler believes in an ideology and makes it non-negotiable, thought believes in a value system and makes it non-negotiable. Whatever I value, be it a religion, be it a scientific principle or a business principle, once I make it non-negotiable, fascist nature is born. UG says, “You see, the value system is false.”

>> No.15093760

>>15093692
In the Theological Political Treatise he often says that you should explain things to people in whatever way brings them understanding. So to impart knowledge to a Jew, speak to them through Jewish texts, to a Christian, through Christian texts, to a child, through parables etc. His point is that language is filtered by people through a passive metaphysical lens, and that what is conveyed is not really in the language but is rather evoked by language- a sort of pure rational understanding. Modern example could be that Descartes' Demon illusion is fundamentally the same as The Matrix, but a dogmatic Atheist would dismiss the dream demon because he has prejudice against christian language, whereas he would be able to reach understanding through the Matrix because it conforms to his mythological view of the world as being fundamentally rooted in science and technology. But from a 'pure reason' perspective, both Descartes demon and the Matrix are the same. So, sort of language philosophy and the impact of one's mythology on their ability to grasp underlying truth.

Second, The Ethics main point is that matter and mind are 2 expressions of the same substance/ 'God.' Essentially, Substance is sheet music, matter is a piano playing the sheet music, mind is a violin playing the sheet music. They both follow the same pattern, because they are expressions of the same thing, and only perceived as different. It solves the mind/body problem and seems to be true according to our pragmatic experience of the world. Other than that the Ethics doesn't offer much, in my opinion.

>> No.15093763

>>15093124
>consciousness experiences reality locked in an illusory Solipsism- which means that fundamentally all things are interconnected
Already been done.

>> No.15093804

>>15093725
>>15093751
stop shilling this faggot. what's in it for you?

>> No.15093814

>>15093804
Why does it bother you? Nothing in it for me

>> No.15093826

>>15093725
>>15093751
I agree the fascism of thought and the never ending pursuit of goals issue, but I think they're more a problem of modern society than of thought in general. I don't believe that most people can be expected to rise above thought, which is to in a sense attain a sort of zen enlightenment. This goal is too hard to attain and is left to saints and messiahs. But like i said thought and the rat race is a problem in modern society, but I think its rooted in our particular belief system of radical freedom/ denial of human nature/ denial of the unavoidable social disparities of society. Modern societies try to act as if all men are free and can become billionaires/ reach the top of society. This makes men rapacious and unhappy if they are anything other than top of the heap. I think that a transition to a more hindu-esque/ Plato's republic-esque understanding that society naturally has unavoidable castes will help the mind calm down. If men realize there is no shame in belonging to a lower caste, but only shame in being a bad member of whichever caste, and we all collectively believe this, then everyone can achieve happiness and fulfillment by filling their own life role properly. And people who are on top of society will be condemned if they don't have virtue, not propped up regardless of virtue because they have power. Obviously idealistic, but I think a that this is the direction we are headed and should go towards, even if it only manifests imperfectly.

>>15093743
I don't think you know much about much. I suggest the Greeks and others on my list, you decide whether to take that advice.

>> No.15093845

>>15093763
'What has been is what will be; and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun."

Nobody does anything fundamentally new. The point is to paint old truths in this ages lies.

>> No.15093846

>>15093760
>Other than that the Ethics doesn't offer much, in my opinion.
many of the most esteemed philosophers were struck with inspiration and admiration on account of the ethics, Spinoza is considered to be a rare instance of true philosophical actualization, or at least someone who flew to a higher height than most ever realize. I chose to ask you about Spinoza because of this.

How would you describe your relationship with philosophy? Is it motivated by curiosity, a desire for discovery, a means to rigor, or an interest in spiritual development? What kind of things have you found special or resonant in philosophy and how would you describe the feeling of that reception?

>> No.15093857

>>15093534
Here's your (you)

>> No.15093876
File: 411 KB, 500x368, 1575690390740.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15093876

>>15093826
Appreciate the response. I won't respond to it to save you time to respond to other anons, but here's a link to the quoted man I posted, some of his philosophy we'll say
https://archive.org/details/TheMystiqueOfEnlightenmentU.G.Krishnamurti/page/n1/mode/1up

>> No.15093919

>>15093845
>The point is to paint old truths in this ages lies.
Thats what I'm saying. Maybe wait a few years and try again using that age's lies.

>> No.15093932

>>15093826
absolutely spot on.

>> No.15093939

>>15093846
I don't mean to say Spinoza isn't brilliant, he's in my top philosophers. But his other ideas like necessity and the conatus parallel Aristotle and Parmenides, and having already encountered them, I wasn't blown away. Granted I've only read him once and potentially missed a lot of insights.

My relationship with philosophy? I'd say it began with a sense of vocation, which you'll know you have if you experience euphoric epiphanies. (Seriously, the word fits here.) I'd say this is the phenomenology of the love of Truth- it began when I was a teen and asked a teacher what made gravity do what it does, and he said 'nothing, gravity just is.' I was struck by an epiphany there, I didn't even understand what that meant, I just felt a deep recognition that it meant something really important. I've had similar situations with Descartes, Plato, and just generally reading philosophy. So in this sense I do believe I have the gift, the ability to grasp with the understanding deeper truths. In my early twenties I was seeking discovery and spiritual development. At this point I'm so invested that I can't stop, though sometimes I despair that this was the wrong life path to walk. Superficially I want to help the world and be recognized as great. That drives me more than I'd like it to.

>> No.15093940

>>15093826
>I don't think you know much about much. I suggest the Greeks and others on my list, you decide whether to take that advice.
Terrible bluff, your persona is awful, and what the fuck are you talking about? Did you understand my response?

Nietzsche was a Philologist with a heavy interest in the Greeks, he is one of the purest instances of "starting with the Greeks", and upon his transition to philosophy devoted an incredible amount of his work to directly responding to the Greeks and the world they built, and here you are saying that the Greeks retroactively refute this man whose work is a direct counterargument to the Greeks. It's bizarre to expect that anyone has necessarily read Nietzsche with neglect to the Greeks, when the Greeks are obviously essential context for Nietzsche, and when reading someone like Nietzsche before the Greeks is such a rocky approach to western philosophy.
But I suspect this is what happened to you, and that you're projecting your own experience in which you read Nietzsche before the Greeks, then you read the Greeks afterward and assented to them because you read them afterward, and novelty generally overwhelms all naive readers of philosophy.
So fuck off, quit the bullshit, uninvest your energy from this stupid scholarly persona and invest it in some interest in truth instead. You care a lot about what we think, deny it as you may, and it's not working for you. Go read Twilight of the Idols. I'm a borderline Platonist and I think you're completely full of shit about Nietzsche

>> No.15093943

>>15093029
A lot of classic philosophy. What proportion of philosophy produced in the past century, produced in the past 50 years, and produced in the past decade have you read? Also how much secondary material have you read?

>> No.15093963

>>15093939
Considering the fact that he came after Aristotle and Parmenides, and was a continuation in their lineage, if you find him redundant with them then - and I say this out of no emotional attachment to Spinoza - you are definitely missing a lot in your reading.
And I didn't mean to just argue that Spinoza was brilliant, all the major philosophers are brilliant, I mean that Spinoza is relatively unique and begets a certain kind of respect and awe in a variety of different philosophers regardless of how significant they find the particular details of his system.

>> No.15093974

>>15093939
>My relationship with philosophy? I'd say it began with a sense of vocation, which you'll know you have if you experience euphoric epiphanies. (Seriously, the word fits here.) I'd say this is the phenomenology of the love of Truth- it began when I was a teen and asked a teacher what made gravity do what it does, and he said 'nothing, gravity just is.' I was struck by an epiphany there, I didn't even understand what that meant, I just felt a deep recognition that it meant something really important. I've had similar situations with Descartes, Plato, and just generally reading philosophy. So in this sense I do believe I have the gift, the ability to grasp with the understanding deeper truths. In my early twenties I was seeking discovery and spiritual development. At this point I'm so invested that I can't stop, though sometimes I despair that this was the wrong life path to walk. Superficially I want to help the world and be recognized as great. That drives me more than I'd like it to.
You profoundly overestimate your profundity and you sound like a kid trying to sound like an adult

>> No.15093989

>>15093919
I'm in too deep to let a crab pull me down. Maybe I'll be the Alfred Russel Wallace to his Darwin.

>>15093940
Gotcha

>>15093943
I haven't read many philosophers directly from the past century. Only Camus comes to mind. I don't read secondary books, but I've read a fair amount of Stanford Encyclopedia and iep.utm articles about modern philosophers. Their insights don't seem as deep as the ancients to me, but that sounds like bullshit. They're on my reading list but German Idealists and classic lit is more important to me. Do you have any suggestions?

>> No.15093999

>>15093963
Fair enough, I should re-read him.

>>15093974
I mean what I say. Lots of philosophers say that philosophical insight is something that can't be taught, but must occur internally. Plato said true philosophers experience flashes of insight/ epiphanies. At this point I feel like I'm genuine even if you don't, and I've just got to trust that

>> No.15094051

>>15093989
>I haven't read many philosophers directly from the past century.
>I don't read secondary books
You are destined for failure then. You severely underestimate just how much has been said, just how many innovations have been made in the past century. The entirety of your grand philosophical treatise could very well be contained within the footnote of a throwaway grad paper that will never be cited. I suggest you shed your hubris, freeze your ambitions, and start reading the hundreds of years of human ideation that you have neglected.

>> No.15094055

>>15093999
It's mainly the way you present yourself, I mean. I can see a familiar kind of ego at work - an ego that has worked it's way to a new level of contriving ways to present itself, now you're trying to strike this balance between modesty and a graceful, earned confidence which are both soaring high enough that you have no need of deliberately persuading us, but will grace us with your sincerity for as long as we listen.
All I see is that you've reflected on a lifetime of pretension and you think you're in a better place now and need us to believe that.
I offer you this - when you write these comments, you are thinking through how to present yourself and what impression you want to leave. hand. This, as opposed to being concerned purely with the matter at hand, with the facts of the matter.
I'll also say this... The description you've made in >>15093974 is not unlike my own experience, and while it is something to treat as important and I appreciate very much that you have a strong feeling for philosophy in this way, it seems like the greater point is that you want to be a special kind of person, and I suspect it's unhealthy - at the very least, it shouldn't outpace the interest in philosophy.

"Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world" - coldsteel the hedgehog

>> No.15094118

>>15094051
I don't read interpretations of philosophers I intend to interpret myself. Reading secondary literature is a good way of boxing in your thought before it has a chance to define itself. Modernity seems fucked in the head to me, maybe that'll be my downfall

>>15094055
Appreciate the psychoanalysis but I've already set my course. I'll write my book and publish it and let fate decide what comes of it. I might be delusional and I know I care too much about being special, but nothing will stop me from pursuing this goal.

>> No.15094211

>>15094118
>I don't read interpretations of philosophers I intend to interpret myself.
But aren't primary sources themselves just interpretations of other primary sources? Is not Kant just an interpretation of Descartes? who is just an interpretation of Plato? who is just an interpretation of Parmenides? so on and so forth. Aren't all primary sources just secondary sources?
>Reading secondary literature is a good way of boxing in your thought before it has a chance to define itself
Would not edification via primary sources and boxing-in via secondary sources occur via the same mechanism? Are you not just boxing yourself in by reading primary sources? Are you not always-already boxed-in by using a language and a set of concepts that you yourself haven't constructed?
You've got a lot of reading to do, little boy. I suggest you make a start by inspecting Rene Girard's mimetic theory.

>> No.15094256

>>15094211
The greats that have survived the test of time have proven themselves to be worth reading. Modernity has not yet been distilled so I read it more selectively

Checked out Girard's theory, its interesting.

>> No.15094266

>>15093029
Question: Eastern or Western philosophy which is superior and why?

>> No.15094311

>>15094256
>The greats that have survived the test of time have proven themselves to be worth reading.
The greats only stood the test of time because there were those in power that found them great. History says Locke is a great, but we only know about him because a bunch of 17th parliamentarians found him politically expedient. Do you think similar stories exist for all the other greats?
I suggest you read Bertrand de Jouvenel.

>> No.15095208

>>15093054
>goes to a communist country to find a meaningful life

>> No.15095374

>>15093029
is math invented or discovered?
is the hard problem of consciousness really a fundamental problem?
where do ethics come from?

>> No.15095418
File: 31 KB, 800x450, white_pplsmile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15095418

>>15093029
>>15093054
>>15093069
>>15093124
>>15093228
>>15093462
well I'm not impressed. sounds like you can't actually do philosophy, as in think clearly and argue carefully from the premises. No serious contemporary philosopher would take you seriously. enough of a proof that "starting with the greeks" and only reading centuries+ old primary sources is a meme.
>inb4 im a renegade im too real and smart for academia!
ok sure fag.

>> No.15095727

Breddy gud list, but how did you skip Schopenhauer? He will connect half of those philosophies together.

>> No.15096442

Thoughts on masterbaition ?

>> No.15096600

>>15093029
Can we say: X is Y ¦ while X is more general then Y, and Y is less general yet is part of X?
If you cant answer then you might be wasting your time.

>> No.15097361

>>15093054
you went overseas to "find yourself" while your love waited for you for 7 fucking years? sounds like you expected it to play out like a book and for her to just wait patiently for you. I say this from a place of love fren. as good as it sounds, life isn't a book. people move on.

>> No.15097584

>>15094266
Both are better in certain ways, and I believe they’re eventually going to be reconciled in a Hegelian synthesis. I’d argue the east has already undergone this synthesis, or is further along in it, because they were dominated by the west and forced to engage with its philosophy and science. As China and the East transitions to world power, the West will begin synthesizing eastern philosophy more.

But what’s the synthesis? Broadly speaking the West is influenced by Plato and Aristotle, and all philosophy since them has been passively framed by their methods. This has made western philosophy place importance in the rational intellect and linguistic Truth value(dialectic), deified concepts (Platonic forms), and its focused on properly categorizing reality such that we can understand causation(Aristotelian categorization/ deification of causality through the uncaused cause.)

What this passively rejects is the Eastern methods of philosophy, which I’d sum up as more phenomenological and focused on the spontaneous conscious responses of our nature. Ex. Confucius focus on filial piety is rooted in a focus on the spontaneous phenomenology of kinship, to love each other more easily than non-kin. Or the idea of the mandate of Heaven, which doesn’t place legitimacy in conceptual structures of political sovereignty (such as ‘the kings eldest son’) but instead argues that political legitimacy is something that shows itself through the prosperity of society. Meaning that a rebellion in China is not seen as attacking the legitimate structure of society, as it is seen moreso in the west; a rebellion in China is itself its own justification; the east does not expect reality to fit into its neat categorization of things, they realize reality is constantly shifting and that the events of reality need no justification beyond themselves. You can see this also in Confucius’s focus on ‘Ritual,’ which is everything from the emperor wearing fancy clothes to the actual rituals he is supposed to observe- which once again does not conceptualize so much as realize the human tendency to respect certain shows of wealth and consistency which puts people in a state of awe and creates peace of mind. In sum I think the Eastern culture has a deeper understanding of the pre-conceptual structure of reality as revealed through phenomenology, which gives them a flexibility and an ability to roll with the changes of reality more easily.

>> No.15097610

>>15094266
This is expressed in one of the Zhuangzi’s parables. There was a butcher who began by chopping the cow, and he had to replace his knife every month. Then he began to cut the bull, and he had to replace his knife every year. But eventually he learned how to listen the bones and hollows in between them, and place the knife exactly where it was meant to go, and now he never needs to replace his knife. Essentially, following conceptual knowledge (chopping, cutting) eventually gives way to listening to reality itself, not forcing it to conform to your categorization, but listening to your perception of its true nature.

But there are negative consequences to the east’s focus on listening to things as they are. The Western desire to perfectly conceptualize gives it a dialectical instability. Because we take conceptual systems more seriously, it seems to create more entrenched systems that can’t be ‘felt’ past like the butcher listening to the bones, but instead must be chopped through destroying the blade. Essentially, we take conceptual systems so seriously that they need to be destroyed by their internal contradictions before we recognize a change is needed. Also, our focus on deified concepts and deified causality is the source of our scientific outlook and all that it unlocked.

I know its this is broad as fuck but I can’t answer that question definitively. Both philosophies are worth reading and the goal should be synthesizing their strengths, not declaring which is better.

>>15095418
I'm not as hard for dialectical rigor. More historical analysis and phenomenology; I don't claim to be the best philosopher, and my goal is not to be accepted by the current paradigm, its to write my own book according to what I believe and find compelling.

>>15096442
Inevitable but should be looked down upon and children should be brought up knowing that its a hedonistic release with little to no long term benefits. Modern sexuality is licentious and base, we need to tame it with an Aristotelian approach- that pleasure is good and worth pursuing but quickly gets diminishing returns and degenerates man/ opportunity cost of pursuing it keeps one from attaining higher potential.

>> No.15097709

>>15096600
Like 'John is a man?' In a sense nothing is anything but itself and all conceptualizations fall short of grasping the thing itself. In another sense, yeah you can say that. I might not understand and am now a psued

>>15097361
I know. I told her to move on and cut her off early into the relationship, but she never did and in my weakness I used her for intimacy and love and sex. I truly loved her, but I felt the need to explore more of life. I'm glad she left for her sake. Even though it hurts.

>>15095374
The conceptualization of math is created but its rooted in a foundational existence which is self-evident. I can create a math system where x + x = 2x + 1, but that doesn't mean that walking 1 mile twice will take me 3 miles. What we call math is rooted in some real fundamental existence in reality.

The hard problem is a mistake of language. The only problem is why consciousness exists at all, and its probably beyond the knowledge of this life. But everything is fundamentally consciousness, even our scientific understanding and frameworks for the world. There is no dualism there. I'm somewhere between Hegel and Spinoza on this one.
Ethics are rooted in subjective experience and the natural law. The natural law is rooted in the foundational truth that that certain structures of existence continue to exist over others. The structures which happen to continue to exist, over the long term and with a line of best fit, are those which correspond to morality: truth, unity, cooperation. The evolution of single cell to multi-cell to social groups to now a one world political entity cooperating is the line of best fit that shows the teleological trajectory of reality and morality.

>> No.15097769

What is the BEST shakespeare play

>> No.15097806

>>15095374
More on the Ethics. Self-evident subjective experience is the substance of the Good. Which means that a serial killer who enjoys murder and torture is experiencing intrinsic goodness. But all of us subjectivities, though isolated in our minds, are unified in the 'objective' world of causality (I use these terms loosely) which means we are all refining each other, through this unified medium, into forms which allow us to reach our own ends. Which means subjectivities are refining each other such that we can all simultaneously attain our ends- in laymans terms, we put the murderer to death. Or we indoctrinate society into believing universal ethical doctrines so that they will cooperate. All these things are not important in some truth value sense, only in a pragmatic sense of whether they allow subjectivities to mutually optimize the attainment of Eudaimonia/ 'power' in the sense of mastery of the technical aspect of reality. You can see this process in the history of man from tribes to modern society. Empires become powerful, expand, passively homogenize the lands and cultures they conquer to themselves, and eventually fall- but ever iteration of this process leaves the world more unified and intersubjectively harmonized.

>> No.15097901

>>15097769
Coriolanus. The main character is exceptional, but prideful and disdainful of the common man. This has consequences. I identify with him, his flaws, and his disdain for playing the game so its a personal favorite.

Hamlets 'the best' for a reason though. And as a /lit/ fag you'll probably appreciate how indecisive and philosophical Hamlet is. 'What should men such as me do crawling between heaven and earth?'
And Othello, and Lear, and Macbeth. I haven't read Shakespeare's comedies but honestly every tragedy I've read has been great, I wouldn't skip any of them.

>> No.15098004

>>15093069
>I might be remembered 500 years from now
what would you be remembered for?

>> No.15098017

>>15093029
Pretty good list.

>> No.15098020

>>15093029
How much have you forgotten? Are you able to, say, tell me what Plato's Thaeatetus is about and what its main arguments are to me right now?

>> No.15098030

>>15093054
>No. I traveled the world, biked across the states, and lived in China for a year seeking a meaningful life. In doing so I lost the love of my life who gave up after 7 years of waiting, I was recently betrayed by a friend, and I currently work a manual labor job. All I have is knowledge and the book I'm writing to keep me going. Personally I'm lonely and oscillate between hating life and loving it.
lmao nvm, kys anglo

>> No.15098075

>>15093029
How much of the Bible would you consider literally true

>> No.15098076

>>15097769
Thinking on it I might say Othello. Iago is the best villain I've ever read because he is the evilest villain who still seems human. A villain like the woman from Tale of Two Cities is just as evil, but she's too clearly an allegory for the blind hatred of the French Revolution. Somehow Iago is nothing but an absolute lying piece of shit and yet nothing he does makes me think 'this guys a character.' I'd say Shakespeare's greatness lies in the fact that none of his characters seem judged or heavy handed or like they're trying to represent something. They all feel like real people living their lives according to their values. Even Coriolanus, who ends up dead because of his haughty pride, doesn't seem judged at the end. It feels more like 'this is a type of person who genuinely exists, and this is the fate of this type of person.'

>> No.15098164

>>15098004
For the books I write. I can't justify or convince you to believe me, the point is that almost anyone can be remembered if they dedicate their life to something worth remembering, and that's what I'm trying to do. You could be remembered for 500 years.

>>15098020
I know the Thaeatetus is about knowledge and that it ends in aporia because no airtight definition of knowledge could be found. It depends on the dialogue/ philosopher. I couldn't really tell you much about Emerson because his writing is more poetic and lacks an overarching system to remember. I could describe and analyze the apology and use it as a summary for Plato's entire philosophy as I perceive it. I remember a lot, but its spotty. When I read philosophy my goal isn't to become an encyclopedia but to refine my own vision of reality.

>>15098075
None of the miracles or mythological aspects, I'm open to its historicity but I'm not well versed in it and don't really care. I read it as collective mythological wisdom about the nature of humanity on the individual and collective level, as well as a vague outline of metaphysical truths. Ex. Isaiah 10:15 is an analogy for God's necessity and natural law; Matthew 7:15-20 is an analogy for the masses inability to discern linguist truth, and so an admonition that they should look at the actual consequences of leader's behavior and not their honeyed words. etc

>> No.15098220

>>15098020
Now reflecting a bit I remember Theaetetus goes from opinion to true opinion to knowledge, then asks for justified knowledge, which leads to an infinite regress where 'justified knowledge' has the same problem as 'knowledge,' only the problem is in the word justified now and not in knowledge- viz, what is it that could compose justification. And the answer is that language can't justify itself and becomes either circular or infinite regress. Which led me to think, for knowledge but also most things in life/ perception, that justification is an immanent state of mind and not something that can be contained in language. Something that is probably a probabalistic algorithm in the mind which we don't 'trust' but which is our sense of trust itself.

>> No.15098315

Do you believe truth has any intrinsic value?

>> No.15098329

>>15098220
Somewhat impressive I have to say. I've also read a lot of literature, somewhat similar to the list in your OP, but unfortunately I have forgotten a lot of what I read since I don't have any friends that have read the same literature and thus I have been unable or unwilling to 'retain my muscle strength' as it were.

>> No.15098474
File: 27 KB, 500x426, orestes-furies-bouguereau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15098474

>>15098315
I'm not a fan of 'intrinsic value' because it has a lot of cultural baggage and pre-existing interpretations that make it difficult to convey your meaning to others who already have their own rigid definition of what the statement means. That being said, yes, 'intrinsic value' loosely fits 'truth,' if truth is defined as a correspondence between our mental frameworks and some noumenous 'reality-as-it-is.'
In the sense that saying 'fire burns your hand' keeps you from touching fire, or 'he is a liar,' if the statement is true, keeps you from trusting him and consequently better allows you to navigate the world and attain your ends. Truth is in a sense 'power,' and man uses uses 'power' to attain his ends, which can generally be called states of happiness/eudaimonia. In this sense, if we go deeper, it isn't truth and the power that it unlocks that has intrinsic value, because I hold that subjective states are the true intrinsic value which we spontaneously seek- that being said, the only way to achieve subjective states we desire is through knowledge of ourselves and the world so that we can properly navigate through time and transform into potential states of mind which we wish to attain. In this sense, Truth and Happiness/ eudaimonia are fundamentally linked and no different, and so you could again say truth does have intrinsic value. Then you could argue that a baby doesn't know anything and is taken care of by its parents, so its achieving happiness/eudaimonia without knowledge, but that relies on an overly individualistic sense of what constitutes knowledge- the child doesn't 'know truth' and achieve eudaimonia through it, which appears to disconnect truth from subjective states and therefore from intrinsic value, but then again it is attaining eudaimonia through its parent's and their knowledge of what a baby needs, and so the baby is being given eudaimonia through truth, even though it is not the baby's personal truth.

The point is yes, I believe truth is intrinsically good, but this whole digression and need to constantly justify small inconsequential linguistic inconsistencies is my problem with modern philosophy and its hyper-logical focus which keeps us from accepting things we intrinsically know to be true.

>> No.15098509

>>15098329
Its natural to forget a lot; one Emerson quote I do remember: "I don't remember the books I've read anymore than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me." Don't take the opinions of random anons who tear others down because they can't self actualize seriously.

But also I've read many of these books multiple times and spend most of time writing in my journal or staring into space analyzing my thoughts. I don't have any peers to discuss with either. I'm not going to pretend I don't have a natural skill with philosophy, but much of it is hard work and dedication, and I think most people overestimate the need for talent. I don't doubt you can contribute something worthwhile if you want to and you put the work in.

>> No.15098560

>>15098509
Do you believe that most men can understand philosophy with enough work, or is there only a minority capable

>> No.15098644

>>15097709

>>15097709
Short answer depends are they partials or universals.
If partials, then as you said.
But they clearly are not for it mentions "...being more general, being less general", regardless ..given that they are partials, the only relation they Could have is what you answerd(no unity), but if one or more of them is universal breif answer: yes generally, less breif it depends in "isagoge" the more general is carried on the less general, (the attribute of the self or outside of the self that) we called it "al-hamel al tabi-é"، in other such as "pararminas" the reverese is possible.

If its not clear by now my E is horrible and my termanology isnt helpin either, im roughly trnslating here.

>> No.15098673

>>15093124
>Modern philosophy needs to drop materialism and become Spinozan, i.e. mind and matter are both reflections of the same fundamental substance. (analogy: mind and matter are a piano and a violin,

I agree with this. But I’m curious, which books led you it? For me, it was contemporary philosophy of the mind.

>> No.15098708
File: 126 KB, 800x480, analogy_for_understanding.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15098708

>>15098560
I don't think most men can understand philosophy; only a handful each generation, and the mechanism behind it is more than simple intelligence.
Pic related is a good analogy. A philosophical argument is this puzzle ball, and each piece is a part of the argument. Most people of above average intelligence can put the ball together and understand the argument piece by piece. But true understanding is an epiphany that ignites a simulataneous grasping of all the parts of the argument such that they appear as one indivisible truth- as if the ball, when put together, fuses into a perfect sphere without the cracks/ logical divisions of each piece of the argument. This sort of understanding is the root of epiphanies and true grasping of philosophical truth, and I think very few people achieve it, and the few who do have something akin to Christian grace.

Most people will never be able to grasp Truths beyond the paradigm they were brought up into- for that, we need a collective religion, which ideally serves to indoctrinate Truths into people through authority into accepting a good framework for life. Essentially, almost nobody can think very far past received knowledge, and the boundaries of their thought are guarded by subconscious allegiance to it. The most they can do is put the pick related puzzle together, pay superficial homage to the fact that it logically makes sense, but in their hearts and minds not grasp the intuitive truth of what that means.

>> No.15098712

>>15098220
Anything cannot be judged by itslef it has to be judged by something beyond it "META", and for the knowledge problame: all no prior knowledge goes back to prior knowledge, if not then knowledge is impossible, but knowledge is possible (draw your conclusion here), but what justifies prior knowledge i hear someone ask, i say: it has no bussiness being justified, here is a little secret that not many know when it comes to divisions before we divied things the thing itslef must have the ability to hold that division, when it comes to prior knowledge it doesnt, so in a meta division here statments are either capable of that or not, if capable then they are either true or false( if you understand this many "paradoxes" will be solved), if not then they either are capable of bestowing meaning on other or not, if the yes then they are called prior knowledge, if not then its simply meaningless.

>> No.15098723

>>15098708
this reads like the introduction to a book titled "totalitarianism"

>> No.15098825

>>15098673
I began philosophy as an non-self-aware materialist, Plato made me an idealist, Berkely made me realize he isn't any different from materialists fundamentally (he denies matter/ existing 'things,' but still argues that there is consistency to reality because of God's benevolent will recreating things as if they were permanent- meaning that the question of matter/mind is a red herring, what really matters and what all agree upon is a fundamental order and consistency to things, whether they ascribe it to permanent matter or spontaneously created mental projections by 'God') this led me to think mind/matter dichotomy is utter bullshit, there must be a fundamental order beneath both, speculations about redness corresponding to certain physical states ('what mary didnt know'), and other speculations on how every mental phenomena seems to have a correspondent physical phenomena, brought me to a rough version of Spinoza's conclusion before I read him. Then reading him it all fell into place.

What baffles me most about reading philosophers throughout civilization is how much Truth has been here and yet neglected. Its fucking nuts how long it takes for cultural illusions to destroy themselves in internal contradiction.

>> No.15098874

>>15098723
Some truth to that. But the internet age and the limitless access to free educational materials has shown me that most people are under the the totalitarianism of their own minds and inability and lack of desire to expand past received knowledge. A society of 'freedom' is just as totalitarian as any other, in that every belief system is merely an input that creates a single output in a person- viz, telling someone they are free does not give them multiple futures to choose from, it is a single output which dictates which potential future will manifest, as all idealogies are, and so believing 'freedom' is true is just as limited as any other belief system- i.e., there is only one potential life that will manifest. So true freedom isn't teaching people they are 'free' and letting them believe that and do what they want, its teaching people whatever they need to be taught to manifest their ideal potential life to the best of our abilities. Western conceptions of Freedom are incoherent propaganda.

>>15098712
I don't really follow.

>> No.15098997

>>15093228
You are pretentious and Full of yourself. With all your philosophy Thinking and book reading You have yet to find humility.Just like when you were traipsing around Gorging your superiority Complex and ego on worldly experiences While neglecting a real live human, That you admit was the love of your life. I suggest you do some deep east Indian meditation, which I'm sure you learned from some guru, About why You denigrate, So called, "normal people" For not giving a shit About your "actual humanities education". I'm sure you have some decent ideas but how about you Stop acting so grandiose And then normal people might actually care to Talk to you.

>> No.15099018

>>15098825
For me it was philosophy of the mind — especially David Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness”. A big question I’m preoccupied with is what is the nature of this cosmic mind? I’ve written recently about why I think idealism leads to panentheism — or at the very least some “agentive” version of idealism.

This post is about why the multiverse fails: http://www.psychedral.com/2020/04/should-familiarity-breed-contempt-why-agentive-cosmopsychism-beats-the-multiverse/

And this one is about why agentive versions of idealism are essentially panentheistic:
http://www.psychedral.com/2020/04/theistic-agentive-cosmopyschism-and-the-omniaesthetic-god/

>> No.15099125

>>15099018
I agree, multiverse theory is the equivalent of Christians saying God created fossils and redshifting to make the universe seem like its billions of years old. Its a dying paradigm rationalizing any way to keep itself alive, it won't work.

>>15098997
??? I said I love her and I do, but I have no idea if she was the love of my life. It was a Kierkegaardian Either/Or situation: stay with her and resent her and myself for giving up on my dreams, or leave and feel the pain of losing her. I made my choice and I stand by it, life is not easy and no decision is perfect. As far as my personal flaws and denigration of normal people, I'm more or less aware of them and working on it- but I have no intention or desire to fit in anymore. I tried that and succeeded in my early twenties and it didn't bring me any happiness. As it is, I'm a good worker, I'm kind to my family and friends, and I keep to myself and read books. That's good enough for me, and that's what my nature and experience chasing after acceptance has led me to. I still have growing to do, but talking to normal people about the topics that interest them brings me no joy, and so I'll be polite to them when I have to engage and spend my time with myself when I don't have to.

And the irony of you speaking about pride and pretension, and then believing you can psychoanalyze me and fix me through a few posts is the definition of projection. Tend your own garden, I'm doing my best tending mine.

>> No.15099411

>>15099125
You should blog. I’d read.