/lit/ - Literature

Philosophy became estranged from the material universe which it was built to explain, towards spirituality, as religion started putting its claim over all things intellectual. This was the turning point where practitioners of the rituals took over the study of experiments.
Philosophy since then has become mostly a study of ideas without any correspondence to reality in the mainstream. Those who have tried to bring back its formal glory have been mocked by the incumbent. It is forced to sustain humiliation upon humiliation of encroachment by irrationalists who truly dominate the field today, a blasphemy towards the greatness of the departed geniuses. The same irrationalists, who sole source of knowledge is anecdotes, idioms and literary devices ALONE instead of insight into the structure of reality.

>>1544823
*whose sole source

JamesBond will you be my Matt Damon?

Bump

bro why don't you actually read philospohy instead of talking about it from your observatory on mars

Dude Wittgenstein thought the Tractatus was a mistake.

"oh my god those philosophers are so dumb if i can pick up a book then isnt it real? they r just sooo complicated. god this is so stupid"

How is your freshman year of college coming along?

>>1544918
I am calling nobody dumb as such.

bump

>>1544918
heavy satire bro

I hate it when people somehow think that just because Wittgenstein undermines the Tractatus there aren't just as many lessons as Philosophical Investigations to be learnt from it

ok james. i think you are mostly right, but you are not really criticizing modern philosophy.

>>1545040
So. What am I criticizing?

idk, anything that exhibit the problems that you describe? i think you will like contemporary analytic philosophy at least, because many of your concerns are shared

>>1545100
>contemporary analytic philosophy
> analytic philosophy

Please understand. I am not trying to be sarcastic or abusive. Its just that I can not accept that term.

i wouldn't bother onion; James is either a fucking schizoid, cannot into English or a lame troll

>>1545122
>schizoid.
I laughed out loud.

You know what that mean Imprecision man? Try using you civilian identity.

see what i mean

>>1545131
*means

bump

bump for minor justice.

Further:
The problem is complicated by the fact that the study of natural cause has become too extensive; i.e. one needs to supply a indecent amount of their lifetime to even comprehend the current status of knowledge and its pre-descred implications. Since philosophy is IDENTIFIED today as the explanation IMPLICATION of this knowledge on human life, it is made into astoundingly complex task to conjugate this knowledge with human behavior.

Precisely this complexity and the obvious LACK of any contact of modern philosophers with HARD sciences has made Philosophy a joke. It is simply expanding upon defunct ideas taken from past or fallacious and superficial understanding of present day science.

The only means to face this debacle is acceptance: Philosophy has to change its course to become a higher order science for HARD SCIENCE students rather than an independent subject of study accumulating students without any scientific background whatsoever.

Does anyone have the basketball shoop of OP's pic

The first paragraph ought to read:

The problem is complicated by the fact that the study of natural cause has become too extensive; i.e. one needs to supply a indecent amount of their lifetime to even comprehend the current status of knowledge and its pre-described implications. Since philosophy is IDENTIFIED today as the explanation of IMPLICATION of this knowledge on human life, it is made into astoundingly complex task to conjugate this knowledge with human behavior.

*Excuse me for the spell-errors.

bump

>>1545334

The bottom comments are mostly chopped off, but they are the fairly obvious requests for sources.

I'm starting to suspect that you're just a particularly dedicated, multi-day troll, but just in case you're sincere and stupid, here you go.

>>1544823
>correspondence to reality

PLEASE read Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. That metaphor is so, so problematic and undesirable.

>>1545479
>to understand nature read philosophy

How nice!

this thread needs more capslock

>>1545479
>>1545482
>To understand your vocabulary, read philosophy.
ffy

ITT: OP confuses the love of wisdom/philo-sophia (which was always mental and linguistic) with natural science, then complains, then rambles. Nothing is accomplished.

>>1545500
fify*

>>1545470
Hmm. Thanks I read through them. But let me tell you something:

1) Its not an article in a journal so have to reference everything. Its an article on a board which I wrote while browsing it.

2) Paragraph for Comment A1 refers to ANCIENT times. Then philosophy was not a faculty in itself but the actual study of science.

Ancient philosophers using modern tools: Where did I say that?

Philosophers use axioms: Not always. Only in texts (formal discourses) they do. Not in their published popular writings.

3) Comment A3: Why can't there be interpretation without translation: I thing you meant ""why can't there be translation without interpretation?"

Language problems: They used a uniform language with definitions that they all agreed upon.

5) Comment A4: Sorry No references. I can't really take the trouble. If you need them read Thomas Aquinas.

6) Comment A5: Citations: See above.

>>1545505
When Nietzsche complains, rambles, and accomplishes nothing, /lit/ gives him a rimjob.

>>1545505
Ah.

Philosophy WAS indeed natural science anon. But that was a long time ago.

>>1545523
>>1545530
Baseless assertions, baseless assertions everywhere.

(btw nobody here really cares about Nietzsche)

>>1545520
>3) Comment A3: Why can't there be interpretation without translation: I thing you meant ""why can't there be translation without interpretation?"

I don't. Think about it. Although what you pose here is a fine question, too.

RE: References

They're important because you're wrong. The references you need do not exist.

>>1545564
>Why can't there be interpretation without translation

My claim is that this question is childish.

>>1545613

Hint:

Communication between agents speaking the same language is-

(a) always successful
(b) sometimes successful
(c) never successful

As homework, define communication.

>>1545621
Lets take the bait!

The answer is b under the condition:

They have the same definitions!

>>1545633

Okay, so you think that sometimes communication is not successful (although you haven't really defined communication yet).

When communication is unsuccessful, why is it unsuccessful?

>>1545648
You haven't defined success yet my dear fellow.

>>1545651

Okay, no more help for you :(. Too bad bro, you were like two posts away from enlightenment.

>>1545661
I laughed out loud.

Fine enlighten me. Where am I wrong?

Let us say that I am denying any right of post-structuralists to question Reality.

what philosophy have you actually read james

>>1545883
Nietzsche and currently reading Metaphysics by Aristotle.

Also Cohen's Logic and Scientific method.

eh. that's literally nothing man. \it's not really about language nowadays.

>>1545899

Oh really?

I started reading Derrida's work on GRAMMATOLOGY. I had to puke and delete the ebook.

As far as I hear, most of the post-structuralist framework is based on languages. Am I wrong or right?

>>1545905
dont' touch derrida

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6.html#9

read this see if it's helpful

>asking onionring about post-structuralism

>>1545907
hmm.

Are you from stanford?

>>1545910
no. the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is a really great resource though, you should read it instead of arguing with d&e about irrelevant french guys

>>1545909
>implying the answer i give isn't superior to the one you give were he to ask each of us about poststructuralism

>>1545917
I may be ignorant as fark, but Derrida is hardly irrelevant.

Also, they have formal lectures of Philosophy courses on you tube. Which I watch.

>>1545920
he's pretty irrelevant in analytic philosophy. you realize not all "philosophers" read each otehr

>a simple collection of OPINION

I fail to see the problem here.

>>1545899

Also relatively new to philosophy here, suggested reading?

>>1545942
Find some nice coffee table books, and alongside them Cambridge edition of whoever you want.

It really depends what interests you.

>>1545917

you can ignore due to

>>1545942

thanks

>>1545949

scratch those and reverse them >.<

fuck

>>1545924
Fine. I am going to believe you and invest time into this. What do you prefer me to start with?

>>1545957
hmm. you should just read a good survey of the history of analytic philosophy first. if you want to read specific guys, start with frege, although you can jump directly into quine and trace the problems that he talks about backwards until you can understand quine.

>>1545919
pic related

a quick bluffer's guide to poststructuralism/postmodernism:
It helps to understand Kant for the notion of critique, and basic ideas about Enlightenment, as well as Hegel for dialectic. You need to understand Marx's theories (Young Marx in particular).Nietzsche is good for anticipating the flavour of some postmodernist positions, although it's important not to equate his positions with theirs. The Frankfurt School constitutes a fairly broad number of positions that carry over by critical theory into poststructuralist/postmodernist thinking so you'll need to know a few thinkers in that school. You can really see the divide between analytic and continental in the opposition between the Frankfurt and Vienna schools. Saussurean Linguistics is an absolute must for structuralist thinking and deconstruction. It all pretty much follows on from there. Other key thinkers are Debord and the society of the spectacle, and Althusser for his objectified subject. I think one has some leeway with a few of these thinkers. Foucault for discourse and his genealogical method.

>>1545977
Lyotard for metanarratives (wittgenstein as well for language games). Habermas for what critical theory is like with a stick up its ass. Baudrillard for the state of consummer society. I can't remember properly but someone like Paul De Man for Rhetoricality. And of course there's Derrida.

>>1545977
>Saussurean Linguistics is an absolute must

>>1545983
Bleh, forgot Heidegger and Husserl. You need to know these two as well.

>>1545985
I'd like you to tell me how one can explain either structuralism or deconstructuralism without reference to saussurean linguistics.

>>1545989
>deconstructuralism
bljibsnnjsh time for bed

>>1545983
>>1545977
okay here's my response. if you are not interested in rather high noise to signal ratio social theory, don't bother with any of these guys for now.

>>1545971
Ferge looks great. Imma changing ma laserz!