/lit/ - Literature

What are we going to call post-postmodern philosophy?

What's 'postmodern philosophy'?

Postmodernism isn't a philosophy.

Perhaps OP is talking about Rorty and all the pragmatic-relativists.

But, then, everyone is bound to be a pragmatic-relativist nowadays if they think enough about their subjects.

>>1572196
disallusionism?

>He takes any philosophy seriously

>>1572204

> He takes anything seriously

>>1572204
> Doesn't take empiricism, falibalism, logic etc. seriously
> Doesn't take science, technology and engineering seriously.
> While at a computer

Sure is edgy hipster around

>>1572226

I can walk the Earth without taking geocentrists seriously.

>>1572226
lmao if you actually think logic exists in any concrete sense or tells us anything about reality

>>1572231

But you won't make be able to make an accurate star map.

As said, sure is edgy hipster aroumd

>>1572237

omfgbbq when he doesn't

>>1572226
Look buddy. You don't even need to be a "postmodernist" (whatever the fuck that is) to see where empiricism and fallibilism fail. NEXT

>>1572237
How did you come to that conclusion? Logically or illogically?

>>1572285
Being logical is illogical, so either/or.

>>1572287
war is peace ignorance is strength freedom is slavery

>>1572261

So where fails falibalism?

>>1572287

> Being logical is illogical

They see me trollin', they hatin'...

>>1572296
There is nothing logical about logic, I'm sorry to say

>>1572300

> There's nothing logical about logic.
> There's nothing square about squares

English major detected. Why do you use words if you don't know what they mean?

>>1572307
>>1572296
Well well well, give a logical basis for logic then.

>>1572241
What the fuck would I want star map?

>>1572310
there is nothing give about give.

>>1572311
what the fuck man lol ^_^

>>1572312
>you are now aware there is no logical basis for logic, no great rule book in the sky

>>1572315
i kno rite

herr derr münchhausen trilemma

>>1572311

Who the fuck said you wanted a star map? I was just fixing you're fucked up analogy between a computer and the earth.

>>1572315

Are you retarded? You can't give a logical basis for logic, you can't "support logic by logic", because that would be begging the question. But even more retarded. You're asking what's orange about the color orange, well it's fucking orange.

The tides go in, the tides go out. There is no telecommunication.

>>1572327

>>1572323
>you are know aware there are qualitative differences between things like square, orange etc and logic, truth etc.

>>1572323
Nice going there missing the point, freaknard. The point being that there is no reason for logic. Deal with it

>>1572336

> hurr I've nothing to say so I'll just spew non-relevant shit

>>1572338

That's bullshit, but I'll let it go so you'll save face.

>>1572338
Nobody ever said anything about "reason".

fuck da logic

>>1572341
>wrong on the internet
>Not relevant!
If this is how anal you are here, I wonder what a dumbass you are irl.

>>1572192

>Self-identifying analytic-fag who has insecurities about his own lack of philosophical knowledge.

>Has to identify an entire tradition with 'post-modernism' so as not to take any of it seriously.

>Secretly despises the fact that he knows nothing about philosophy prior to Russell.

am I getting close op? lol

You have a point though OP, these literary theory pin-heads that occupy /lit/ don't know what logic is, they don't take science seriously, nor do they care about truth, properly understood. In this sense they share something with you i.e. they don't know shit.

Enjoy the troll thread btw.

>>1572345
>>1572343
lol you dumbasses can't even agree with each other. shut up already

>>1572350
look at this idiot who thinks there's anything taht can be understood about truth

the less you know, the closer you are to god.

>>1572353
how do you know he's an idiot if there is no truth?

>>1572350

Not at all, in fact, very far from it. I probably know more about the continental philosophers than the analytic ones. Nietzsche, Heiddiger (lol), Sartre, Focault, and so on.

>>1572353
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

>>1572374

Ok, sure.

Q: What is the difference between Sartre's understanding of phenomenology and Husserl's understanding of phenomenology. What was Sartre's central criticism of Husserl?

Go.

>>1572377

Stop reading Nietzsche. It makes you look parochial.

>>1572383
but the deflationary theory of truth has nothing to do with Nietzsche

>>1572385

I was talking about your e-character, not about your post.

>>1572386
I don't have an "e-character"

>>1572386
But he's a level 5 ubermensch with the map of Baudrillard. He can't stop now.

>he takes Western thought seriously

never change, ignorant western pigs

D&E has entered. From now on the thread will go constantly downhill.

Hay guiz. Wutz goeng ohn en this thread. I'm smarter than all of you faggots because you are teh fail. You could not possibly be anywhere is intellectualy tallented as I am. Admit it! You're all just jelly because I transcend the herd and have become unto God (if he existed that is, which he deosn't lol). I shall father a pure master race to rule all of you pathetic swine, uttering in a utopia of intellectualism. prove me wrong

>>1572408
I thought you were going to grace us with your absence.

You lasted what, a fucking day?
You're less than shit.

>>1572518
You are my favourite tripfag.

You all don't get modern philosophy.

> He takes Ayn Rand seriously

>>1572551
no he isn't.

>>1572518
olol

food fight? too bad i have no face images or hearts on this computer.

>>1572584
too bad you have a computer

>>1572226
good post

>>1572261
can you explain or do you just want to make a poopoo

>>1572199
that's what i thought 1 year ago but now i disagree.

>>1572377
inadequate

>>1572518
>prove me wrong
i can't you are awesome

>>1572541
you have me mistaken for someone else.

>>1572597
so chandlerbing what's your favourite theory of truth

>>1572667
i think the entire project should be reoriented in a more empirical and pragmatic direction.

>>1572588
are you mad over something?

I LOEV PHILOSOPHY

>philosophy

>>1572685
That is cool

>philosophy

ok sciducks unless you stay in a lab all your life you are going to do things that are under the domain of philosophy. the problem is you are probably going to do them with bad philosophy.

>philosophy

>>1572685
Oh, FFS!

The fact that people will parrot philosophers, to say nothing of religious leaders, celebrities, pornstars, etc--says nothing of philosophy as a means to find out what you want to get out of life.

Enough with the Cynicism!

This is the worst thread on 4chan

Also >>1572383 YOU SIR are a faggot, why would he care how reading a book makes him look. I don't care for Nietchze, but YOU are a pathetic angsty hipster.

>>1572749
>i need a physics degree to operate a light switch

>philosophy as a means to find out what you want to get out of life.

>>1572784
you are also a waste of resources and will contribute nothing important to the world.

you certainly do not need philosophy, or for that matter science or engineering, but the world as it is certainly does.

>>1572792
Philosophy as a degree is an entirely different ballpark, but the idea that a person may develop ideals and values as a result of an interest in philosophical literature is something to mock? Perhaps I misunderstand you. Then again, perhaps you're something of a nihilist.

>>1572806
>the idea that a person may develop ideals and values as a result of an interest in philosophical literature is something to mock?
That's not saying much about Philosophy. You can develop ideals and values out of a whole range of human activities, not just "philosophical literature". Ethical proscriptive statements that constitute in the main a great variety of "ideals and values" can be shown to have no truth value and thus are a matter that cannot be rationally disputed to a single verifiable outcome. Ethical normative statements that might better present such notions in philosophy offer a little more appeal in spite of their pretension to being empirically verifiable because in reality this simply isn't the case; the outcome of debating ethical proscriptive statements holds for the fulfillment of the conditions of testing for ethical descriptive statements. In short, philosophy cannot tell you with any legitimate clout how to live your life or what to value. Instead, it is suited towards clarifying problematic areas of our language that are in the first place responsible for the questions of value and ethics that have arisen. If it can do this there will be no such problems.

>>1572842
Agree with most of that but

>Instead, it is suited towards clarifying problematic areas of our language that are in the first place responsible for the questions of value and ethics that have arisen.

What is there to clarify?

>>1572842
it can teach you to be smarter with thinking through ethical problems.

>>1572842
>try-hard
>ridiculously overly verbose

Also, you're wrong, though you dressed such a simple statement in flowers its still facile and reeks of gullibility, did you come up with this on your own? philosophy will solve all problems?

I would LOVE to see you recite that block of puerile nonsense to someone with a PPE and have him scoff at your naivety.

Fucking babies first philosophy in here today.

Dear All,

The fundamental, the MOST fundamental assumption behind logic is that We can't really prove that anything outside our perspective is real. But we must assume it to be real, so that we can prove anything at all.

>>1572877
concepts, out of which all philosophical problems arise

>>1572881
>ethical problems
what did i just spend a paragraph writing about chandlerbing; if you put that through the meat grinder it comes out "it can teach you to be smarter with thinking through problems.". I unno bout you but this is a kind of reductive account of philosophy old boy.


>>1572899
Could you BE any madder?

>>1572795
yes but im saying people like you studying it is pointless, as you will contribute nothing. and unlike useful subjects you wont contribute anything to society.

>>1572842
Touché. I agree that personal experience is often the best teacher. A person need not read philosophical literature to develop values, but I wouldn't discourage his interest in doing so.

So there is no objective right or wrong, you say?

I can't say that I share your cynicism. Right--in my mind--is that which aids man's life. Wrong--is that which destroys it. To attempt to justify a wrong to another person by advocating an argument that it appeals to one's own self interest is a disgusting shade of hypocrisy.

I'd have asked you what your particular philosophy is, as I'm curious. Though I suppose you've already given me an answer.

>>1572914
ur paragraph was pretty bad. clearly cannot into pragmatism or modern ethics

Hey Faggots,

My name is D&E, and I exist because of our interconnected status within this metaphysical construct. All of you are Hypothetical, Matter-recognized, impedances on the eternal nature of mindness who spend every second of their meaningless, yet quaint existence looking at that which chooses to gaze upon them. You are everything bad in the world, as perceived by me, who is the only true superman to escape your pathetic Herd. Honestly, have any of you ever even fucking established your own set of morals to impose on everyone else because they are inferior to you? I mean, I guess it's fun being completely unaware of the vast cosmic existence that pervades our very souls, deeming our own actions petty and inconsequential, playing to our own insecurities, but you all take this to a whole new level. This is even worse than that douche, Hegel.

Don't be a limited physical construct. Just hit me with your best shot (assuming that it exists within an existential realm of which I myself can perceive, if not interact with). I'm pretty much perfect (suck it, Descartes!). I was captain of the debate team and EVERYONE on /lit/ knows who I am. What books have you read and discussed on this board, other than "jacking off to naked drawn Japanese people FOR DUMMIES"? My metaphysical treatises are the foundation Are what sets me apart from your pathetic Leveling. I have a hot bitch or ten in my stables at all times ("women are by nature meant to obey" who said that, faggots? Not you, that's fucking who.). You are nothing but an endless interplay of images and desires.

Thanks for listening, as if it mattered.

if the pic were related, it would be me and my bitch. the pic is related. therefore, it is me and my bitch.

>>1572920
Bah. I find that Usefullness to Society is a rather dangerous barometer of one's character. If one goes down that road, you might find sick justifications for telling a man what he ought to do for a living, rather than what he lives to do.

Usefullness to one's self is much more important. I don't mind the hermit who grows his own food. It's only when he comes after my pocket book that I resent the bastard.

Believe me, there are plenty of useful (to both themselves and by extension to others) and enterprising fellows who will provide for society's needs. And if there isn't--well hell--now you've got a market to break into should you consider yourself a potential entrepreneur, eh?

>>1572927
Let's keep that between you and me onionwrong

also, what's useful about usefulness?

>>1572920
go away little boy

>>1572932
Posts like these are why I keep on coming back to this board.

You sir, have a great goddamn sense of humor. If I could shake your hand, I would.

>>1572932

>>1572943
easily impressed losers like you are why I want to leave

>>1572938
>he cannot into performativity

>>1572936
>I don't mind the hermit who grows his own food. It's only when he comes after my pocket book that I resent the bastard.
yeah but if he thinks he's the shit for doing wanky
stuff you should at least ridicule him in return.

>>1572947
+1
the merit to that is being anti-d&e, not actual comedy or creativeness.

>>1572946
You are an internet celebrity D&E. Enjoy while it lasts.

hey james look at this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/

>>1572842
The important word may have been develop D&E. Nietzsche anyone?

>>1572954
being an internet celeb isnt the special thing. it's the type of person you need to be to achieve it that is kick-ass.

>>1572946
>>1572946
>>1572946


>"deep&edgy"

What is this? some pathetic atempt at impersonating the only TRUE and HONEST c/lit/oris of /lit/.

Lo,' I am the alpha and omega of all tripfriends of this board. I was the first to ascend from this primitive slime of Anon, and you are merely an imperfect copy of my true greatness

>>1572950
>onionring cannot into dialogic

>>1572961
Thanks Onion. Reading it right now. I have read something similar earlier though.

>>1572972
aw
now you ruined it

>>1572978

Fuck you, I'm an Artist!

>>1572975
i cannot into that, although the word resembles a cheap knockoff of dialetheism which is immensely interesting but i havent studied it yet

Normative statements can't be true or false, stop fighting over nothing.

Philosophy is for other things.

So much jellyness.

>tell bitches about the totalitarian nature of rationality.

>they want to fuck

You mad haters?

>>1573004
>implying philosophy is only for things that are either true or false.

>>1573001
sounds good bro before we know it you'll be a regular pataphysician

>>1572947
Then piss off until you have something worth saying.

>>1573019
it's okay not everyone can into formal logic.

>>1573019


Why do you keep impersonatiing me?

>>1573017
Would you then mind telling me what there is to discuss if we know there are no answers?

>>1573039
you need to be a nonaspie and live in the world, then maybe you can understand.

>>1573019

>Implying Pataphysics is bad.

>Implying Baudrillard isn't the greatest mind of the 20th Century.

>>1573043
Onion. Did you read that article/essay/chapter?

>>1573030
Dude it's not getting funnier.

>>1573046
which article

>>1573051
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/

This one you posted. I can't thank you enough for it, But did you read it?

>>1573043
>name calling

>>1573054
i think i am okay with most of the topics discussed there, but because a lo tof the stuff requires an understanding of the current state of physics i am not taking a position just yet.

>>1573028
>Implying I don't just past formal logic

>>1573059
im very serious.

>>1573064
If by 'serious' you mean butthurt, yeah you probably are.

>>1573062
A lot is to underestimate it. I can't understand a lot of it even with a Masters degree x-( .

But there is a point here that I want to emphasize:

That structural realism is about the relations between objects as opposed to objects themselves.

This is actually true as the contemporary understanding of Physics explicitly ignores (NOT reject) objects. What is says is, that objects MAY actually be the result of relations that are fundamental to structure. But this issue is notoriously not discussed as it is irrelevant (meaning useless) to the study of its effects. Thus we (physicists) choose to ignore causes because:

1)They make things too complicated to explain
2) They are not necessary to understand consequences of structure, which at least now seem enough to explain almost everything we know.

Tell me if I am making any sense to you.

>>1573077
im not going to explain to you why ethics, one of hte largest fields in philosophy, is legitimate inquiry.

>this whole fucking thread

It's basically like any other philosophy thread on this board, I guess. OP irrelevant, and everyone has a pissing contest about their commitments.

>>1573078
>I can't understand a lot of it even with a Masters degree x-( .
I didn't realise they were giving away masters degrees in breakfast cereal packets these days

>>1573078
yea you are making perfect sense. personally i think i need to actually study the development of modern physics _like a physicist_ in order to understand the objects vs structures division.

it may be that, objects are rejected on a pragmatic basis for now, but will resurface later.

>>1572978
Agreed. Taking it too far isn't any good.

>>1573089
Where do you think /stormfront/ and /r9k/ came when the ship went down?

>>1573095
Well I had two for lunch yesterday. They were delicious. Anyway. Had fun deleting all those replies?

>>1573086
It's not inquiry. That would require objective criterea, but there are none. Ethics is just the 'intellectual' way of arguing over opinions.

>>1573119
ethics is more empirically and factually informed than you think.

also, metaethical irrealism != pessimism about normative ethics. the actual status of normative principles is rather irrelevant in actual normative work. people take rejecting or accepting normative principles seriously not becasue they are all moral realists, but because they take seriously the normative response. something an aspie probably cannot.

most people consider our ethical thoughts better today than they were during the stone ages, and for good reason. we know more about ourselves, and we also examine more of our pretheoretical notions.

>>1573142
>pretheoretical
>implying you can without theory

>>1573148
widely used term go cry about it

>>1573152

If it's widely used, that just means a lot of people are deeply wrong. Go cry about it?

>>1573162
>Everyone else is dumb but me
And I bet you don't know why it smells like shit everywhere you go either.

>>1573164
because he's surrounded by shit, obviously

>>1573142
My standpoint is noncognitivist. What I am trying to tell you is that there is no rational thought in moral judgement. Hell, you can even change people's moral convictions with magnetic fields. http://ts-si.org/neuroscience/24578-disrupting-brain-region-alters-moral-judgments

>>1573142
Also, is aspie the new hipster?

>>1573183
>>1573183


> implying you yourself are not

>>1573185
But that's cuz miracles and shit.

You can't even hold morality.

>>1573185
>there is no rational thought in moral judgement
and you expect the pragmatists, kantians, psychological egoists and social contractarians to sit by and take that>?

>>1573206
Thank you anon, you just made my day.

>>1573185
i r noncognitivist too, so are a majority of philosophers. yet ethics is still one of the largest fields and it is deeply interesting. what do you want to do now

okay maybe not a majority but w/e

>>1573215
I gotta admit that makes me sorta puzzled.

>>1573210
they mad, rite?

>>1573277
mad as hell, ironically

>implying that level of silliness can troll onionring
not mad at all.

hey guys if you change the brain then people might do maths different, but in that case you'd just say that they are doing maths wrong. how about that.

>>1573324
Maths is a waste of time, sorry to hurt your feelings

>>1572237
>It doesn't really, however it gives us the best understanding we can ever hope to achieve. Whether our understanding is true or not it is the most comprehensive way of explaining reality and as such I see no reason not to follow the world view manifest through logic and reason.

>>1573331
and what makes you think that's true, silly?

> Create thread
> Go away for a few hours
> "Maybe it's still alive somehow"
> mfw

>>1574212
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBUyGa1ukOs

>>1573185
Bah, that's like saying a man can't drive because you can force him to drink a case of beer.

Ethics is the product of rational thought. The fact that a particular fellow is under the influence of something says nothing about what is objectively right and wrong.

>>1574232
What does this even mean?

>>1574289
it means random youtube video of tybrax weird music for the hell of it

>>1574289
>>1574306
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5LvoBRS1Mk
>weird

>>1574364
>>>/book/1294596199

What the fuck is a Tybrax?

Tyler Braxton?

>Though, it's not as good as it was just 4-5 months ago, summer really hurt it bad. Watch out for that one tripfag, WWWW something, AKA tybrax, ignore EVERYTHING she posts.

Tybrax is a she?
This explains EVERYTHING!

Must be Christina Childs.
Google told me so.

herp
http://archive.no-ip.org/mu/thread/13550092

shits up other boards too

>>1574501
Just a troll.