/lit/ - Literature

>benefit
>not a philosophical concept

Scarecrow burning thread

>>16554390
Im sorry are oyu suggesting that oyu need to read a book to formulate a philosophical concept retard?

>>16554392
are you like calling it a strawmna or something?

>>16554398
You're right man instead of reading philosophy you should spend your time 'formulating concepts'

>>16554404
yes retard it turns out you dont have to read someone elses work to think about philosophy. In fact the likelihood of receiving disingenious information is far greater if you ar ereading a edited, published and reviewed book.

>>16554381
That would be a philosophy in of itself which you would have to reject out right.

>>16554416
Yes I can tell you didn't get this information from a book

>>16554422
its funny for you to mention books since you clearly haven't opened one for years.

>>16554452
Haha nice one bro! Good luck with your thread :)

>>16554457
>ahhaha ive finally been discovered to be a pseud

>>16554381
Great philosophical works, being the products of genius, are better experienced directly than second-hand.

>>16554494
are you suggesting that because something is a work of genius it has any additional value, inherently or discernably?

>>16554381
Frege started modern math which led to computers

>>16554514
Yes, that's what it means to be genius. Otherwise you'd call it specious or schizophrenic or insane, or the work of a midwit or pseud. Genius inherently implies value.

>>16554643
But we already have computers, so no point reading it now.
>>16554381
It's quite simple. I dont know why no one else has answered. The answer is for pleasure.
>>16554658
Nope. Genius only implies great skill and intelligence, not worth. Take for example a genius serial killer. A killer who shows great skill and intelligence in the commission of his crimes. Are you suggesting that such murders would be inherently more valuable the the murders of a retard?

>>16554381
Whoever cannot seek the unforeseen sees nothing for the known way is an impasse.

>>16555047
To your last bit, not him but yes that's why courts have leniency in sentencing. Some crimes are worse than others given the same act. Some actions are not crimes except given a situation.

>>16555123
I know of no case where a judge has given a lenient sentence based on the fact that the killer was exceptionally skilled at killing.

Sentencing is not based in any way on the "value" of the murder so the argument is irrelevant.

You dont have to "believe" it, reading philosophy just gives you more tools to actually develop your thoughts better. You are retarded.

Philosophy helps you develop critical thinking skills
Without critical thinking, you will be easily manipulated into believing and acting on bad things, such as supporting BLM

>>16554381
One interesting relation between what is normally considered impractical inquiry and politics is quite clear in the case of British empiricism and german idealism pertaining to their respective theories of knowledge. The former by and large question the possibility of certain knowledge a priori and so created correspondent political structures with free speech, free religion, and in a certain sense even the political sense is given to freely transform in self-determination. We even talk about American democracy as an experiment. On the other hand, German idealists said we do have certain knowledge and sought to establish a certain criterion and they gave birth to communism and national socialism.

>>16555316
Cool story bro. Got any sources?

>>16555351
Which philosophers do they read?

>>16554381
ur just jealous

>>16555170
Accidental murders are one case but even assuming it's a similar crime locking away a skilled murderer for longer is always more imperative than someone who did something haphazardly by chance. That's the point of a speech at the end. Granted there are more factors, the highest being their murdering again, but that certainly falls on skill. And it also applies to other crimes like drugs etc which is why producers/traffickers get a longer sentence than a dealer.

>>16555047
if you wanted to be a better murderer/criminal then yes, I would prefer to learn from the genius. Great rhetoric Mr. Sophist.

>>16555499
Read properly. I did not say sentencing was not based on skill. I said It is not based on the value of a murder.

Of course you are going to lock a skilled murderer up for longer. That doesn't prove that the murders of a genius are more valuable.

>>16555351
You can be sure that all those Econ majors answered very unfavourable because of ancap memes, while the philosophy students who answered the same could actually explain their destain.

>>16555623
What if you wanted to learn to be a better idiot?

>>16555637
I can't be sure. Not if you dont present some proof to back up your statement.

In fact I am sure of the opposite.

>>16554381

It trains you on how to identify argumwnts that typically cannot be expressed in any other terms.

>>16555640
I would just go over this thread again

>>16555725
According to your definition of genius an idiot can be a genius provided only that you have more use for an idiot than a non idiot.

Idiot and genius are antonyms so I find your definition that allows for someone to be be both at the same time to be offensive.

My definition of genuis, being that of intelligence and skill without regard to usefulness will not allow an idiot to be a genius, no matter how useful you find an idiot to be.

I am sorry that reading this thread makes you feel like an idiot. Maybe go check out /tv/, then you can feel like a genius(depending on your definition of genius).

>>16555351
The more brainlet the major gets, the less the students have a favourable opinion of socialism.

>>16555768
I didn't write that post. In the case of the opposite quality it's obvious that you can't be an idiotic genius just as you can't be a genius idiot. You can still be a genius murderer or an idiotic murderer. If you say that geniuses have great skill that says nothing bur it asks for "skilled in what?". Genius philosophers are skilled thinker which makes their thinking in form of books worth studying if you want to learn to think, just as you would want to learn from a genius baker how to bake bread by being taught by him which includes studying the process of his baking.

>>16554381
Because we enjoy it.

>>16555823
Why cant you be an idiotic genius?

I have never seen any evidence that a person can "learn to think". Neither scientific evidence nor anecdotal evidence. You may gain new knowledge to think about by reading books, or you may find new ways to express your thoughts, and if you don't think your brain will atrophy, but that is not the same as learning to think.

>>16555351
>oh my gewdness mr philosopher, if you could condescend to us for a little bit, pls tell me what politics you support? I'm sure you're interested in universal ethics and brands of logic but dear philosopher, what is your opinion on who should get their law passed tomorrow.
If I ran a university this would never be a problem

>>16555351
THE PHILOSOPHER!

>>16554381
You emphasis on belief betrays your crude understanding. Philosophy is not about shopping for beliefs like you were attempting to discern the choicest turnip at the market. If anything, it's about relieving yourself of belief. The point is to see past your current view on things and to discover the story you were told and instructed to take as final was anything but.

>>16556646
yoiu have crudely failed to prove that there is anything wrong with a crude understanding. In fact you fail to even comment how having an eloquent understandoing is better. You just ignore the question and call the person who disagrees with you a pseud / moron

>>16555072
>>16555047
>>16555340
>>16555420
>>16555853

>>16555316
cool story any proof for this claim?