/lit/ - Literature

Why do have this same fucking thread five times every day.

>>17233663
Refute it, nigger. You're just a stupid egoist.

>>17233663
Just because one has an opinion on life and humanity doesn't mean he will consider himself (or should be considered) as a philosopher

>>17233663
Kekked.

>>17233663
Yes, whats the refutation here? You are still doing it. the only difference is that yours is less thought out. and thats a perfectly fine philosophy.
>>17233712
But you still engage in it.

As clichè as it is, it's a valid objection. You should explain why yours is not a philosophy, instead of arbitrarily assuming that it's not like this guy >>17233712

>>17233663

A bunch of philosophers thought that. I mean, is this even serious? Consider Marx. His shit still influences the world.

>>17233663
holy BTFO

philosophy is about having fun.

>>17233918
maybe, the real philosophy was the friends we made along the way to self-enlightenment...

>>17233663
>Oh, you think philosophy is useless and a waste of time?
Anyone that says this is exclusively referring to analytical and continental philosophy.

>>17235092
nice continental philosophy there.

>>17233663
This stupid thread was able to filter at least 4 separate anons. Good job op

>>17233679
>>17233822
The refutation is that human language (symbolic representation) existed long before the invention of philosophical discourse and that the latter was born out of the former. Language isn't reducible to philosophy, rather philosophy is reducible to language—to anthropological reality.

Philosophy is gay and retarded.

>>17233663
Philosophy is essentially meaningless, since a philosopher will never succeed at his attempt, no matter how smart he is. Just remember that reading a shit ton of philosophy won't give any answers to life, since the meaning of life isn't derived from words. Of course you can read philosophy to have fun or get smarter, but philosophy as a goal in itself is a waste of time. Stop coping OP.

>>17236284
>human language (symbolic representation) existed long before the invention of philosophical discourse
What is the difference?

>>17233918
what if I have fun with animal mutilations?

>>17236308
>Philosophy is essentially meaningless,
Is this a meaningful statement?
>a philosopher will never succeed at his attempt
A philosopher will never succeed at his attempt to do what?
>philosophy as a goal in itself is a waste of time.
What is the goal of philosophy?

>>17236308
>Philosophy is essentially meaningless, since a philosopher will never succeed at his attempt, no matter how smart he is. Just remember that reading a shit ton of philosophy won't give any answers to life, since the meaning of life isn't derived from words. Of course you can read philosophy to have fun or get smarter, but philosophy as a goal in itself is a waste of time. Stop coping OP.

>>17237172

>>17237071
Human language has the anthropological goal of maintaining the human community. Philosophy has its own goals (truth, being, whatever metaphysical master word is currently in vogue) that is ultimately reducible to this anthropological goal.

>>17237233
that are*

>>17233663
>17237172

>>17236284
>>17237233
When did the human language begin expressing its own goals? Haven't we seen many examples of language used to the detriment of the human community? It is better to say that it is the anthropological tool instead, and only a tool whose goals are decided by its users. But now everything you've posted up to this point looks really silly. Oops.

>>17237219
So you are fat, kiddo?

>>17237357
Projecting much?

It's typically not that "i don't like philisophy" is a philosophical statement, but that the person has other philosophical commitments that are totally unexamined because they refuse to engage with the tradition, but which are actually philosophical

>>17237397
my ass is fat

>>17233663
Oh damn... never thought of that

>be me
>hate philosophy
>accidentally formulate an opinion on free will and moral responsibility
GAHHH

>>17237339
How could language arise in the first place if it didn't serve the maintenance of the human community? When people are talking to each other they're not killing each other; when people are representing objects they're not physically fighting over them. Language in this sense can never be a detriment to the human community, and its content, whether it be philosophy, science, narrative etc., is always subservient to its original anthropological *form*, i.e. the maintenance of the human community.
And no, nothing I've said is silly, it's just common sense and you're a brainlet.

>>17238020
You silly goose! Let us grant that Language in general serves the maintenance of the human community; it is fitting that we should compare it to other forms of maintenance. Medicine, for example, serves the maintenance of the human body, engineering serves the maintenance of devices and gadgets, so on. Yet this is silly, because there are doctors and engineers who use their knowledge to the detriment of their so-called goal, not its maintenance. Doctors may poison or incapacitate their patients (medical executions, experimentation), and engineers may set their inventions up for failure (planned obsolescence, sabotage). Because the truth is, medicine does not inherently serve the human body, it is only the knowledge of health and sickness. Engineering does not inherently serve devices, it is only the knowledge of circuitry and mechanics. When these skills maintain their patient, it is only incidental. The same is true for language; as only a knowledge of words and linguistics, it may be, and often is, used both to the benefit and the detriment to the human community. I'd recommend you cease your common sense at once and ascend to a higher plane of knowledge.

The criticism is obviously toward philosophy as a vocation and not as an ideal. A lot more people would study philosophy if it weren't relegated to ivory tower intellectuals after the romans and not forbidden to address practical concerns of living as it had before

>>17238438
This definition of language cannot provide an account of the origin of language and thus cannot (and does not) define what language is at all. Language in its originary state cannot simply be a transparent tool with which to express "ideas", as the latter presupposes the existence of language. The idea that one day the human community simply had ideas and so expressed them is as absurd as the idea of a "language gene" that the hard sciences have sometimes entertained. Once philosophical prejudices and pretensions to "higher knowledge" have been dispensed with and the question placed back in its anthropological context a sensible answer to it can be arrived at.

>>17238552
Not only is language simply a tool to communicate ideas, it is infact only one among many, for ideas may also be communicated through artwork, gesture and so on. It may also be received through pure intuition, allowing for ideas to exist without language. To the contrary, it may be argued that there must first be the idea of language before language itself may be invented. By the way, if the definition of a thing must include the origin of that thing, then I am afraid you will struggle to find the definition of anything at all. That which is sensible must derived from that which is fundamentally nonsensical.

>>17238638
And so you relegate yourself to the (arguably more nonsensical) philosophical equivalent of the "language gene" explanation of the origin of language. If you're content with this then don't be offended or confused when les philosophes' attempts at ratiocination are met with laughter.
>if the definition of a thing must include the origin of that thing, then I am afraid you will struggle to find the definition of anything at all.
And hence philosophy's pathetic failure to define a single thing since its invention over 2,000 years ago.

>>17233663
Thanks

>>17238704
When did I say language gene?

What is the point of this thread?

>>17238765
OP got btfo for being a brainlet not even knowing his anti-philosophy philosophy is itself philosophy,
and so this is how he copes.

>>17238765
Shit on philosophy and succeed.

>>17238704
>And hence philosophy's pathetic failure to define a single thing since its invention over 2,000 years ago.
A silly retort on two grounds. Firstly, sciences and the inquiry into the basis of things aren't inventions, but discoveries. That is to say, gravity didn't come to existence when Newton wrote its laws, but was always active throughout life, Newton only revealing its nature to the world. Likewise, the Earth does not morph from flat to round based on whatever the scientist asserts, rather, the scientist creates inquiries regarding the shape of the Earth, which is presumed to always be that shape. Secondly, let us suppose that the scientist sets about on an inquiry of a certain topic, but fail to reach any conclusions. This is not a failure on the part of science, as long as the inquisition is not beyond the scope of empirical analysis, but a failure on the part of the scientist, for he is unable to fulfill his role. This principle is more obvious in the practice of medicine; if a doctor fails to heal his patient and cure him of sickness, yet was striving to do so, that is not a consequence of medicine, but of incompetence. The same goes for philosophy, so long as we grant that its role is only to define. That philosophers have (allegedly) failed to define a single thing over the course of its history does not change the fact that philosophy is the most suitable candidate for that enterprise. Far more so than Anthr*pology, in any case. What is the origin of your silliness? Perhaps it never came into existence but simply is?

>>17233663

>>17233669
OP is broken and is now stuck in a loop.

>>17239019
>The same goes for philosophy
This is hilarious. You don't even know what philosophy is, as per it's origin, let alone that it's best fit for the job at hand. Your very act of assuming that philosophy, as the supposed regina scientiarum, can ever even answer these questions is itself a fact of anthropological reality that doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of philosophical discourse. Philosophy can't define its historical origins lest it stop being philosophy and start being anthropology—and les philosophes are far to up themselves to do that.

>>17238449
If it wasn't so perverted in politics it would be fine

>>17239371
Fine then, let's ask les anthropologes a really easy question, simplistic even.

What is the good?

And remember, answer as le anthropologe would.

>>17239435
Here's a good demonstration of the cancer that is philosophical discourse: a question that assumes that an anthropological phenomenon as fundamental as the sense of right—"the good"—can be described as a simple predicate of a subject. Answers to questions like these cannot be demonstrated or reasoned to or proven or solved like some sort of autistic puzzle, rather only revealed, and shared, in the moment (hence philosophy's complete and utter failure to answer them).

>>17239469
What exactly do you mean when you say revealed in the moment?

>>17239469
That is to say, you are currently living in a moment, correct? Therefore the good should be revealed to you in that moment, and you would be able to define it for me. Remember, this is all based on what le anthropologes has mentioned thus far.

>>17236284
What you call natural language was just people doing philosophy irreflexively: even saying something as basic as "there is a tree" already entails a strong philosophical interpretation of reality. You're confusing the tradition (from the time in which people started doing philosophy while being aware of doing so) with the activity (which came before the tradition).
>>17237233
So, pragmatists are not philosophers? You're difference is based on a ludicrous reading of what philosophy has been so far. Was Nietzsche not a philosopher? Jacobi? Rorty? Montaigne? Pascal?

>>17236308
It looks like you've already reached an ultimate answer. How would you ground this epistemological claim about the limit of our fsculties, while at the same time saying that epistemology is meaningless?

>>17239743
What's infinitely more likely is that what you call philosophy is just people "doing language" irreflexively, having forgotten the original purpose of language. Language as such existed long before the invention of philosophy; extant archaic societies don't engage in philosophical discourse; the most conserved forms of human discourse—religious ritual, prayer, divination etc.—are not philosophy.

>>17239849
I think I've already responded to this objection with the "there is a tree" example

The example doesn't address my objection. It doesn't address the fact that language in its original state could not have been concerned with the idea/concept/interpretation of an object, because ideas are already language; it doesn't address the fact the oldest forms of human discourse—those that predate philosophical discourse by millennia—are not concerned with ideas i.e. are not philosophy.

>>17239901
Meant for >>17239862

i read philosophy to learn about the big questions of the world and inform my political beliefs

>>17239743
>How would you ground this epistemological claim
Gut instinct.

>>17239901
They don't need to be directly concerned with philosophical ideas to presuppose them. That's what I meant by "irreflexive philosophy". Wether you're aware of what philosophy is, by stating that there is a tree, you're already making a philosophical claim, concerning ontology, metaphysics and even epistemology. These linguistic expression already preauppose a philosophical discourse, wether the speaker is aware of it or not.

>>17240000
>They don't need to be directly concerned with philosophical ideas to presuppose them
Not that person, but how do you explain the potential (and technical unknowability) of sarcasm? How can a single statement both presuppose one thing and its opposite at the same time?

>>17240000
They have to already exist to be presupposed. If that's the case though then your example of pointing to a tree is *already* philosophical discourse. Try again.

>>17240015
I don't get your question about sarcasm.
Regarding the second part, you can do so by stating a claim A of which truth depends on a claim B, which you might still not have discovered. For example, a child can say that there are two dogs in the room while not really being aware of what counting or math are. Even if he is not aware of these things, his claim still presuppose the validity of counting and adding, for example. My position is that a similar thing can be said about basic existential claims like "there is a tree", for such a proposition presupposes an ontological, metaphysical and epistemological framework for it to be a meaningful proposition in the first place (a framework in which, for example, there are things separate from us, and in which we can categorize these things - for example by attributing to them the modal concept of reality-, and in which it is claimed that we can know something about those things).

>>17240015
Not anon either, but I believe that these statements occupy different layers. Strictly speaking, a statement cannot hold two contradictory presuppositions, but it may hold two directionally opposed, parallel presuppositions, one implicitly held in a higher regard.

>>17240064
>If that's the case though then your example of pointing to a tree is *already* philosophical discourse
Pointing is not philosophical discourse, unless it is done to communicate something: in that case I regard it as (very unsophisticated) philosophical discourse.
To make my position even more explicit: my claim is that the coherence and meaning of any comunicative utterance must already presuppose a philosophical (ontology, metaphysics, epistemolgy) framework in which said utterance makes sense. Without said presupposed framework, it could be easily proven that any proposition would become meaningless.
In the case of "there is a tree", if one does away with the presupposed ontological, metaphysical and epistemological realist framework, the proposition loses all its significance: suddenly you cannot tell wether the tree is really there, wether the concepts included in it are contradictory, or wether the proposition actually refers to an item of knowledge that can he obtained by an observer. All of these things are presupposed when i tell you that there is a tree, that the fact that there is a tree is thinkable, and that you can be sure of the fact that there really is a tree.

>>17240075
>Regarding the second part, you can do so by stating a claim A of which truth depends on a claim B
The problem with language is that it is an infinite regress, so there is ultimately no ontological implication in the statement in itself. It's just a statement that can be interpreted any which way, if one interprets it such as to have a singular ontological meaning, then one (not the speaker) has produced an ontological view via the interpretation which could also have been the opposite if the interpretation were opposite. So words in themselves presuppose nothing.

>>17240110
I think your claim is refutrd by common experience. The fact that I can interpret your post, or even more importantly, the fact that I can definetely exclude some wrong interpretations of your post, means that there must be some basis for intelligibilty in your utterance, and therefore there must be some basis for the intelligibility of the philosophical presuppositions of your utterance.

Also I'm not sure wether a linguistinc infinite regress would actually pose problems. I'm open to this question, but I suspect that a coherentist framework is enough to make this problem irrelevant

>>17240124
>I think your claim is refutrd by common experience.
I kinda thought we were beyond the realm of common experience considering we are discussing whether or not cavemen had philosophies
>Also I'm not sure wether a linguistinc infinite regress would actually pose problems
It poses theoretical problems just like opposition to the first cause argument. Even if one rejects that a first cause is necessary for change, there remains a perplexing problem in the idea of physical causality, which we ignore through the "best guess" methods of scientific discovery without actually reaching a theoretical solution.

>>17236284
>>17239849
>>17239901
So language through the symbolic representation is not concerned with what it represents? Is philosophy divorced from its concepts too? Language - and its anthropological function - and philosophy are more intimate than you think, one presupposed the other.

>>17240107
Yeah you're still not getting it. If the original purpose of language was to communicate something (an idea, concept, truth etc.), then it must have already been language, and thus not the original purpose at all, because "communicating something" presupposes something to communicate. The original purpose of language was rather to prevent the human community from dissolving, to maintain it, to avert internal threat to itself.

>>17240164
A representation is not necessarily a concept, and the first representation was most definitely not a concept. Language had a broader anthropological function before it had a descriptive one.

>>17240174
>The original purpose of language was rather to prevent the human community from dissolving, to maintain it, to avert internal threat to itself
Remember when Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, making the weaker argument stronger, creating false gods etcetera, and how the Jews are also accused of using semantics to undermine Western civilisation? Seems like language used for the complete opposite of your so-called purpose.

>>17240174
Based girardian take. However, I can't see how the idea is not implied in the purpose of language. The bind of the community is through representation, through an idea attached to memory.

>>17240205
When people are talking they're not killing eachother.

>>17240186
>A representation is not necessarily a concept
>Language had a broader anthropological function before it had a descriptive one
I agree. But likewise, if not an immediate function, the conceptual and descriptive are implied and ''potential'' in language. I believe this is a mere stage in the development of epistemological, metaphysical (consequently, philosphical) consciousness.

>>17240215
Is this your basis for maintenance - that no one was killed? In which case, what do you think about language used to incite harm towards others?

>>17236284
>>17240186
the principle of sufficient philosophy BTFO
philosophy is merely digitizing thought that claims it can describe the Real. it makes splits and pretends that they are somehow essential to all thought

>>17240226
>>17240186
To complement, it is the very consequence of this anthropological function (a cohesive formation of the community and its structures, its basis) that will found and ''clean'' the are for the development of the philosophical consciousness.

>>17240234
wait, why not describing the Real through representative, symbolical means (even though in a supposedly rational fashion)? In the end yes, the Real cannot be described but the negation of its own description and representation is fundamental to philosophy.

>>17236284
If you are talking about 'use' you are engaging in philosophy. Also there is no guarantee that language wasn't born out of functional philosophy.

>>17240226
If philosophy were to represent a new stage of human consciousness then it would have to demosntrate to be governed by an intention that is not reducible to the original anthropological intention of language. Philosophy was born out of this intention though, and is an attempt recapture it.
>>17240230
Violence can have representational form, that is, be used to avert further violence--the type of violence that might result in the dissolution of the community. Some of the first institutional representations (ritual, sacrifice) are this.

>>17240146
>I kinda thought we were beyond the realm of common experience considering we are discussing whether or not cavemen had philosophies
The realm is the same, since the question was wether communicative acts presuppose philosophical frameworks. My point was that if communicative acts are meant to be meaningful (as in, they're meant to convey a meaning), then they already presuppose such a philosophical framework. Common experience seems to factually refute that these communicative acts have no determinate meaning, and that their interpretation is always relativistic and arbitrary, which goes against your point here: >>17240110. If this were to be the case, not only our comunicative acts (this conversation) but also the ones of cavemen would have been impossible.
>It poses theoretical problems just like opposition to the first cause argument. Even if one rejects that a first cause is necessary for change, there remains a perplexing problem in the idea of physical causality, which we ignore through the "best guess" methods of scientific discovery without actually reaching a theoretical solution.
It surely is problematic, but I think that that fact is enough to claim that there is a definite response to that problem: so, either there is no infinite regress, or there is an infinite regress which is grounded in such a way for it to not be problematic.
>>17240174
No, I dom't get your point at all, especially this bit
>If the original purpose of language was to communicate something (an idea, concept, truth etc.), then it must have already been languageand thus not the original purpose at all, because "communicating something" presupposes something to communicate
Expand on it, please.

>>17239849
I don't know how one can presuppose the importance placed on the 'origin' and not be practicing metaphysics

>>17240263
>Common experience seems to factually refute that these communicative acts have no determinate meaning
That's not what I'm arguing though. I'm saying they have no fundamental ontological basis in themselves, not that the interpretation can't generate a perceived ontology or meaning.
>there is an infinite regress which is grounded i
This, sir, is what we call a contradiction in terms.
>so, either there is no infinite regress
In terms of human interpretation the potential for regress is ignored under a "best guess" scenario, just as science ignores the same (well, it is under the implicit assumption that the series is infinite) to generate its functional results.

>>17240291
Hypothesising a historical event is not metpahysics. Think outside your philosophical box.

>>17240262
Isn't it weird how one can philosophically justify the destruction of the human community.

>>17240298
It's metaphysics when you are putting value on something being more pure if closer to an original state. What other issue is there?

>>17240301
Yeah it is weird. Let me know if you see anyone doing it.

>>17240262
>Violence can have representational form, that is, be used to avert further violence--the type of violence that might result in the dissolution of the community
Sure, or it can be used to not avert, but pursue, the type of violence which results in the dissolution of the community - you know, genocides, coups, revolutions, rebellions, riots, assasinations.

>>17240306
Welcome newfriend

>>17240305
It's only metaphsyics if you presuppose the entirety of human language to be metaphysics. Is hypothesising as to who left the fridge door open also metaphysics?

>>17240313
Even a genocide can have a representational form. You've got to read Girard.

>>17240320
Are you going to respond to the point?

>>17240335
I did.

>>17240262
>it would have to demosntrate to be governed by an intention that is not reducible to the original anthropological intention of language. Philosophy was born out of this intention though, and is an attempt recapture it.
Yes and I don't think they are different. The central point is: unity; both anthropologically and intellectually/spiritually. Philosophy is not the unification, harmonization of one's own individual behaviour in detriment to the involvement with the community but rather it is a fundamental constituent of it. The peace and all its consequent benefits (the very maintenance of the species, as an obvious example) immediately emerged from this anthropological function is penetrated more deeply by this consciousness in the individual.
I want to work more on the interrelation of both of them, but I cannot see how the intellecualism of metaphysics could be posterior to what is presupposed by it. All the mystical philosophical tradition from Parmenides, Pythagoras, Plato to Christianity are concerned with the same ineffable sense of the miraculous cessation, or control, of violence and preservation of man.

>>17240333
>people talking to eachother will not kill eachother
>No, what I mean is, these talks will lead to genocide, but it's a best case scenario.

>>17240293
>I'm saying they have no fundamental ontological basis in themselves, not that the interpretation can't generate a perceived ontology or meaning.
Oh, I didn't talk abouthe possible validity of such models, since I think that's a whole different problem. I was only concerned about the relationship between comunicative acts and their philosophical presuppositions.
>This, sir, is what we call a contradiction in terms.
Prima facie it might seem so. I'm open to this possibility only because I suspect that coherentist frameworks could solve this problem. If they can't, then I would claim that we can be sure of the fact that there is no infinite regress, and that our impression that there must be one is only a mistake that can be potentially emendated.

>>17240352
Based retard

>>17240320
>Is hypothesising as to who left the fridge door open also metaphysics?
Yes. Who let it open? Who let what open? Who let what in what way? How this particular way what it is, how is it different to what it was (closed)?
>It's only metaphsyics if you presuppose the entirety of human language to be metaphysics
language is not metaphysics but the latter comprehends the former

the Girardian is absolutely btfoing the philosophers itt. i can see why none of his peers liked him at the time

>>17240358
>NOOOO you don't get it! Read more theory.

>>17236284
>to anthropological reality.
As if there is another reality.

>>17240361
Lol. Is me saying "pass the salt" doing metaphysics? What about crying "fire!" when there's a fire? What about saying the Lord's prayer?

>>17240377
Philsophers seem to think there is.

>>17240262
You can see that the metaphysical implications of the anthropological function will always elude it and any attempt at grasping it, subjecting it to a mere unconscious practical function, will always fail to go to the point of the question of unity as I said here >>17240345. I don't think they are irreconcilable, I love Girard and I think he was spot on about human anthropology.

>>17240374
>read more theory
Nigga, I'm the one telling people that philosophy is retarded

>>17240381
Yes, yes and yes. Being and intelligibility presupposes and sustains all of them.

>>17240384
My point was labelling it "anthropological reality" doesn't mean anything. What qualitative difference is there between the language of another species and humanity? Language represents the same timeless principles regardless of which "reality" you belong to (which is an arbitrary distinction - all reality is fundamentally the same whether or not appearances change).

>>17240386
Yeah, gonna have to disagree there. The Human is anterior to metpahysics, period. The latter does not introduce anything new--no new intention, nothing that can't be reduced to the former.
Respect though.

>>17240397
The answer is no: when your mum asks you to pass the salt, she is not doing metaphysics

>>17240424
Well, that's because it's a conditional imperative, not an ontological statement.

>>17240413
>The Human is anterior to metpahysics
I'm genuinely curious. Could you expand on this a little bit more?

>The latter does not introduce anything new
Yes, it is not progressive in any way. I mean, it is outside of conditions of succession, for instance.

>nothing that can't be reduced to the former.
Man and metaphysics are reduced to each other.

>>17240431
Exactly. Thought experiment: what if the latter were reducible to the former. What would that mean for metaphysics and philosophy?

>>17240424
So because she is not aware of the implications of ontology there is no pertinence to it? Just like you don't know, don't care about metaphysics means it doesn't exist?

>>17240452
How can an ontological statement be reduced to an imperative? If you can solve this problem you've literally solved the problem of ethics.

>>17236284
>The refutation is that human language (symbolic representation) existed long before the invention of philosophical discourse and that the latter was born out of the former. Language isn't reducible to philosophy, rather philosophy is reducible to language—to anthropological reality.
pretty nice philosophy you got there bud, hehe

>>17240339
No. First, your hypothetical origin of language is based on a philosophical distinction between what is philosophy and what is language; second this origin of language, for some reason, 'represents' your view of how language functions in the every day as symbolic representation -- placing philosophical importance on that which is closer to origin (by defining how that origin must have functioned based on its present use); third, a philosophical understanding of how symbolic representation functions must have been involved at the origin, since symbolic representation (the relation between what is represented and the thing representing it, including the rules that govern its use) would have to exist before its use in facilitating human community; etc.

>>17240432
>Could you expand on this a little bit more?
Metaphysics is not found at the scene of origin of man.

>>17240454
>>17240472
>>17240488
Bed time lads. Nice chatting. Read Girard and ditch the faggotry that is philosophy. Cheers.

>>17240505
If your only response to an argument is "read X" then either you haven't understood X sufficiently to respond with his argumentation, or you're purposely wasting our time. G'night.

>>17240522
My replies comprise 50% of this thread, as the sole representative of team anti-philosophy. Feel free to read them. Good night now faggot.

>>17240540
I think you should read Aristotle along with some good commentary.

>>17240496
It is. Remember: unity, being and intelligibility. However (considering by origin the origin of the preservation of humanity), I love how this also implies simultaneously the necessity of a divine intervention in humanity.

>>17240540
>My replies comprise 50% of this thread, as the sole representative of team anti-philosophy. Feel free to read them. Good night now faggot

>>17240550
>read Aristotle
No, I've already taken a benzo, I won't need any additional help falling asleep. Night.

>>17240568
Remember to clean your penis before you doze off.

>>17240248
>why not describing the Real through representative, symbolical means
you can but its only a local theory

>>17240540
Take a look at your comrades.

ITT Atheists BTFO

>>17240540
My replies
comprise
50% of this thread, as
the sole representative
of team anti-
philosophy. Feel free
to read them.
Good night
now faggot.

>>17239970
More like Ultra Instinct, hehe

>>17240586
just like any other else or would they differ from for example the genuine symbolical, mythical means? the former would be deceptive for its presupposed rationality (and reason's eternal recursion to itself, its dependence on what lies beyond it) while the latter would be the most ''real'' for revolving around, for being more intimate to the ineffable.
what is the difference between laurelle and apophaticism?

>>17240589
Laurence Krauss got #MeToo’d lmao

>>17240789
>>17240589
Has anybody on the right column maintained their prestige?
>Dawkins
Evolutionary biology has moved past him, he’s old now and completely irrelevant, the only people who care about him are young atheists in American fundamentalist hellscapes.
>Krauss
Got MeToo’d exposed as a creep.
>Nye
Wash out ex-celebrity. Tried to come back and produced a cringy Netflix show that failed that capture an audience.
>Tyson
Arrogant as fuck, but still has an audience I guess

>>17233918
>t. Yui

Why yes anti-philosophy is the best philosophy

>>17239105
1. Designing an ethics (in the loose sense of the word) is by its very structure useful. Critiquing scientific practice can widen and narrow its lense.
2. While it can be abstract, much of philosophy is inspired by "reality" and can alter the perception of "reality" by those that use it.
3. Philosophy can be extremely easy to grasp, depending on who it is written by and the topic it addresses. Aristotle's N. Ethics is easy to understand, though requires effort to understand it well.
4. Questions concerning our existence and values (or lack thereof) are the most important questions we can ask. They paint targets for us to aim at, methods to hit those targets, and allow us to find peace in our lives. It can also highlight those important questions that cannot be answered.
5. Philosophical progress may not appear to us in the same way that the feats of STEM do, but that is because it progresses in a different yet related environment.
6. Good philosophy pretends to be nothing other than what it is. It solidifies itself as strong potential truth, but understands that it will never have the final word. Whether by counterargument or addition, philosophy is not stable.

People reject the idea of philosophy because the gains are never apparent and so often it feels as though we cannot be completely correct. But it is the same with everything else. Progress is difficult to measure and define, but easy to see.

>>17236308
based

>>17238449
Philosophy became an ivory tower academic study long after the Romans. It was really the Enlightenment that did this, with the use of extravagant technical language and ideas that were and still are divorced from common sense

>>17236284
Do you know how soviet communists deny the hand-made genocide on occupied territories in 1918-1939? They say that definition of genocide was created only after 1945. Therefore everything before that is not a genocide (except holocaust)

>>17233663
1.Let's look at statement "philosophy is useless"
2.Word "useless" implies there is an system of values so you can judge what is usefull and what is not
3.Values are sorted by means of philosophy (at least that is one of the definition of philosophy)

>>17237157
or genital mutilations?

>philosophy is dumb and useless because it doesn't get me any cash or pussy
>Why does it need to get you cash and pussy?
>uhhhh..... uh.... oh shit.. fuck.... ummm, cause it's good
>What does "good" mean in this context?
>fuck.... god damn it....

Just say your brain sucks at thinking and you don't like questioning or examining your existence.

>>17236284
>human language (symbolic representation) existed long before the invention of philosophical discourse
what's the proof for that

>>17243559
>first evidence of human culture: 45,000 years ago
>first evidence of philosophical discourse: 2,000 years ago

>>17243640
>what is evidence

>>17243660
?

If you are a philosopher I feel bad for you. A philosophers life is merely a shadow of the common mans. The commoner who knows what is right, not because he has read 50 different philosophers, but rather has a combination of empirical and instinctive sense of justice, is not only the happiest, but he is also the wisest. A philosophers goal is to make rules for our society, and no philosophy can truly comprehend the different events and situations of life. No philosopher can ever create an ethical paradigm for us, since our lives are so unique and complex. Philosophers can be smart, but just like any academia, falls short for their own arrogance.

>>17243682
For some reason you keep trying to deflect by referring to it strictly as 'philosophical discourse' - itself a philosophal idea that philosophy functions through discourse. But people have been giving you evidence of philosophy at work within the process of forming human language in the first place, which you also dismiss because it's philosophical evidence. What is evidence, non-philosophically?

>>17243767
>archaic culture produces no products usually associated with philosophical thinking
>assume they think philosophically anyway
Seems more likely that philosophical thinking is a relatively new way of thinking. There's a reason why the philosophical canon begins with the pre-Socratics and not the tens of thousands of years of ritual practice that predates it.

>>17243743
Absolutely based anon. And here's the kicker: at the bottom of the philosopher's attempts at systemizing the world is the same pre-philosophical instinct as the commoner, albeit obscured and impeded. All that for nothing.

>>17239743
>What you call natural language was just people doing philosophy irreflexively: even saying something as basic as "there is a tree" already entails a strong philosophical interpretation of reality.
dude this is fucking retarded. are you really not willing to admit that philosophy is a cultural concept and tradition, and that not everything someone says is reducible to a philosophical claim?

>>17240407
>What qualitative difference is there between the language of another species and humanity?
completely different given we can't talk to animals and their languages, which do exist btw no not just hardcoded calls, are very hard to understand. the biology is different. everyone has their own language too. see i can make claims as well.

>>17243885
There's retards in this thread who think that asking to pass the salt is doing ontology.

[thinking] is useless and a waste of time if the goal is imaginary, enlightenment, truth, true knowledge, political utopia, etcetera

>>17243839
That's because your dumb ass is defining philosophy as 'philosophical discourse' like I've been saying and not looking at it as a form of metaphysical thinking, which would need to predate rituals before they could even function as such. The same thing with the process of separating words from others. What is, and what is known about what is, are philosophical practices at work avant la lettre, even if the canon of 'discourse' begins thousands of years later. The discourse didn't arise suddenly out of nothing, that was just when philosophical thought - already present in describing and arranging the world, its existence, origins, and purpose - was formalised locally, after these distinctions had already been made within the function of language. Otherwise how can some languages not have an equivalent of 'being' in their language if no philosophical justification was made for whether 'being' was adequate a concept to describe the world and its ways.

>>17243885
We're talking about two philosophies here - one is the cultural construction and the other is the actual functioning of this philosophy as described by the cultural model. It's the same reason why no one was talking about 'art' as such before there was a cultural canon in the renaissance. We can still go back and point to cave paintings as 'art' based on what we have philosophically discovered can be defined as 'art'.

>>17244043
>Otherwise how can some languages not have an equivalent of 'being' in their language if no philosophical justification was made for whether 'being' was adequate a concept to describe the world and its ways.
We can represent things without having a concept of the things we represent. For example, when we ask someone to "pass the salt", or shout "fire". The conceptualization comes later, and the same goes for the historical unfolding of human language.

>>17244065
You're just retrojecting modern categories onto past ones. The intentions behind modern philosophy and past "philosophy" are completely different. The practice is indissociable from the tradition.