[ 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, 1420x946, 69dd4f6bea4966df9c8d167c03c8c909b3-13-wojak-00.2x.h473.w710.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17844397 No.17844397 [Reply] [Original]

>mfw I just realized that there is no necessary connection between the structure of thought and the structure of the world which renders 99.9% of abstract thought and political debate obsolete and irrelevant from the point of view of effecting change in the real world
are there any books that elaborate on this idea? to my mind it basically BTFOs the entire 2500 years of philosophy in the West. were there any philosophers with the similar idea?

>> No.17844556

>>17844397
bump

>> No.17844591

>>17844397
>t there is no necessary connection between the structure of thought and the structure of the world
If there weren't a connection you couldn't navigate the world could you. The entire reason thought evolved was to help you navigate the world so its structure has to resemble the world's structure somewhat

>> No.17844667
File: 19 KB, 500x750, 2805a3b7b02018cbb28ad8cf18fa0cd4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17844667

>there is no necessary connection between the structure of thought and the structure of the world

elaborate
these are essentially the same things in so many ways

>> No.17844704

>>17844397
is this not what the whole Hume/Kant thing centers around?

>> No.17844721

>>17844397
Kinda touched on in Quantum Psychology by Wilson. Only a passing detail in it though.

>> No.17844871

>>17844704
not exactly but it depends how you define 'world' and 'thought'.

OP is putting eg. politics into the 'world' category, making it the phenomenal world which we do have access to, so neither Kant nor Hume would claim that there is no relation between the structure of our thought and that world. Kant would say the relation is necessary and explicit, Hume would say we can't be certain about the relation but practically speaking there is one.

To say that there is no relation between our thought and the phenomenal world containing politics is more like saying everyone is schizophrenic, or in delirium or something. Essentially that we have no hope of carrying out plans in the world at all the way a Schizo utterly fails to do whatever it is he's trying to do because his model of the world is just so wrong.

>> No.17845439

>>17844397
bymp

>> No.17845479

>>17844397
>there is no necessary connection between the structure of thought and the structure of the world
but disputing necessary connection is the weakest and least relevant claim to make on the subject and hence doesn't even budge 99.9% of all thought -- that last sliver of a percentage being abstruse pedants like yourself who might give a shit.

>> No.17845497
File: 211 KB, 500x480, 1505773807934.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17845497

>>17844397

>> No.17845642

>>17845497
Not a philosopher, how does Derrida connect to what OP wrote?

>> No.17845851

>>17844591
>If there weren't a connection you couldn't navigate the world could you.
this does not mean what happens in our mind has anything to do with the so-called real world.

>> No.17845860

>>17844397
yes everyone is just coddling themselves or coddling others for some other purpose (such as material gain)

>> No.17845903

>>17844397
yes, its called STEM

>> No.17845917

>>17845851
No but it has something to do with the world we are aware of. There could be a 'more real' world we have no access to, but we can't say anything about it.

>> No.17846011

>>17844397
>thought resembles the structure of the real world
>therefore the thought is wrong
What? Shouldn't it be the exact opposite conclusion?

>> No.17846023

>>17846011
god damnit now I have based reading comprehension

>> No.17847367

>>17844397
Gustavo Bueno

>> No.17847382

>>17844397
This is literally the entire point of Kant's first Critique.

>> No.17847411

>>17844871
I think OP makes more sense if you take him to mean by "politics" something like "ethics." In which case he's not questioning the foundation of "pure" so much as of "practical" reason. (The book to read, then, would be The Critique of the Power of Judgement).

But maybe I'm wrong and he just thinks that to speak of "reason" or "knowledge" at all is a mistake.

>> No.17847443

look into deleuze's ideas on the dogmatic image of thought, particularly in the third chapter of difference and repetition