/lit/ - Literature

They and Midwits also seem to have an instinctive distrust of deductive reasoning. Everything must be empirical-inductive to them, otherwise they dismiss it out of hand based on their groundless epistemologies.

They also justify broad views about the world on the basis of their mere anecdotal “life experience”. Yet at the same time, they denounce any defensible universal or statistical generality as a “broad sweeping generalization”.

>>18177639
>>18177642
>>18177653
Normal people don't read or have philosophical predilections. You're confusing your milieu with the population at large.

>>18177639
they are animals.

>>18177639
Politics is just a post hoc rationalization of instinctive behaviours driven by genetic competition at the individual, tribal, national, and international levels.

>>18177639
I agree philosophylets are annoying, but let's not pretend philosophy is not plagued by a very specific kind of sloppiness that is hard to overlook when you're serious about reasoning. The reasoning of most philosophers is fine until you start noticing (and questioning) the assumption they pass as evident, and suddenly half of it look like intellectual sleight-of-hand.

I won't accuse philosophers of being disingenuous however, in most cases it's likely they tricked themselves. Turns out philosophy is really hard, even for philosophers.

I'm reading Xenophon and there is a passage in his Memoirs on Socrates where he details Socrates' poor opinions of the 'physical' philosophers (like Ionians, who inquired into the nature and cause of physical phenomena). Socrates asks in particular whether those philosophers are content with just being able to understand the mechanism of nature or if they wish to also be able to alter its course.

But what seems really funny to me is that they already contemplated the possibility of understanding the nature of things just by spending some years looking at it with the naked eye, and that some were already worried about the consequences of that knowledge. It's all natural of course (and the worry turned out to be justified), but in retrospect, they had no idea how fucking long and difficult that pursuit is. We're still at it 2500 years later and we now have to throw entire countries' worth of money and effort to understand minor points of subtheories that might eventually turn out wrong. It's painfully ironic in that way.

>>18177665
Sure sure, but why even have strong opinions on these sorts of matters at all? Why not just say “I don’t have enough information to know”?

>>18177682
>I agree philosophylets are annoying
What does that mean? Does it mean people who reflexively dismiss philosophy?

> I won't accuse philosophers of being disingenuous however
I know this is a cliche, but even the cringe “critical race theorists”?

>>18177666
>666
Holy shit

>>18177639
Because they are right.

Philosophy is a self-agrandizing occupation for degenerates (me included)

>>18177742
>Philosophy is a self-agrandizing occupation for degenerates (me included)
Kek.

Okay, but fr: so is the world completely inomprehensible, random, and unintelligible?

>>18177744
It's inconsequential. Even assuming that the universe as we know it isn't subject to a virtually inevitable collapse, eventually you reach a boundary where an endpoint from any perspective ceases to exist, assuming we're not playing some contributory role in a system, in which case that point is concluded arbitrarily and unpredictably, perhaps the enlightenment of humanity or something, but that is itself unpredictable on many fronts. It's really well summed up in the concept of Lila. And so, yes.

>>18177798
>Lila
What is?

>>18177639
People's views of everything they lack direct experience with are entirely derived from propaganda. Propaganda is created and distributed by the ruling class which has a negative interest in you immersing yourself in reason, ethics, and epistemology.

>>18177639
>they’re just interested in ad hoc “what works” (whatever that means)
Pragmatism, but this often degenerates into complacency, just "making it to the weekend", and a stubborn refusal to think harder.
>tend to dismiss all philosophy as “meaningless”
Normals don't read that much or want to think about philosophy because they're more concerned with simply living their day, which is, in itself, not bad.
>>18177642
I must be a partial midwit then because I do somewhat mistrust deductive reasoning. At the same time, I distrust empirical evidence as well, so call me what you may.
>>18177653
I agree, this does bother me.

>>18177839
>People's views of everything they lack direct experience with are entirely derived from propaganda. Propaganda is created and distributed by the ruling class which has a negative interest in you immersing yourself in reason, ethics, and epistemology.
So how did the ruling class propagandize you into taking this epistemological view?

>>18177938
Like I’m pissed with my mom because growing up she basically taught me to not make any generalizations.

> Normals don't read that much or want to think about philosophy because they're more concerned with simply living their day, which is, in itself, not bad.
That’s totally fine. What bothers me is when they knock me down and insult me by calling me “black and white”, “not having enough life experience”, etc.. And yet they have the gall to have strong beliefs about subjects (politics, economics, history, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.) that they don’t know anything about.

They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. So who cares? Let them live happily. I dont lecture my dog and I dont lecture normies.

>>18177695
>What does that mean? Does it mean people who reflexively dismiss philosophy?
Yes, pretty much the people described in the OP. Trashtalking philosophy without having ever really engaged with it. They could just leave it at "I know nothing about philosophy, I don't care, that's not my thing", but no, they need to have an opinion on something they haven't even tried to understand.

>I know this is a cliche, but even the cringe “critical race theorists”?
Those among them who are real philosophers (if there are any) are probably misinterpreted and genuinely trying to get at something true. The others are either opportunists, train-hopping brainlets, cultural hipsters or normal people too immersed in that local culture to really have a reflexive stance on it (hard not to be a criticalfag when everyone around you is). When it comes to contemporary philosophical trends it's hard to tell the serious thinker away from the sophist, the poseur, the ideologue and the posturing cynic. It takes time, we might not have a clear picture of this whole thing before the year 2080.

>>18177972
>They could just leave it at "I know nothing about philosophy, I don't care, that's not my thing", but no, they need to have an opinion on something they haven't even tried to understand.
This. I mean fair enough, some philosophy is trash, but to say “hurr durr it doesn’t describe mUh ReAl WorLD” makes me wanna beat them up.

> When it comes to contemporary philosophical trends it's hard to tell the serious thinker away from the sophist, the poseur, the ideologue and the posturing cynic. It takes time, we might not have a clear picture of this whole thing before the year 2080.
Alright. Amateur Neo-Scholastic here btw.

>>18177969
>69
Nice

>Let them live happily. I dont lecture my dog and I dont lecture normies.
I’d make a deal with them: be apathetic about these things you know nothing about, so leave me alone, and we can just talk about football or w/e.

Bump

>>18177798
>perhaps the enlightenment of humanity or something, but that is itself unpredictable on many fronts.
If only people read...

>>18177639
what do you mean they have no principles? please provide examples.

>>18177950
In all honesty, friend, it does bother me as well, where we find ourselves increasingly in a culture that paradoxically values and disrespects intellectual thought. I don't mean to aggrandise, but it's true: people pretend to care about intellectual subjects without reading or looking further. But, on the other hand, you should not let it bother you all that much, friend. Do not let their insults or stupidity get to you. Focus on making yourself a more intelligent, well-read, well-experienced person.

no self confidence or 'interiority' as plotinus puts it

>>18178222
>222
Based triples.

They don’t believe in any sorts of absolutes really, which is just baffling. Like they don’t believe that it’s *even possible* that anything could be inherently wrong, only contextually wrong.

>>18178223
Thanks fren. I just hope I can somehow spread my genes more quickly than a midwit.

>>18177653
They consider truth to be subjective and that each and everyone can have a truth. It's post modernism indoctrination. Their anecdotal life experience is somehow unique and important enough that society needs to adapt to the outcomes of that experience while being so unique no one else can experience the same. They basically live a life of sophistry and not reason. Given a set of circumstances they pick what works to 'win' instead of having a set of principles that apply at all times with nuanced views of a given circumstance. More often then not the views they take are wrong.

>>18178241
This sums it up perfectly. And I hate them for it.

>>18177642
Deductive reasoning is great when the major premise has been validated by empirical evidence.

>>18178241
If I have to listen to some boomerfag lecture me about this nonsense worldview, what’s a quick way of shutting him up?

>>18178249
Sure. But what I mean is that even when it has people tend to just be sceptical of the conclusion.

>>18178254
The worldview exists to win, it doesn't want to be right or truthful. It's only goal is to gain power so you can't have a rational or objective discussion. The best way to silence these people is get them to admit that objectivity, rationality, truth and reality to them are all subjective. Once you finally realize how little they care about understanding something or knowing something you can just give up on them. I have not found an effective way to communicate that reality isn't a subjective experience and that we all have our own realities. It's contradictory to the definition of reality. I think half of the time is a low information problem where they desperately cling to what they know which is fuck all, the other half is some innate desire to be powerful and this line of thinking seems to fulfil that function since it's not ground in reason, logic, evidence but their emotional whims at the time.

>>18178254
Addendum: even when the conclusion of the Pythagorean Theorem is certain, whereas any scientific truism isn’t *as* certain, people *feel* more sure of the scientific truism rather than the Pythagorean Theorem.

>>18178303
Then they have to be contained.

>>18177950
>So how did the ruling class propagandize you into taking this epistemological view?
What a dumb attempt at a gotcha you faggoty dweeb. If you have direct experience of something then that forms your opinion, otherwise your opinion is secondhand. How else could it be? Read Lippmann dumbfuck.

>>18178309
>If you have direct experience of something then that forms your opinion, otherwise your opinion is secondhand.
Uh huh. And how would we have direct experience of things like the Pythagorean Theorem, ethics, metaphysics, etc.?

>>18178238
>They don’t believe in any sorts of absolutes really, which is just baffling. Like they don’t believe that it’s *even possible* that anything could be inherently wrong, only contextually wrong.
i genuinely still don't understand. please break it down barney style by providing concrete, real life example.

>>18178320
Not him but the question of morality and whether true evil actually exists are good examples.
Like for example, someone arguing that a child molester isnt evil he is just acting on experiences that happened to him as a child etc.

>>18177639
Because they all read Wittgenstein and got woke to your linguistic confusion

>>18178320
sub freezing

>>18177830
Reality TV for god(s). I'm not super familiar with the whole so I'll decline to disabuse you as I don't wish to mislead.

>>18178220
That's entirely dependent on your views. If you're talking nirvana, then reading is most often done to an end which is probably driven by desire and thus engages the teeth and gears effecting the trappings of the mind. And to the intellectual enlightenment, well to my mind it seems there is no endpoint - propagation ad infinitum doesn't seem enlightening, and there is as much to be said about maintaining our corporeal form as there is in transcending it. Life would become vacuous and banal without the threat of death and without the bounds of struggle.

I think ultimately the point of humanity is to create surrogate life in imitation of nature which manifests as a self-realizing ideal being. But what that would be is little more than perfect knowledge, which itself has little purpose, and it's predicated on human survival up to the point of conception. I suppose this is called the singularity.

>>18177666
You will never be a God

>>18178346
I would argue it's not perfect nature if it doesn't feel right. Perfection is just a word in of itself, so that in itself is not perfect.
Knowledge is power and makes individuals of us because study and understanding are both facets of struggle. Artisans and professionals had higher IQs, nobles were just peasants that happened to rule over people

>>18177666
satan confirms

>>18177642
>>18177653
>>18177639
Inability to think for themselves. And by think I mean attempt to figure things out using ideas and rearranging the things they know into "what ifs" that can come to fruition by simple rationality of the mind or real life attempts and help them succeed. It's usually a result of ignorance or arrogance, but in the same way as your perception differs from that of a dog, they have a necessarily limited range of sentience when it comes to ideas and some renounce ideas altogether.

They are either unable or unwilling to follow things to their logical conclusion to recognize an impartial truth underlying a circumstance and they are extremely unwilling to even attempt this. Because of this they never mature above the level of children and let their emotions run their lives because the petty weight of their emotions trumps whatever weight of reason or truth might also be present. They don't want to grow up so certain parts of conscious existence are simply off limits to them, and when confronted subtly with different or higher perceptions they act petty in their dismissals. So don't bother more than a few times; Mathew 7:6. Usually, it is regular, firm kicks in the ass by reality sets them straight enough to keep them from sinking into total failure and misery. Pain and Terror to them is their secret greatest teacher and they would never imagine abandoning it's tutelage for a higher prospect, because, as we know, they are unwilling to ask these "what ifs" as a basic premise.

Imagine, through every conscious challenge, a person is hanging off the edge of a cliff by one arm and willingly forgetting they have another arm they can swing up to help them climb. When reality hits them hard they are often forced to acknowledge the other arm and thus climb up, but it is never their first instinct to use both arms. Thus they may eventually meet their doom as a result of this tragic and often deliberate imperception.

>>18178742
>Mathew 7:6
This is the real golden rule desu

>>18178742
>Pain and Terror to them is their secret greatest teacher and they would never imagine abandoning it's tutelage for a higher prospect, because, as we know, they are unwilling to ask these "what ifs" as a basic premise.
Then how do I deal with them? The boomers and xers that tell me “hurr durr your politics bad because my experience”? They also say things like “you’re too black and white” “you’re too rigid”, “you think there are simple solutions to complex problems” “you haven’t lived”.

>>18178742
>Inability to think for themselves.
Funnily enough my grandpa says he’s a “freethinker”, but makes many of the same retarded “hurr durr experience” arguments that a midwit does.

>>18178742
based satvrn chad

>>18177938
>I must be a partial midwit then because I do somewhat mistrust deductive reasoning. At the same time, I distrust empirical evidence as well, so call me what you may
A radical skeptic. The Jews fear your kind more than anything else.

Bump