/lit/ - Literature

>>18339484
Nietzsche isn't a philosopher.

Derrida is the end of philosophy, so its best to hold off reading him until old age. Simple as.

>>18339484
This board doesn’t actually like reading; they just like impressing (sometimes imaginary) people.

>”WOW! PLATO! YOU SURE ARE SMART ANON!!!”

This also explains why poetry and fiction are never discussed on this board. Nobody is impressed by the fact that you read Madame Bovary.

>>18339500
This

>>18339484
Someone tried to discuss Rawls a while back and it just turned into a bunch of anons mocking Rawls/law school. Camus gets meme’d as a HS philosophy.

>>18339525
>implying Camus isn't a HS "philosopher"

>>18339495
>Hegel is the end of philosophy, so its best to hold off reading him until old age. Simple as.
FTFY

>>18339536
Sartre is more of a HS philosopher. Him and Camus are still cool though, just not very deep. Better novelists.

>>18339536
There is nothing wrong with that. For people in there late teens and early twenties he is a good read. As long as they actually dig into it and just don’t walk around in all black smoking clove cigarettes and drinking vermouth.

>>18339591
>has never read Being and Nothingness or the Critique of Dialectical Reason

>>18339484
there are frequently threads about schopenhauer, kant, and stirner and also daily threads about hegel and aristotle. nobody gives a shit about derrida because he was a driving force in ruining the first world. the french have never contributed anything to this world beyond shitty wine, arrogance and suffering. now fuck off.

>>18339616
Lol I've read Being and Nothingness. Sartre is a weak philosopher in my opinion. Everything is already there in Heidegger, except better articulated and more consistent.

>>18339611
No wonder only one worthwhile philosopher here has a unique cat.

>>18339624
and he was a fucking jew to boot, a french jew, if you know anything about the french and the jews you understand his entire philosophy.

>>18339631
I agree, but how can you then unironically say that Sartre is more of a HS philosopher than fucking Camus?

>>18339634
^

>>18339634
what are you talking about? Deleuze also has a black cat

>>18339638
Because I hardly even see Camus as a philosopher, that's why. Their both great spectacles for bring certain ideas to popularity, but I don't really see either of them as contributing in the historical dialogue of philosophy.

>>18339631
>Everything is already there in Heidegger
Sartre is a nihilistic Cartesian

>>18339484
Ass theoreticians are not philosophers.

>>18339484
>>18339500
Idk if this is bait or not but you have a high mountain to climb before your arguments stick. Derrida is good to read as an exact example of what not to do, so still of worth in inverse. I literally finished grasping computability by reading him that way. Plato's metaphysics is entirely more developed than Derrida and that you brought up Plato and Nietzsche instead of Plato and Christianity with a separate section for Nietzsche suggests to me you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>18339974
>Derrida is good to read as an exact example of what not to do, so still of worth in inverse.
Kek

>>18339974
>You mentioned two distinct things in the same sentence.
>Therefore, you must have no idea what you're talking about.
Okay bud.

>Plato's metaphysics is entirely more developed than Derrida
In what sense are you implying "development?" By distracting man with abstractions for the following 2000 years? By being a major player in the shifting of the definition of truth as something violent and confining? By essentially giving birth to the most ignorant/arrogant of all religions? In that sense, I guess he is more "developed." I myself prefer to keep the essential questions of life open, not closed, thank you very much.

Nick

>>18339611
> both Deleuze and Foucault are clearly trying to keep the pussy from running away.
> Derrida's nonchalance glues the pussy to his lap.
Kek.

>>18340043
Cringe.

>>18339484
Because all other philosophy is footnotes to platon and neetche

>>18340043
You conjoined them for your Peterson point but they don't at all follow anything discussed here. He's just an eceleb and idk many ppl who really appreciate nietzsche here. I've seen more comeuppance videos of him in the asylum than anything here.

No I mean there's platonist math which was an assumption the early logicists took. Why was this important? It literally was the backdrop for the development of computers and thus smartphones etc later and then there's Gothic architectural development based on Timaeus. The church was heavily influenced by him. There was just a broad and expansive enough metaphysics to do a lot with it.

Also, "the essential questions to life open, not closed" is absolute nonsense. A question is closed under an axiom when it has no more interpretations. This implies a direct causation instead of a correlation so you are structurally saying you prefer correlation to causation for whatever personal reasons you have.

I can 100% go on. Derrida was simply the last of celebrities from the French existential culture. Philosophy isn't about celebritism. Philosophy undergirds reality and all new attempts we make in reality.

>>18340134
>reality
is a spook

>>18340139
Well you can argue that but in the end some frameworks we are able to use to more properly get things done in our lives and also some we can use to be less efficient.
Pr seems to think so.

>>18339974
Completely missed my point, so I don’t really have a response.

>>18340340
Well then maybe read the responses. I literally opened with I'm not entirely sure what your point was then glossed over alternatives. If you're incapable of understanding basic rhetoric then my original point is justified.

>>18339624
french revolution, enlightenment

>>18339500
The excessive focus on philosophy, non fiction and spirituality can be tiring.
No fun allowed, etc.

>>18340351
You’re a bloviating pseud, and you’re not as smart as you think you are. One can’t get anywhere arguing with someone like you. That’s all.

>>18340382
Sci is a bit more fun to argue with because rigor is there. I wouldn't have the balls to bloviate that op then walk back when any criticism comes up. A bit childish but alright see you.

>>18340395
I’m not OP, so idk if you’re really addressing me. I’m just telling you that you did not understand my post. No need to cry about it.

>>18340411
Yeah, I assume fiction is derivative of philosophy so I just group them together. I prefer literary realism over a lot of other genres and I tie it back to platonism generally.

>>18339500
A gril was impressed when I told her I read Plato once ;)

>>18340134
>I can 100% go on
I have zero interest. Logic is the most boring way to do philosophy, if you can even call it that. There is absolutely nothing to learn about Being from perfecting the art of calculative mental abstractions.

>>18340537
Unless you fucked her at some point after that, it’s irrelevant.

>>18340545
I mean a proper definition helps in your view or are you more existentially inclined? If so how do you go from Being to something else? I think we fundamentally do the same things just there's an analytic/continental dogma

>>18340548
She’s my current gf

>>18339500
I once picked up an Asian stripper in a cafe after talking to her about Husserl for 3 hours.
> picrel

>>18340568
I'm not knocking rhetoric, quite the contrary. Language is the foundation of thought, and its intricacies should be studied. But the kinds of projects going on among analytics (extensive logic) misses the point, in my opinion.

>If so how do you go from Being to something else?
What do you mean by this question?

>>18340654
I might assume you're a coherentist? If so, you would assert Being develops our understanding of reality (if not reality itself) which eventually informs, or (re)develops Being. I'd be curious how you traverse that. If you're a foundationalist or something else just use a different structure. I'm just asking about the relationship between Being to something else. I use an inference rule to explain the relationship between say one thing and another. If not I'm curious whether you deny cause and effect entirely on some measure and why.

>>18340696
I couldn't tell you. The philosophical tradition I am steeped in has a different set of terminology. But that being said I can tell you that Being is brought to light via our interrogation; it is illuminated by means of our language, and our delineation of the "is" and the "is-not." So in some sense, your second sentence is roughly along the same lines, although I am skeptical of claims to understanding the real. This is where I find myself in somewhat of an oscillation between Heidegger and Derrida. I think we are somewhat trapped within our semiotic horizons, but if there were to be a ground, I believe it would be the daily disclosure of Being. This is why, personally, phenomenology has been one of the most important turns in the history of philosophical discourse.

>>18339494
Based. Philosophers are faggots. Nietzsche's a real nigga.

>>18340794
I mean to say language is completely or mostly illuminates Being then saying we are semiotically confined is tautological. Not bad but it's very uninformative.
Either way, the is/is-not distinction is dualism. So I'm curious what the counterpart to Being is and if there's any realistic analogue. I don't think you can call nothing a something so it'd be correlative of what it really is. If not I'm curious how it goes from the monism Being to is/is-not dualism.
This shouldn't veer too analytic. It is rigorous but that's a good question in any tradition.

>>18340906
>to say language is completely or mostly illuminates Being then saying we are semiotically confined is tautological.
It's not a tautology because "Being" is not a universality. Being is always limited to our own personal horizons, and is thus not the same for any two beings.

>I don't think you can call nothing a something so it'd be correlative of what it really is
That's exactly the point. "Nothing" cannot actually be conceptualized because the minute we formulate it we turn it into its antithesis. This applies not only to Non-Being, but to Being as well. We don't know what the "is" is but we can't help but presuppose it. Presence always has to be supplemented without any knowledge of the underneath.

>>18339484
nice projecting anon :)

>>18341002
So I know you're stuck between some semiotic solipsism limit to epistemology and some lesser degree of that but I think it's important to clearly tie down whether you think the external world exists.
If you do then I'm curious how you ever manage to operate with an external object. I imagine language is external to your Being in some sense so you can't fully be incapable of relating with things. You've mentioned how language helps one understand Being but not the other way around. I'm also going to jump the gun and ask how that relationship from Being to understanding language would apply from language to understanding the world.

>>18341045
>but I think it's important to clearly tie down whether you think the external world exists.
We can only believe. The only thing that is even remotely tangible that exists prior to language is belief. Messianicity, Zusage, etc. How do we operate with external objects? By believing in the radiance of their disclosure as a matter of temporality and spatiality. It's not a ground, but it is an aptitude towards a specific placement of truth.

>how language helps one understand Being
It doesn't help - language itself is the understanding of Being (if you can even make that claim.) I reject this proposition because language (or thought; interchangeable) is not something that is separate from Being; it is not looking down on the spectacle of Being and bringing it back to the chambers of the mind. The spectral traces of knowledge in their dance of free-play are co-existent with the entirety of our horizon.

>>18340599
This isn’t the first time you’ve posted this

>>18341157
>we can only believe
You understand how that sole fideist epistemology is very regularly attacked in religious debates right? If that didn't immediately jump to your mind I hope it does and that you have good arguments to address it. I certainly don't think I can believe two hydrogen atoms into becoming gold.

>language is the understanding of Being
And what language might that be?

>>18341201
What I'm describing is not fideism. Of course you can't believe two hydrogen atoms into becoming gold because faith does not arrive at any "truth." To believe it does would be to misunderstand what faith is. You don't have faith because you expect something in return; faith is the unconditional surrender of the self to the void. You give yourself day in and day out, waiting for the disclosure without any expectation.

>And what language might that be?
What do you mean? All languages. Every language around the world (French, Mandarin, Tagalog, etc.) is not just a different way of symbolizing the real for that core nugget of consciousness. They are each respectively and fundamentally different ways of thinking Being into Being. This is why certain languages have words for things that make absolutely no sense in other languages. Translation is always a bastardization of the original text.

>>18341282
Fideism as an epistemology does assert it arrives at truth such as praying etc and letting the holy spirit enter you.

I mean what language is in Being. If you're saying you don't know then you must see why this is too informal to qualify as philosophy versus random musings. A metaphysics is definitionally a framework of reality. You aren't practicing this.

>>18341282
>>18341310
For a good example of fideism arriving at truth look up Kierkegaard interpreting Abraham and his son Isaac.

>>18339484
Because Heidegger was right - the trainwreck of Western philosophy was in being a series of misunderstandings of Plato. Also, the Platonic tradition is by far the most historically colourful, there's simply just more to explore: Orphism, Pythagoreanism, the Patristics, Neoplatonism, Early Scholasticism, The Renaissance, German Idealism, Cambridge guys, Bergsonism etc.,.

Nietzsche is just for entry-level pseuds tho

>>18341310
>>18341323
In my opinion, "random musings" is exactly what philosophy is. And it is the attempt to shove this tendency to the side and isolate it within the humanities where actual thinking dies. What is philosophy but poetry, and vice versa? To read philosophy, and actually DO philosophy, you aren't taking a blueprint that you then go out and apply in the world. Rather, you are to become immersed in the poetic thoughts of brilliant people and let the inspiration wash over your very Being.

>look up Kierkegaard interpreting Abraham and his son Isaac.
I'll check it out. Thanks.

I have to take off now. It was good talking to you my friend. Have a good one.

>>18341347
>Heidegger was right - the trainwreck of Western philosophy was in being a series of misunderstandings of Plato.
I don't have time to tell you how much you are misinterpreting Heidegger by saying this.

>>18339484
>Why is it that the only philosophers you guys mention are Plato and Nietzsche?
Those are the only ones people here know about.

>>18341347
Renaissance and German Idealism have as much to do with Plato as they do Nietzsche.

Does Peterson even talk about Plato?

>>18340578
Doesnt mean youve fucked her.

>>18342279
nah he sticks to anything from the 19th ce like /lit/

Plato is a pretty good philosopher to discuss online. His work is actually quite dense and covers a couple different philosophical fields or interests. As well as this, most people into philosophy have read Plato and are happy to discuss. There are varying degrees of understanding and interest, too. For example, the recent Neo-Platonism threads have been great and some of the best discussion on /lit/ in a while.
In terms of Nietzsche, I have never seen substantive discussion of him on this board, I think anyone that comes here to talk philosophy knows to avoid these threads.
Regarding more obscure philosophers, there obviously won't be much discussion. Trying hard to be contrarian isn't based, my guy.

>>18340599
Looks like a boy

>>18339484
Derrida is not a philosopher, he's a con artist.

>>18339579
>Guenon is the end of philosophy, so its best to hold off reading him until old age. Simple as.
FTFY

>>18340043
>By distracting man with abstractions for the following 2000 years?
Retard detected

>>18343108
Hard agree on Plato's breadth. I consider him more correct than Aristotle but Aristotle had the benefit of coming after Plato and was definitely more expansive. I wish Plato had derived a science we could use in place of an empirical one.

>>18341442
Read On the Essence of Truth
>>18342276
For the renaissance, see Ficino, Plethon and Pico
For German Idealism look at the inheritance Schelling and Hegel have of Eckhart and Eriugena

>>18340376
Exactly what he said, ruined the world.

>>18343129
Definitely. Maybe I should've worded it differently. Plato's canon is pretty compact, unlike Aristotle's dense system.
You can branch out of just Plato, though, into the different areas of Platonism that came after, which can then lead you all over the place, if that makes sense.
You can spend a significant portion of time studying Neo Platonism.

>>18343161
Yeah I agree. Plato is so fundamental that any step he takes opens up many paths someone can take individually (like mathematical platonism). Parmenides was like that for me too but too bad he came way before philosophers tried applying it to different fields.

>>18343129
>I wish Plato had derived a science we could use in place of an empirical one.
I too hate leaving the comfort of my armchair

>>18339611

>not just going from Kant to Frege, Russell, and Moore
You guys aren't going to make it.

>>18339611
The most based trio in all of literature

>>18343356
I have did my own but I think science would be very different if he did it

>>18339494
>Nietzsche's a real nigga.
Based. Philosophers are supposed to have clarity of mind. Nietzsche was a mentally unstable incel that took out his sexual frustrations by spewing nonsense, eventually collapsed to madness when a man beat his horse fuck toy to death.

>>18343398
>preferring felines
What a bunch of pseuds.

French faggots pretending that their meme philosophers dont shit up the board

Derrida was born wrong and his whole life he tried to make himself right. He just couldn't accept that there is only one way to correct nature's mistake and that's to weed out the failures like him.