/lit/ - Literature

>>22575125
Think of it as a kind of exuberant performance art with a goal of appealing to French people.
It's not retarded, it just is what it is.

There are two absolute different types of philosophers: Those that only write about things that are real, and those that are comfortable entering into falsity.

Falsity includes things like astrology, metaphysics, god, religion, spirituality, souls, magick, freewill, and other things that are not absolutely concrete and thus not able to be proven before our eyes or with our hands. No experiment can exist that would prove "magic" or "freewill," and most certainly, the ultimate sin is "God," whom contains so many definitions that it might as well mean anything. Different depending on the era, the place, the religion, the specific denomination, or just a person's personal beliefs about it.

Thus, we end up painfully dealing with a lot of philosophers that are just not going to be "technically correct." You have to be realistic, and know very well that almost every single person in the Western world has been brainwashed into Christianity from birth. That is their native worldview, and even if rejected, you still have a terrible chance to get an "edgy atheist" who's just as oppositional as they once were devout.

To find a philosopher who is truly after objective truth is very rare then, because many of them are simply dipped into their culture, and have no easy means to wipe up the mess.

>>22575146
So what's your point? Kant already said that you should shut the fuck up if you're talking about those unprovable things over 200 years ago. Some people don't listen to him, and I ignore him. Very few analytic philosophers talk about those topics, unless they're from an academic and empirically-grounded standpoint.

>>22575146
So what's your point? Kant already said that you should shut the fuck up if you're talking about those unprovable things over 200 years ago. Some people don't listen to him, and I ignore them.
Very few analytic philosophers talk about those topics, unless they're from an academic and empirically-grounded standpoint.

continental philosophy is a waste of time that ends up not being able to prove anything

>>22575136
Can analytic vs continental be summarized by saying that analytics care about what they're saying, whereas continentals care about HOW they're saying it regardless of what the content is?

>>22575125
don't fucking care, I read and like only german idealists and american pragmatists
t. applied stemmothician

>>22575125
Nietzsche and Foucault (and also Deleuze) all explicitly target what it is that "supports" a claim, performing exceptional labour to uncover the workings of truth functionality.

Nietzsche speaks at length against enlightenment rationality, and describes how people's ability to act in the world will be responsible for the kinds of "rational" truth claims they will generate.

Foucault traces the evolution of persistent topics and ideas across history, and shows how organizations of people influence the generation of entire classes of truth claims.

Deleuze targets long standing biases that structure ideas, such as thinking being tied to images, tree structures in organization, and ideas being singular concepts.

If you can't see these basic points present in these thinkers, maybe philosophy isn't for you

>>22575125
Baidrillard's pretty good, de aru

>>22575125
I am really sorry to say this anon, but it's not continental philosophy... it's (You)...
>>22575289
Analytics care about how they look (trying to look like smart anglo autists) and continentals also care about how they look (trying to look like bombastic degenerates and/or badasses).

>>22575343
Huh?

>>22575347
So which continentals are saying stuff of substance in a comprehensible manner? I'd genuinely love to read something like that.

analytics are boring faggots who should be killed

>>22575354
What?

>>22575386
>>22575343

>>22575125
>The only exception to this is Schopenhauer
I've only read "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion", but found it to be full of unsupported claims. Do you know if the texts in there are mostly just meant as a brief overview or summary of the his views, skipping all the supporting arguments, or is that book actually representative of his work?

>>22575343
If you seriously think anyone over sixteen is going to read that and not immediately notice that you didn't actually answer OP's questions then trying to look smart online maybe isn't for you.

>>22575146
I think you have it exactly backwards lmao. You're still running after a notion of 'objective truth' that is far older and more confused than you realise it is. Continentals will then try to show you that the ideas you so blithely throw around as if they were Platonic universals are actually concepts with a history that emerge from specific times and places. This doesn't mean they're all doomed to fail or are per se false, but it does mean they respond to specific frames of problem.
Usually before they even finish this, you've started screeching about 'objectivity' and 'truth' and completely ignore the history of these ideas. Do you really think objectivity has meant one and the same thing for 2500 years? Do you really think conceptual analysis just undoes and nullifies the majority of past human thinking? The story that analytic philosophers tell of history can only be assessed as a hair raising simplification of all the most interesting parts. And a single continental (who have their own problems i'll admit) tries to introduce a modicum of that complexity back in, and you simply won't have it.
Suit yourself in your comfortable little bubble of false simplicity.

>>22575298
Based

>>22575670

No, I speak what I do for the sake of OP, who asked a question. I'm only answering it directly, with the implication of what you said also being true.

That's why what I said prompted what you did. The history of ideas is NOT what OP is after. She specifically seems to want someone analytical, scientific, and objective, and mentioned Schopenhauer of all things, as if that was what OP is really after.

OP wants to skip to the end, and get the useful details, and skip the Hegels and Kierkegaards, and go straight for La Mettrie, Paine, Hawking, and Stirner. Even Petroski.

OP just wants the cheat codes to life and to get those hard-to-get philosophical answers that grant him a functional advantage over people trapped in the past.

>>22575708
Your first post reads like your opinion, and now you're saying it's just for OP's sake? Bizarre.
And my comment was for OP too. His title is 'Is any continental philosophy not retarded?', and his question is for philosophy that is for the 'analytically-minded'. I'm trying to give the impression that not all continental philosophy is retarded and that in fact, claiming to be 'analytically minded' is just subterfuge for refusing to do your homework and read history. Philosophy is a historical discipline, if you don't like that, it's simply not for you.
If you want to ignore history you'll end up squabbling over contemporary psuedo-issues, unable to resolve them because you neither understand nor accept the very foundations of your field.

Don't offer shortcuts to OP, you'll produce a half-wit. You don't get to skip to the end. I am sick to death of philosophy students who want to 'skip' to the parts that line up with how they already think. That is anathemic to thinking.
I do however understand wanting to read thinkers of a general style, your list is a bit odd (Hawking??) but most of it would work. I would refer to this handy list, i've helpfully removed all the thinkers you would have found odious anyway.

>>22575783
And OP if you'll actually read Continental philosophy without whining about it departing ever so slightly from your preconceived idea of what is 'sensible' and 'justified' then here's a list. I'm not going to summarise for you. Just read it:

Husserl: Funnily enough both analytics and continentals hail him as their father. He's immensely influential and basically initiates phenomenology as we know it.
You're going to want to start with the Cartesian Meditations, or the Ideas I.

Merleau-Ponty: Phenomenologist interested in perception and the body. Highly underrated and you'll be surprised based on his writing that he's basically the secret godfather to a lot of the so called "post-moderns" (Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, et. al.).

Cassirer: Neo-Kantian epistemologist known for being a bit droll and debating Heidegger (should be points in your book).

Gadamer: Might be as close to hermeneutics as you can enjoy but Gadamer writes carefully and in a lucid style. His main book Truth and Method came out when he was 60, so it was a lifelong accomplishment.

Meillassoux: Modern writer, famous for his work After Finitude. Fairly short and a bit zany but a great read. You will absolutely hate his conclusions but the writing is undeniable.

Stiegler: Tries to synthesize contemporary thinking with contemporary technical developments. Read Technics and Time, not his later stuff which is all rubbish.

>>22575783

I believe Hawking forced himself into Philosophy when he said "Philosophy is dead. (Because philosophers haven't incorporated modern physics, astronomy, and technology into their worldviews and conjecture, nor do they utilize a "scientific method" of philosophy.)

The () stuff I wrote myself, but I think that was his intent when he said that, and I believe that as philosophers, he issued us a direct and absolute challenge, and I think we should heed his words and heed them well.

That image you posted though, it shows that you not only understand this already, but the fact you even have it raises my respect for you greatly.

Please understand that WE are the next generation of philosophers. This will not happen on Reddit nor Twitter nor Facebook nor Tiktok. This is the last bastion of being able to share ideas without limit, and that alone makes me heed YOUR words.

Your critique of my posts is something I take very seriously, and I think you are right. I've been properly disciplined by you, and I think I see some errors in my line of thought now. Thank you.

And I think OP will benefit from you too.

>>22575670
>>22575783
Goodpost. I really think that 90% of the difficulty analytic philosophers have with continentals comes down to the idea of reflexivity: analytics just don’t get it. They literally CANNOT understand that something can be both a cause and effect of the same object. They cannot understand horizontality in logic, only verticality. If you try to show them that the X they’re looking for is determined by and determining of the procedure to reach it their heads explode. Unironically it could probably be used as a “what if you didn’t have breakfast today” kind of test for the 120IQ mark

>>22575633
>op asks for palatable thinkers for analytically minded people
>doesn't like unsupported claims or factually incorrect statements, but finds authours X and Y interesting
>Explain why authours X Y Z aren't just merely factually incorrect or saying unsupported claims
>didn't answer the question

>>22575146
>falsity
>metaphysics
While you imply that there is a known obvious "not falsity" you sure talk a lot of shit about a practice of showing that you can't assert this

>>22576071

It is EXTREMELY hard to assert truth in an honest, fully detailed way.

There are infinite paths of falsity; infinite fictions and myths lacking truth, such that the line of truth is so thin, so fragile, that anything not true is false.

Even the words I speak now are not necessarily true in full.

As for metaphysics in particular, I don't actually mind the topic at all. I just feel like if it was actually truly true, there would be more metaphysical machines, tools, medicines, or applications of it.

"Engineering Applications of Metaphysics" would be a book I'd read if it existed. But that book doesn't exist, because metaphysics as a genre does not seem to carry *useful* truths.

So then I question the truth of the genre itself.

>>22576071
(And before you go mad with what I said about "hurr hurr physical applications of metaphysics," please understand that I am speaking not of literal "machines" or something, but more of an abstract idea regarding the usage of metaphysics in a real world case.

Even just a mental "tool" that allows you to be happy in a dark world is an application. I am not here to be shallow and demand the impossible. Just let the abstract concept of "The knowledge of metaphysics allowed me to build a machine utilizing its mechanics, laws, and logic" be what I am after here. I'm not suggesting something stupidly, painfully absurd.)

>>22576008
right???

>>22576008
>Explain why authours X Y Z aren't just merely factually incorrect or saying unsupported claims
No, it just stated what they wrote about. But one can write utter bullshit about any subject, the questions of whether or not your claims are supported and correct remains for all of them.

>>22575125
continentals are trying to do philosophy that is not about creating solvable problems it hink... not sure though. this question is so broad and beginner that I will never know the answer

>>22575633
if you want a book representative of his work, just stop being a pussy and read the world as will and representation. it's actually pretty easy to understand.

>>22575868
Thank you! This is actually exactly the type of reply I was hoping for. Genuinely appreciated.

>>22577098
Contrary to your teachers I don't ask to see if you know, I simply ask because I want to know. So when you don't know the answer you can simply remain silent.

>>22575125

>>22575394
You are not interested in truth.

>>22575941
>nor do they utilize a "scientific method" of philosophy
Which is kinda funny because said method is a preposterously massive success of epistemology.
Of course, getting there required people to care about getting somewhere instead of merely cataloguing what's been said about it for the last ≈2.5 millennia, so I guess some circles would rather prefer not to risk learning any lessons form it.

>>22575386
Start with the Greeks. If you can't comprehend Plato, I am afraid that is on you, not on Plato.

>>22575941
>Please understand that WE are the next generation of philosophers. This will not happen on Reddit nor Twitter nor Facebook nor Tiktok. This is the last bastion of being able to share ideas without limit, and that alone makes me heed YOUR words.
this is so sweet anon-kun

>>22577139
i was giving you the answer

>>22577374
No, the question wasn't what a representative work of his would be, but if "The Horrors..." is representative. Now one could very generously interpret it as you hinting at one way I could find out on my own what the answer is, but that's likely giving you too much credit considering the whole post was just a bit of high school grabass, and either way the actual answer is clearly not in your possession.

>>22575955
please give one tangible example of this "horizontal logic" you speak of. i'm waiting.

>>22577141
what is the meaning of this??

>>22577527
You want to fuck a woman so you buy nice clothes because that’s what women like but that’s only your conception of what women like and not really what they like. In this example the problem is changed from “what X do I need to do to fuck a woman” to “how do I accurately ascertain what X a woman wants so that they’ll fuck me.” The verticality of X leading to having sex stays the same while the process of achieving it is rerouted through your own psychology and understanding of women beforehand.

>>22578886
Good post. Things like this are exactly why so many of the double digit IQ incels on 4chan cannot accomplish the simple task of getting a gf. They have to think outside their preconceived box. Being an incel is probably one of the easiest tells that someone is not smart, they can't think hypothetically and put themselves in a woman's mindset of what a woman wants in a man.

>>22578886
probably not him

>>22578886
i understand the example, but how does it show that something is both a cause and effect on the same object? this seems linear in a way that isn't congruent with what i was expecting in an example depicting what you had previously mentioned.

>>22579034
The linearity is due to the fact that I wanted to use the simplest possible case in the simplest possible way of dissecting it in order to show the horizontality without any extraneous bullshit coming between a clear sight of it and thinking I’m just schizo. Really, you could extrapolate forever horizontally and never really come to an end. You think X is attractive to women because of media you’ve consumed. Said media includes this portrayal of feminine desire because the writer thought that’s what they liked because that’s what his mom said to him who had a headache and didn’t care and said portrayal was included in the movie because it aligned with advertisement prerogatives… blah blah blah. This is why a lot of postmodern types are distrustful of institutions which proclaim themselves unaffected by others because all that does is obscure power. That’s why Foucault says knowledge is power because the power inherent in said knowledge derived from being able to rip itself out of its immediate context and self-define without respect to what really defines it effectively. The point on reflexivity is more simple. Say you’re an engineer and you want to design the best gun ever. What does that mean? Should it shoot fast or slow? Large caliber or small? How should it chamber? How should it reload? Then, on the other side: the way the materials influence the goal. Stock material X is good for Y rate of fire but all we have due to an international shortage is material A which is good for B rate of fire. Technological limitations in the milling process make your exemplary theoretical barrel design worthless. You have cancer and only 2 weeks to finish your gun design. Etc. Of course, same as the other one, there are nearly infinite ways to skin the cat on the “best” gun ever. Some would consider it the AK for reliability, others the M4 for stopping power, others a smoothbore cannon for siegecraft. Logic can always take us from A to B in a safe and rational manner, the issue occurs when we, as irrational beings in a limited world, have to operate outside of pure logical necessity.

>>22579152
I forgot to add onto the end. I meant to say

Logic can always take us from A to B in a safe and rational manner, the issue occurs when we, as irrational beings in a limited world, have to operate outside of pure logical necessity in order to determine what A and B stand for. For the siege engineer B is capturing the citadel and driving the enemy from the fortress. For the Taliban B is making sure they have weapons that can operate reliably in the desert and that are cheap. For the US military B is making sure they have enough stopping power to eliminate the threat to national security. All are perfectly logical answers for the best gun ever and yet they are different guns.

>>22579034
I agree with you.

What I'm looking at in that example is a shape like \/ where the focal point is the objective, and the lines are two different ways to get there. You cross off the line that doesn't work, and take the path that does.

But that's nothing but still being LITERALLY vertical. The path is just different.

>>22579152
how is that horizontal tho lmao they all just at different points in the causal chain. sure they can RESEMBLE cyclicality (i think that women like X because of the media i've consumed, the media i've consumed was made by a writer who liked X), but they're not actually "horizontal". do you have a way of explaining it that doesn't run into this issue? these seem like different (but similar) instances of different subjects acting on different objects, not something being both a cause and effect on the same object.
it really just seems like it can be structure in the form of:
A affects B (media A influences writer to believe that women find X attractive)
B affects C (writer influences media C)
C affects D (media C influences person who ends up thinking women find X attractive
etc
they're different people and different pieces of media
what am i missing

>>22579152
>>22579172
yeah, this is why a conceptual analysis of what "best gun" means solves the entire issue LOL
and you don't have to read 8000 pages of theory to get there

>>22579180
True, you can look at it like that. You’re cutting off yourself out of the chain though which is the important part. The thinker thinking is where the horizontality is introduced. X from the writer reaches YOU and you have to digest it. I refer to it as horizontality because it cannot be digested by pure verticality without removing the subject himself and introducing a fictive state of events in its place. The unconscious is a good example: you cannot assimilate consciousness to unconsciousness or vice versa. You remain incapable of building a vertical structure of the self as it exists in reality without the contingency of the unconscious as a bar at the bottom.

>>22579193
not really, that doesn't make it any easier

>>22575125
Restart with the Greeks and revisit Hegel through 'analytic' and information theory calques of him secondary literature.

>>22579193
and how are you affecting the chain simultaneously merely by thinking about it? isn't that what is required of proving this "horizontal" / reciprocal causation that you speak of?

>>22579199
>>22579207
yawn

>>22575670
What analytics are concerned with "objective truth"? Any intro to phil course will go over different theories of truths from analytic philosophers. None of them involve objectivity. Look at publishing philosophers today. What definitions of truth are they dealing with? To imagine analytics are preoccupied with objective truth is to show a gross misunderstanding of the discipline.

>>22579211
fr, >>22575670 seems to forget that epistemology is an ANALYTIC field

>>22579197
Let’s assume you like pie. You think pumpkin pie is the best because of X. Your friend thinks raspberry pie is the best because of Y. Let’s assume both are perfectly logical answers for why each kind of pie is the best. Why are your answers different? If there were no horizontality in logic, if every question had 1 and exactly 1 answer then how do we reconcile this (as would be in a purely vertical logical structure). You both like your respective pies for different reasons. YOU, the thinking subject, are included in the logical apparatus as one of the poles. Logic is always towards a goal and from an origin.

>>22579207
Because you (by thinking) and your material circumstances are altering the poles at the end of the logical sequence and not the actual process itself.

>>22579222
>>22579226
ok what the fuck are the "poles at the end of the logical sequence" also is this just your pet theory or does this come from a reputable continental philosopher

>>22579214
Epistemology is big for both analytics and continentals. Treating both sides as rival sports teams is beyond retarded and it is not at all surprising that /lit/ does this. Sure analytics are more rigorous and are doing most of the philosophical heavy lifting but its beyond me why OP is discounting Deleuze. He is massively influential in a number of fields, how many analytic ontologists can claim the same?

>>22579228
It’s my digestion of critical theory (mainly postmodern although in my opinion Hegel takes all of the elements of postmodern thought and does it better with his system) which I’ve read. The poles are the origin of the logical process and the goals of the logical process. The origin of the logical process of finding something to drink can originate in sugar cravings, sickness, or dehydration. It can end in a soda, cough syrup, or water.

>>22579228
Obviously a schizo peddling his theory.

>>22579222
You have no idea what you are talking about. "I like pumpkin pie because x" is not a logical statement it is a proposition. Try to convert it into logical notation if you doubt it. The reason why your answers are different have nothing to do with logic.

>>22575125
why no judgment on pic rel?

>>22579243
this
>>22579237
take a logic class please

>>22579243
I really don’t know how to make it simpler for you guys. Sorry. I suppose the pie example was bad but I still stick to the best gun ever example as it is an objective measure. I have no interest in converting anything to formal logical notation and I will make no attempt. When I do philosophy I think in English. If the taliban’s considerations for what guns to buy were illogical why didn’t they end up with a bunch of .22s instead of the perfect weapon for their environment and circumstances?

>>22579253
see >>22579186
"best gun" is an ambiguous term
if you list out the defining traits of it for each situtation then you can see that they are looking for different features!
you can replace "best gun" with something that has the properties of an ak47 in the circumstance of the taliban since they're equivalent things in that context
meanwhile it has different criteria for police officers
understood?
they're different things
so why equate them

>>22579260
But they’re not different things Anon. They’re both guns. You’re extrapolating from the material reality of the gun itself into its use value(s) as an object. You’re making the same essential point as me but your only change is to see the vertical trees as separate from each other instead of connected. To do this you destroy the overarching category of best gun by deeming it arbitrary but my entire point the whole time is that this arbitrariness is the horizontality which is in turn the thinking subject. You deny the category of best gun logical existence and yet you continue to use it illogically in order to measure it against the properties that you reduce the object to.

>>22579211
What? All of the various branches of epistemology are at least in some way concerned with truth, and generally with objects of truth. How did you manage to not run into a single discussion of objectivity? What kinds of courses are you doing? You really never ran into any references to metaphysical realism, correspondence theory, naturalism, and the many other kinds of analytic thinking that do talk about objectivity? Your lack of breadth is showing.
If you mean theories like foundationalism, foundherentism, or fallibilism, all of these views talk about and relate to the external world of objects and how to reconcile them with truth in complex ways. It's better than correspondence but it's still naive objectivity talk a lot of the time.

Maybe you're referring to epistemological views like coherentism, but that theory has been in trouble since Russell demolished it, and has been in even worse shape since Thagard or McGinn.
If you mean verificationism, it too is directly concerned with empirically verifying your facts. Note that you have to EMPIRICALLY verify them, as in OBJECTIVELY, dumbass.


>>22579214
There's an entire tradition of French epistemology that you obviously do not know about. Once again, you should really read more before you spout bullshit like that.

>>22579281
i think that "best gun" is an ambiguous term.
rigidly defining "best gun" won't get you anywhere.
you can define "best gun type A" as the type of gun that is best for doing the activities that the taliban wants to do.
you can define "best gun type B" as the type of gun that is best for doing the activities that police officers want to do.
if you REALLY WANT TO, you can make a superset of "best guns" that encompasses all of the guns that can best accomplish some function.
i do not think that the term has meaning unless you do something like the last step.
btw if you disagree with me maybe you'd agree with the later wittgenstein, in which case why is continental necessary here.

>>22579281
you still have not given an example of causation working in two directions simultaneously

>>22579289
How do you define the subsets of best gun type A and B without recourse to a general conception of what a best gun would even be in the first place? You make the argument that the needs for an object fill this empty concept of best gun but what determines the needs themselves? (You) do
>in which case why is continental necessary here.
It’s a bullshit distinction at the core of it imo.

>>22579294
Feudalism was both a cause and effect of manorialism

>>22579306
you're just asking for what "best" means
hopefully this illustrates how you sound:
>when you ask "what's the best thing", you need horizontal logic because the best pizza is different from the best racehorse
how do you think that this is meaningful discussion in any way

>>22579306
>How do you define the subsets of best gun type A and B without recourse to a general conception of what a best gun would even be in the first place?
"the model of gun that leads to the greatest success for the cause of the taliban"
which could factor in material losses due to purchase, reliability, etc
it's really not that hard
have you never seen conceptual analysis before?
the whole point is that you keep going down and getting more fine-grain in order to more clearly elucidate what you mean by certain terms

>>22579309
1. those things necessarily happened at separate points in time
2. those are nebulous terms. much like i explained in >>22579180, the illusion goes away when you realize that the initial instance of "feudalism" that caused manorialism is NOT an identical entity as the one that was an effect of manorialism.

>>22579314
>how do you think that this is meaningful discussion in any way
To be fair I haven’t really invoked much Hegel, which is where my philosophical convictions lie, so it’s not particularly important to me outside of that framework. I’m explaining a concept that Anons asked me about.

>>22579317
Did you not read the next sentence?
>>22579323
>the illusion goes away when you realize that the initial instance of "feudalism" that caused manorialism is NOT an identical entity as the one that was an effect of manorialism.
So democracy now vs democracy five minutes ago is an inherently different concept because some people died in the interval and therefore (because democracy is rule of the people) the content of the determinant has changed?

Sometimes I feel like the analytic/continental divide is outdated and reconciliation is coming, until I get into a thread like this and see the way analytics think and speak and see themselves, and then I want to reinforce the divide for another several generations. My only consolation is that your commitment to trivial realism keeps you occupied and renders you harmless for those of us trying to do actual work.

>>22579847
Nobody in philosophy is "trying to do actual work", it's all self aware fraud that exists because the academia is too useful to shut down but also intrinsically wasteful

>>22575125
sexo with breadcat

>>22580451
wasteful as compared to what exactly?

>>22579847
I'm afraid that there is nothing we can do about it. There is no reconciliation between two parties because "continental" is a spook the analytics made to scare themselves away from anything that is not them. No one identifies or knows what the supposed continental boogeyman is supposed to be.
Ultimately it doesn't matter too much. Analytic philosophy is essentially totally nipped in the bud outside the Anglo world (and really not all that dominant in England anymore). Even there it is virtually restricted to philosophical department of academia with minimal impact on the well read general public or even other academic departments.
It's a little insular world so fixated on a few of its fetishes, seeing everything through this deformed narrow lens, and so convinced of its supremacy because of it, that you'd have more chance reconciliating with orthodox rabbis.

>>22579344
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction

>>22575343
They were wrong.

>analytic is gookposting bugman
kino

>>22580641
Wasteful as compared to a hypothetical academia that only allocated resources to people doing useful work.
To some extent we can't predict what will become useful, and historically such attempts ended badly (like the Nazis banning "Jewish science", the Soviets banning genetics, or the ongoing Western war on quantitative methods in social sciences).
So the best we can do is give professors a lot of freedom and accept that along with stuff that benefits humanity (whether scientifically or culturally) we'll also get some outright fraud like modern philosophy

>>22580964
Its exactly the push toward quantifiable results at any cost and easily articulable short term goals that got us into this mess, and here you are asking for more of the same. Typical. If people like you had your way, the entire human project would be run like an office, complete with middle management goons pushing you for efficiency for the sake of efficiency. An entire ethos with the mindset of a NDT tweet. Sickening.

You still haven't done anything to argue that modern philosophy is a fraud, but I suppose I'm asking a lot. Probably wouldn't be very useful.

>>22575125
Some good answers ITT. I'll add: you're not wrong to find Continental to be horseshit. A substantial amount of analytic philosophy, which at least opts for both clarity and rigor, is crap. However, does this mean that Continental is worthless? Not necessarily. My charitable interpretation is that Continental "philosophy" is essentially a genre of free verse poetry, and thus, may have aesthetic value to people, on a case-by-case basis.

>>22575146
found the undergrad

>>22581429
>Its exactly the push toward quantifiable results at any cost and easily articulable short term goals that got us into this mess, and here you are asking for more of the same.
Check your reading comprehension. I literally said that trying to limit the scope of the academia has generally ended badly.
The academia is inherently wasteful but it's probably the best we can have.

>>22577296
>plato
>continental

> 2. What the author is talking about, while interesting and well-written, is factually incorrect and full of unsupported claims (Nietzsche, Foucault).

This assumes philosophy is a science.

Just know the Greeks (especially the pre-socratics) and Nietzsche really well, if you are studying philosophy to enrich your life. If for enjoyment, whateves.

>>22582118
continuing after reading OP's comments.

Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder from the way you refer to analytical vs continental, and how one needs more rigor (aka you are smarter for studying it), and that's the basis for your preference.

If this is not related to your ego, and you purely value conciseness and clarity, consider studying mathematics instead.

If you are actually in philosophy, try to focus on the direction of inquiries. The direction of progress matters more in any intellectual pursuit, but especially in philosophy. You can read my earlier comments and come to conclusions on why the Analytic direction is better. In which case I'm all ears.

>>22575670
Basically, until you can fully explain the futility of 'objective truth' from a perspective besides your own, I have good authority you don't know what you don't know.

>>22575125
>factually incorrect
lol
Super Mario can jump. Claims to the contrary are factually incorrect only because the game is defined by humans. Analytic claims are talking about a game we made up not reality.

>>22582149
Note that in absolutely no place did I say that objectivity was 'futile'. I'm not a solipsist. I wrote that analytics throw the term around with insufficient attention to its history and the change of its terms. When they do so (which they very often do), they fail to add to the debate, and instead shit up philosophical discussions with naive appeals to objectivity. Again, I am not saying it does not exist. I am saying analytics do not appreciate its complex history.
You've completely failed to respond to any of my points so take my response here as pure charity.

For van Leeuwenhoek et. al., objectivity meant representing idealised forms of objects in their natural habitat. To bring an object out of its natural habitat as we do today would have been inimical to objectivity from the 17th Century. Early metaphysical views of nature obviously inform such a view.
Later in the 19th Century, truth-to-nature was systematically attacked by proponents of mechanical objectivity who argued in a positivistic sense that we should record any and all details of a given phenomena as if we were mechanical reproducers of nature. One can see how post-Kantian concerns and positivism are at work here.
By the twentieth century, this view of objectivity was itself under attack from
Frege, Carnap, and Poincare in favour of objective structures that resist various scientific changes. Once again the social determinants are obvious; incredible social and scientific upheaval at the fin de siècle that caused the scientists to tremble. I think they were all wrong about that, but that's another story.
Objectivity has continued to transform and vary as history progresses. Today objectivity has much more to do with the manipulation of scientific images and instruments than 'truth-to-nature'.
This should all give you the impression that objectivity has a history and in any specific form is not essential to scientific progress. Inaccuracy can be as productive as accuracy (cf. Canguilhem or Bachelard).
What I do think is futile is naive appeals to objectivity as if it has no history and can be simply applied as a criteria for good accurate thinking. That is my target and my criticism. Actually read my posts or stop responding to them.

>>22575125
any continental phil that is french and or post-heidegger should readily be discarded

>>22575343
all drivel, except nietzsche.

>you can't limit philosophy to autistic analytic attempts at objectivity, it's too restrictive
>therefore, you should be okay with people writing meaningless impressionist pun-ridden nonsense and calling it philosophy
continental logic

>>22575125
Analytic shit is not philosophy

>>22582478
>he isn’t initiated into the hidden mysteries
>he is divorced from his own intuition
Unironically NGMI

>>22579243
>The reason why your answers are different have nothing to do with logic.
jesus why are analytics like this? you're just proving his point again. he's trying to suggest the idea of horizontiality and you're waving around your truth tables and your first-order notation, totally missing his point. he's not talking about that. he's trying to talk about why that exact approach may be insufficient in many cases. analytics cannot fucking understand this simple concept and I don't get why

>>22582331
why is it that every time i see a comment of this length i know that it's someone being anti-analytic lmfao

>>22582523
Try giving an example of horizontal logic that DOESN'T get debunked by first-order notation then.

>>22575125
I can appreciate analytic philosophy (most philosophy I get around to reading nowadays is analytic papers I rip off libgen or wherever) but there's a... frivolousness to it?
>bro what if there was this guy in a fucked up situation
>BRO what if it was slightly different what then
again and again and again. like congrats, you've exposed a flaw in one aspect of another guy's thought experiment. how does that tell me anything about the world around me? how does this show me how to live?

analytics also think ideas simply pop into existence out of the ether, which is annoying. they refuse to acknowledge the very idea of historicizing. never understood that

>>22580559
Finally, a good take in this thread

>>22582529
again, that is not the point he is trying to make in the slightest, and I legitimately do not know how he could have been more clear, and I don't understand why you can't grasp what he's talking about

>>22582534
Please list the causation similarly to how this guy did >>22579180

>>22582529

To be extremely harsh, you are correct.
The examples of horizontal logic given thus far are utter shit.

I do not believe "horizontal logic" exists at the present moment. What I've read so far is "Life can exist as a bird, a squirrel, a bear, or man, and all are equally valid."

The issue here is that although a true statement, it is NOT horizontal logic! It is NOT. All of those statements are still utilizing linear, vertical logic, and thus it forms an evolutionary tree of life, where all lines flow downward, vertically, towards a single source/objective, which is Life, both as a noun, and a verb.

Yet I do not want to dismiss horizontal logic so quickly. But I am just not able to think of any valid examples of it myself, and all currently posted examples are false.

YOU! You reader, who is currently NOT a horizontal logicist, you are the one who must do this. Try to come up with your own example of horizontal logic.

This is akin to an atheist ensuring he has some logical proofs of God, or a Christian ensuring he has some good reasons why God isn't real, such as being able to explain evolution or morality in the context of no gods or creation.

If you cannot even understand your opponent..... Then you are a disrespectful shitstain of a human, and your mind is false.

However, if your attempt to understand is fair and true, then it might just be that horizontal logic is that which is false. So I do urge you to at least try to think of an example of horizontal logic, for the sake of making progress and advancing the state of philosophy.

>>22582535
that's exactly what he's trying to say. he's trying to disrupt the idea of a neat, orderly causative chain, like a series of dominoes destined to fall one after the other. weird analogy: it's like someone saying "maybe the world is not made of popsicle sticks" and someone else saying "assemble the popsicle sticks into a new shape then." like the thing being addressed is the popsicle sticks, right? it's not the different shapes you can make with it. that sort of reasoning is useful, don't get me wrong, but it might not be the be-all-end-all of thought.

>>22575125
you have no historical base of philosophy so you end up being a tiktok thinker as every philosopher trained in "analytic" philosophy. their seminars and their classes their departments in which there is not a single word of spinoza, pre-socratics, german idealists. yeah of course you can read deleuze without knowing about lacan or nietzsche.
the audacity of taking pride in being absolutely retarded and having studied 3 years of discussion around how hegel is a cultural racist or how bad is cultural appropiation.

>>22582150
Our definitions are our reality

>>22582539
The normal process of the logical procedure is vertical. I have maintained that throughout my posts. The horizontality is introduced by the subject who engages with logic. You are the one presupposing a reality in which logic can exist independently of the thinker. If you like, you can think of the horizontality as a psychological/material defect in the purely vertical functioning of logic. My essential point is that you cannot posit a logical system independent of a thinker who thinks it. It’s like if I told you that the eye can only see so many colors and you responded with the rebuttal that a different eye could see a different range of colors. Sure, you are correct in your baseless conjecture. I’m interested in how color effects OUR eyes as humans. You are assuming a perfectly ideal logical process devoid of any interruptions from outside and I’m trying to tell you that irruptions from outside define the beginnings and ends of the logical process. You are making the same point that I addressed here >>22579306 in the last sentence before the greentext. Sure, you can pretend that objective measures can rectify this subjectivity at both ends of the logical procedure but the crucial point consists in determining objectivity itself which can only be understood as pure contingency given necessity only after the fact. It is very similar to Hume’s argument against causality if that makes it any easier to stomach

>>22582625
You have the same problem anglos have every time. The map is not the territory. Words are not the thing they're referencing. Even points and lines are simplified building blocks not real fundamentals.
The methods you appeal to are very clear, there's no uncertainty about how they work that you might hide your confusion behind. We use mathematical constructs to approximate elements of reality and refine these models until they roughly align with what really happens. The method of refinement itself is based on the fact that those models are blatantly not reality but MODELS we use to navigate reality.

Mario jumps and so do real plumbers but Mario is not a real plumber, he's a cartoon just like all your rigid ideas about everything.
If we're looking for fundamentals the last place to look is inside games we ourselves made up. If we do we can only explore what might emerge from the game rules not discover anything beyond them.

If we start the attempt at modeling reality without accepting any of the made up games the first thing that's apparent is experience itself, then the appearance of will. Both things that none of the games which you consider fundamental even begin to account for.

>>22575125
>What the author is talking about, while interesting and well-written, is factually incorrect and full of unsupported claims (Nietzsche
No, u.

"And lately, did I hear him say these words: “God is dead: of his pity for man hath God died.”—
So be ye warned against pity: From thence there yet cometh unto men a heavy cloud! Verily, I understand weather-signs!"


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3273616/
"The neural bases of social pain: Evidence for shared representations with physical pain"

>>22576091
The mechanistic explanations used to account for causes in the natural world is what we build things like rockets based on are direct applications of the metaphysics put forward by 17th Century metaphysicians like Robert Boyle, the idea that objects are constituted "bottom up" from "atoms" up to macro world qualities, as opposed to "top down" whereby "form" or structure determines the activity of the matter, which has no truly independent reality, is the baseline for reducing phenomena to mathematical models based around dead matter and its motion according to "laws". Turns out the metaphysics is ontologically false (see, modern philosophy of biology), but useful - nonetheless it is a metaphysics

>>22575955
That's just reasoning in a circle, a logical fallacy, unless you specify distinct aspects of the objects/phenomena in question: X of A can Cause Y of B where the the X of B can cause the Y of A, that's uncontroversial.

>>22582633

I think you make some good points, but could you please provide some applicable uses for your ideas? In terms of love, machines, god, soul, mind, civilization, society, purpose, meaning, etc.

I'd like to know how your idea is "useful," basically. I don't mind if it's a little hard for me to understand, but I promise I will do my best!!

>>22582544
Analytics address that causation may be messy though, with multiples kinds of relata (facts, events, objects, ect) and different means of operating ( overdetermination, underdetermination, neccesary vs sufficient conditions, simultaneity or temporally distinct instances, requiring or not requiring physical contact, etc). That a thinker may attach a biased idea to a term apriori is uncontroversial as well.

>>22582649
>If we start the attempt at modeling reality without accepting any of the made up games the first thing that's apparent is experience itself, then the appearance of will. Both things that none of the games which you consider fundamental even begin to account for.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/

> Many scientific models are representational models: they represent a selected part or aspect of the world, which is the model’s target system. Standard examples are the billiard ball model of a gas, the Bohr model of the atom, the Lotka–Volterra model of predator–prey interaction, the Mundell–Fleming model of an open economy, and the scale model of a bridge.

>This raises the question what it means for a model to represent a target system. This problem is rather involved and decomposes into various subproblems. For an in-depth discussion of the issue of representation, see the entry on scientific representation...

Analytics deal with this too.

A causes B
1. B causes A. This is a breakdown of coherence so we call it impossible, it's at least unintelligible.
2. B interacts with A before A causes B. This is logically and probably physically possible.
3. The apparent causal relationships are not really strictly causal but emergent from an underlying system. This is almost always true at least to some degree. We split reality into pieces and say one piece caused the other while ignoring most of what's happening.
>>22582727
You're not dealing with anything I said, the quotes just reiterate that we can't appeal to models about billiard balls to make arguments about fundamental reality. No matter how much you play around with a billiards videogame it won't explain something like qualia.

>>22582713

dealing with uncertainty is precisely what statistics are for. it's like every subfield of philosophy is either mystic bs or completely superseded in all practical terms by a subfield of STEM

>>22582739
B exists. B needs A to be real.

Terms like "continental" and "analytic" are excuses in order to not have to engage with the text/author seriously.

>>22582741
To someone that defines anything outside their models as "mystic bs" anything that challenges their worldview is inherently "mystic bs". You've made sure you never have to think again.
That "philosophers" are retards that can't even into poker does not mean trying to explore outside your models is "mystic bs".

>>22582741
That post is about metaphysics, not epistemology. Hashing out a complicated metaphysics of causation is not a matter of "uncertainty".

>>22582739
You're literally just putting forward that "this model is a model, not the thing itself" - that is again, uncontroversial for analytics.

>3. The apparent causal relationships are not really strictly causal but emergent from an underlying system. This is almost always true at least to some degree. We split reality into pieces and say one piece caused the other while ignoring most of what's happening.

You're getting lost in the vagueness of these conceptions here. Get down what you think causation is precisely first then make claims about it. Having multiple different causes for one effect in different senses, or having a holistic interconnected system by which effects "emerge" at predictable points is all within analytical philosophy.

>>22582751

bite me, you charlatan hack

>>22582759
Basically, if you tightened up your arguments to be more deductively rigorous and explicit then you are just stating a causal metaphysics that analytics would be fine with.

>>22582759
>uncontroversial
But ignored every time you say anything about any subject.
>You're getting lost in the vagueness of these conceptions here
It's deliberately covering a wide range of possibilities. Again you seem to get confused by the very thing you claimed to understand moment before because it's so hecking "uncontroversial". The post is talking about logic, the way we build models, not putting forward a specific model.

An actual example of a model where causality is not what it seems is one where free will causes the appearance of causality. According to you retards this idea can be dismissed as "mystic bs" because billiards says it is. That's where you all reveal that you're braindead. The issue is not that you don't like some specific model I like, it's that you don't know how to think.

>>22575146
Can you recommend some actual real philosophers then?

>>22582775
>According to you retards this idea can be dismissed as "mystic bs" because billiards

You're slotting me in with the other poster, which is unfair since I'm 100% pro metaphysics and was arguing against them.

>The post is talking about logic, the way we build models, not putting forward a specific model.

You invoked ontological claims in that post; all three premises - you always end up with some metaphysical commitments in this kind of discussion. You are jumping from idea to idea without stating how they connect very rigorously is all I am saying.

>>22582779

Yes.

In another thread, I mentioned these guys here: La Mettrie, Paine, Hawking, and Stirner. Even Petroski.

La Mettrie is simple, but he did indeed appear at a moment in history to say, "What if the union of materialism and industry implies life is a machine?"

Paine, as in Thomas Paine, is just SUCH a guy. Essentially, the opponent to Machiavelli. And Emperor Napoleon read both of them. Even met Paine. But, Paine himself REJECTED Napoleon, calling him "The completest charlatan." Paine had a true heart of goodness, even if he's QUITE fluffy. Read his stuff, and I bet you'll smile.

Hawking? He's not a philosopher necessarily of course, but if you read even just "A Brief History of Time," or really anything you want by him that's "lighter" than his hard mathematics, you will probably see reality differently, in a new light. Could be seen more as a way to shift your fundamental mindset, rather than actually be "philosophy" unto itself.

Stirner is as Stirner does, and just knowing his ideas will grant you--- POWER, in a sense. I'm sure you know enough about him to make a decision here.

And Petroski? He does failure analysis, in the engineering sense. I believe more philosophers should read engineers, because understanding the nature of "applicability" and "function" and "real-life-logic" will grant you more skill and ability than reading purely metaphysical stuff that keeps our heads in the clouds. Even if you go back to the typical philosophies we talk about on here, a practical engineering mindset might very well give you a sharp advantage in any logical debate about anything.

Also, learning the basics of programming would also grant you a sword that few other people have. It's tough stuff, but even knowing just the basics of computer programming can help you grow as a philosopher. Try Python first.

Furthermore, listen to the song "The Greatest Adventure" from the 1977 Hobbit OST. Just listen to it, and when you read the lyrics along with it, FEEL the truth to them. That's what fuels my current expedition into more "physical" philosophy.

I don't know if I am truly a materialist, but I am certainly a philosopher of "Chemical-Physical Reality and Functional Living." To me, that has significantly more value than wondering about souls, gods, horizontal logic that cannot be explained by any means other than mere words, and other things like that.

On this website, I know very well that people often have troublesome, depressing lives.
We need to do something about that, eh?

But if you want philosophers that are even more into "natural philosophy," then you will need to enter into the realm of science, and begin reading books about science, engineering, and practical economics, in the sense of personal money management, and how to get a high-paying job that doesn't cause you to buy a rope. In the end, I love wisdom, and that is philo-sophy. I love wisdom.

Read the continentals at the very least as historical exercises

>>22582784
>unfair
You're the poster talking about how uncontroversial the idea that the map is not the territory in a thread purely based on people not grasping that the map is not the territory.
The post you replied to was replying to this statement:
>Our definitions are our reality
No they are not. The distinction has to be reiterated over and over forever. People keep saying they get it but they just don't.
>You invoked ontological claims in that post; all three premises
I presented the common idea of logical causality and some possible realities behind it I can think of that go beyond what's normally accepted. We only dismiss 1, circularity because we can't model anything using it. If we can see 2 physically happening that actually suggests 1 may be possible. 3 points out the causal models are always simplifications. The importance of our ideas of causality may have more to do with how useful the ideas are to us than how accurately they reflects the fundamental nature of reality. Order itself could be emergent. It could also be less fundamental than will.

Is there a single "analytic" of worth?
So far I've read quite a bit of Russel and everything is various forms of utter trash (that includes all of his mathematical logic btw, the axiom of reducibility is the most retarded stuff I've read in the discipline and Russel quietly abandoned it later on). Let's not even go to the cukoldry apologetics.
Then I tried Carnap and ended up with a retarded version of Bolzano mixed with reddit atheism.
Then I tried Quine and left with nothing, the two meme big theses are 1) a retarded version of the epistemology of Duhem 2) an attempt against Kantians that ends up very flat to anyone that has read Bolzano and Maine de Biran.
Then I tried Kripke's famous book where he spends hundreds of pages to end up saying that proper nouns are rigid designators (in his own framework).
Popper, I won't even spend time to trash him.
I don't want to dunk on English language writers of the 20th century in general because some of them are interesting such as Whitehead. Frege is good but it's reaching to call it "analytic" in the manner of philosophy that started with Russel.
Admittedly I have never read anyone beyond the 60s aside from Kripke's book. I understand that the whole "analytic" program as convinced by the above has ended but is there anything to see?

>>22576964
With reading comprehension like this, it's amazing that you managed to enter college at all

>>22582544
no, you're missing my point. i don't care if there are two branches or it goes in a circle, just put it into simple notation like that so i can understand wtf you're talking about

>>22582820
if that's what counts as seeing for you, you've got nothing left to see for the rest of your life

>>22582705
The usefulness consists in recognizing the logical process for what it actually is. The actual logical process itself would remain unchanged but our handling of it would become responsible to itself. I like to use Freud here as his work on the unconscious is a great example of how the handling of a process itself can change it. When analyzing dreams most people believe the secret truth of the dream to be in the latent thought of the dream (the direct symbolism) when in fact the irruption of the unconscious into consciousness (dreaming or waking life) isn’t the latent thought at all but rather the form itself in which the latent thought reaches you. For example let’s assume that you don’t like your boss who has a big mustache and you have a dream where you kill a pitbull with a big mustache. The naive reading would be that you want to kill your boss because the pitbull is the stand-in for your boss in the dream. The real reading is that the form itself in which your boss has been rendered in the dream is that of a pitbull revealing the way in which the unconscious processes of your mind have placed your boss in the same mental category in which you place pitbulls. These categories vary wildly from person to person, for one person a pitbull could be a noble animal and for another it could be a savage beast; thus the necessity of familiarity with the patient and their respective process. (This is part of the reason I find Jung so unappealing as he takes the essentially individual nature of unconsciousness and muddies the water with his universal unconsciousness which is an abstraction away from the concrete reality of the thing) Likewise, the form in which you engage with the pitbull is combat which reveals that your unconscious processes place dislike and combat in the same mental category. You can think of the logical process as the latent thought of the dream itself (which is necessary for all types of analysis on the matter) but the way in which the latent thought appears is predetermined by the forms in which your mind classifies objects in the first place (the form can be understood as the thinking subject in this analogy). The symbol is anterior to the process of symbolization. This realization dispels the magic of the symbols (the pure linearity of the logical process) and places the importance one step back such that we can know things in truth. If I told you we could mathematically model how many cocks exist by taking the population and dividing it by two and you disagreed on the basis that there is a slightly larger number of men than women you agree with the latent thought which is that the amount of cocks can be mathematically modeled but you disagree with the form of the latent thought which is the process by which I achieve my number.

>>22583475
I'll take that as a no. If I have the time I'll give the analytical thomists a chance.

>>22583443
I legitimately do not know how to be more clear or how I can explain what the other guy was saying. that exact approach is what I am trying to work against

>>22585515
why were you trying to work against that? if you're saying that the unjustified restraint of analytic philosophy is that it only does things vertically, then you should be able to write something that violates the verticality but still in a concise and logical notation preferably using symbols and not violating the type-token distinction.

>>22585707
>you should be able to write illogicality logically
It’s like a virus that infects you guys’s minds

>>22585790
excuse me for being under the impression that something called "horizontal logic" is meant to be logical in some sense, even if it doesn't conform to standard analytic definitions of logical operations

>>22585707
>maybe the world is not made of popsicle sticks
>oh yeah? assemble the popsicle sticks into a new shape then

>>22585950
it is abundantly clear from context that "horizontal logic" does not refer to "first order logic" but to another method of organizing and thinking through ideas as they actually occur in our minds and the world -- aside from standard analytic definitions of logical operations. do analytics just have zero reading comprehension skills? no ability to think just a little bit outside the box?
>>22575955
>reflexivity: analytics just don't get it. They literally CANNOT understand horizontality in logic
his point proven over and over and over again

>>22585959

I'm sorry, but the actual flow of debate is:

>The world appears to be made of popsicle sticks.
>Maybe it is not made of popsicle sticks.
>What is it made from then?
>IDEAS~! (insert vague, convoluted no-space paragraph of spiritual nonsense here)
>No. It's clearly popsicle sticks and although I'd accept a realistic, or even just logically valid alternative, I'm not really going to play games that waste the time of my life.

>>22585980
once again, i literally just said that i wasn't expecting it to adhere to analytic definitions of logical operations. the fact that >>22585790 called horizontal logic "illogical" tells me everything i need to know, unless you would care to explain in a comprehensible manner.
>>22585989
this

>>22585989
Nah. With a popsicle stick you get the stick every time you get the popsicle, or you just buy the popsicle stick for some reason. Cont Phil suggests that you can 'try' to buy a popsicle, but you might not get the stick to build the shape, and it addresses that problem as its ethics. Analytic phil is ethics assuming everyone has enough popsicle sticks to build the shape.

>>22585989
Not quite.
>the world appears to be made of popsicle sticks.
>maybe it's not
>oh yeah? well look at all these shapes I can make
>that's cool, but what if those don't comprise the world
>oh yeah? then make a new shape with them
>but the world might not be popsicle sticks to begin with
>you can't make a new shape? how will you prove anything without popsicle stick shapes?
>there's no point in making a new shape because I'm talking about the sticks
>no new shape?
>and even if the world was made of popsicle sticks, why is it that and not something else? why are you so invested in stick shapes?
>no new shape? that means I'm right

>>22585980
>"horizontal logic" does not refer to "first order logic" but to another method of organizing and thinking through ideas as they actually occur in our minds and the world
>maybe the world is not made of popsicle sticks
>>22585997
>i literally just said that i wasn't expecting it to adhere to analytic definitions of logical operations
>oh yeah? assemble the sticks into a new shape then

>>22578908
Nah it's emotional issues and immaturity
>t. test 140+ iq former incel with a lot of similarly or slightly less STILL incel friends

>>22586037
>this spelling
In my defense it's been a really long night shift

>>22575125
>1. Reading it is like slamming my head against a brick wall (Camus
lol wut.

>>22586020

Essentially, you would win that particular debate, but you still haven't defined clearly what is beyond popsicle sticks. Are you implying that the popsicle sticks are resting upon a table, and thus it's easy to miss the forest for the --- Earth that it grows from?

Yet that is still within the bounds of logic and materialism, when we speak of "The Foundation of Reality" or even "The Foundation of Truth."

Mainly because you will find it hard to prove yourself with anything other than mere words. You can write all you want, but I still see no useful application of idealistic ideas.

Every moral, ethic, religion, or ideal, essentially still looks subjective and unproven to me. I have no reason to not view it as fiction.

>>22582795
are you a retarded person perchance?
Captcha: 0RKKK

>>22586150
>*little tears form in my eyes and I look at you, wondering why you're so mean...*
Captcha:1LUVV

>>22586156
fake captcha

>>22586180
It's essentially random, so I really have no idea why it'd matter. Do you believe certain captchas justify or increase the power of your post? That would be extremely silly.

But to fake it to be 1luvv, is to symbolize the idea that I want to be your friend and help you, and that I have no idea why you'd insult me so baselessly, and even worse, not even offer a correction or improvement.

>Verification not required.

>>22586020
vertical logic adds to gradation of being, horizontal logic is probably some kind of spurious multiplication of entities

>>22585997
I should clear up what I mean by illogicality there. (Honestly, it would be better to term it alogicality) It’s time for me to invoke Hegel finally. What I mean by that is that the beginning and end of the logical process do not really take part in the process itself at all. It stands as a conclusion or axiom that remains outside of the movement of the process. The Middle terms change the meaning of the prior one while the poles merely retain information. Because of this they only effectively partake in being existent. Or in other words they are purely ontological terms. They are pure descriptions. Hegel understands identity to be composed of pure or absolute difference (self-referential difference). Meaning that it is the distance that the same has from the different that gives it any consistency as same at all. Ie a car is a car because it is not a van, truck, bus, etc. Because of this the poles (or information understood as pure difference) are the height of alogicality in the system as they do not change the information (as logic is supposed to do) but merely contain it. This experience of identity as negation (or the negation of the negation in Hegelian terms) is the barest form of reflexivity in its truth. Beings are in a constant struggle against the entire universe of objects in order to constitute themselves as separate from it. And since identity is itself a precondition for intelligibility it cannot be said to belong primarially to logic but is instead an ontological/phenomenological (depending on your point of view) process.

>>22586246
correct e.g.?
All appearance is not actuality
Actuality is the substantial and necessary relations
Particular appearance becomes actuality
All actuality becomes particular
Substantial appearance becomes universal
Necessary appearance becomes singular

>>22582818
>You're the poster talking about how uncontroversial the idea that the map is not the territory in a thread purely based on people not grasping that the map is not the territory.

It's uncontroversial to actual academic analytic philosophers - that's the point. Everything in the rest of the post about causality is just viewpoints on causality you can find in regular analytic papers, right or wrong. Basically, stop equivocating random 4channers with actual philosophers, and actually engage with their work, is what I am getting at. You would get more out of a university analytics metaphysics class than this.

>>22586084
The myth of sisyphus really did make me want to kill myself
I'm sure his novels are fine

>>22586288
>You would get more out of a university analytics metaphysics class than this.
Arguable, there is a metaphysics for my situation but a general course in metaphysics would likely be either only about causation, or baring certain circumstances it would be about change or explanation instead

>>22586288
>It's uncontroversial to actual academic analytic philosophers
But you didn't respond to a reply to an academic analytic philosopher. You responded to criticism of the statement "Our definitions are our reality". You failed to understand basically every part of everything I said, even the simplest relationships between posts.
Most of the thread is making the same mapping mistake I mentioned and you pretend isn't relevant because of how uncontroversial it is that it's a mistake. You, me and academics make it too. There are actual materialists and nominalists out there.

>>22586419
I responded to this post.

>>22582649
>You have the same problem anglos have every time. The map is not the territory.

So yes, you stated that it applies to "anglos" not just that post.

>You failed to understand basically every part of everything I said, even the simplest relationships between posts.

No.

>>22582633
Kek
The whole utility of logic follows from the fact that it isn't subjective. Mathematics and physics don't change based on an individual's state of mind or feelings or whatever. Thanks for reaffirming for me that the "logic" of critical theory is fundamentally flawed garbage.

>>22586520
>math and physics don’t change based on an individual’s state of mind or feelings or whatever
you’ve never heard of motivated reasoning? you’ve never heard of how the Soviets convinced themselves that genetics didn’t exist, or how the Catholics forced everyone to think that everything orbited the earth? and don’t you think that the mental models we form about the world are influenced by culture, by emotion, by ourselves, and those mental models influence what we investigate and what we think of what we find?
>inb4 2+2 still 4 triangle still 3 sides
that’s not what I’m talking about. someone had to come up with those ideas first. why did *they* come up with them and not other people? why did they come up with those ideas *at that time* and not another time? how did the knowledge spread? how did they arrive at those ideas? and as that knowledge spread, what did they think it entailed about the world around them — and how did that entailment influence what else they looked into, what else they thought, what else they spread? that’s what I’m talking about and that’s what I’m asking after

>>22586520
Once again, you actually should read the entire post before replying to it.
>Sure, you can pretend that objective measures can rectify this subjectivity at both ends of the logical procedure but the crucial point consists in determining objectivity itself which can only be understood as pure contingency given necessity only after the fact.
From the same exact post

>>22586733
they were doing incorrect physics tho??? math literally does not work if it's incorrect btw

>>22587447
retard