/lit/ - Literature

>>23485391
Kek the thread you btfo'd in a dozen times over by different posters?

>this anon accused otgers of samefagging
Cool, but you still got btfo

>>23485391
Just be honest, you tried reading Hegel, you got filtered and know you want to die on the primarily reading secondaries hill. It is okay, just know you will always have a myiopic, shallow, one sided understanding on whatever philosophical theory you talk about. And you should not worry about it, academia is built on the shoulders of people like you.

>>23485391
>Not a single person in an undergraduate program is reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through
this is not strictly true (i did a whole course on the first critique and could have taken more if i wanted to focus on kant) but it is correct that most philosophy BAs in the US won't. this isn't because they don't read whole primary texts, though, it's because kant and especially hegel are not really the focus.

>>23485545
>>23485505
If you aren't doing a masters or PhD or DPhil, why would you plough through that shit?
You don't get any brownie points. You won't get laid. You won't even enjoy it. And someone skimming Wikipedia or that Sanford philosophy thing will still tease you on here

>>23485607
>why would you try to actually understand something?

>>23485617
There's a million things to understand. So, specifically outside of an academic context, why would you read PoS?

>>23485624
Because you are interested in philosophy? Are you just acting retarded? Why would you post on /lit/? Will you get brownie points, will you get your dick sucked?

>>23485625
Posting on /lit/ is easy. But let's take your hypothetical. You are interested in philosophy, but not enough to actually study it at a university in an organised way? You aren't serious enough about philosophy to want to learn from professors or experts in the field.
But you decide to read, of all the books, PoS, all the way through anyway?
Talk me through this champ

>>23485391
okay, but what are good secondaries to START Hegel with (I am interested in dialectics and sublation)

>>23485629
Why would go to uni to study philosophy when you could go to trade school for cheaper and actually make money?

>>23485391
academia is literally a scam to alienate people from their inherited locality/culture/history to absorb them into the machine (which funds universities)

no shock they aren't actually engaged in historical philosophy, that requires gratitude and gratitude is the most contrary thing to the machine

>>23485391
>Not a single person in an undergraduate program is reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through. You read excerpts and secondaries.
Yeah. Then these people get their philosophy degree, fail to find a job anywhere, and hang themselves. So what? You want me to emulate them?

>>23485629
>why do you care what the person actually said

>>23485391
I don't pay much attention to lengthy arguments on this site, nobody does. Except when someone is so assblasted they make new threads about it, looking for validation. Now that's funny.

>>23485629
I went to university and did read PoS. The premise of this discussion was reading primary texts while pursuing a philosophy degree, as mentioned in the original post. Of course, I used secondary literature, but only as an aid and only after I had read the primary text and formed an idea of what I understood and what I failed to understand. The point is to develop your skills of understanding and conceptual analysis through trial and error, which is something that relying solely on secondary literature lacks. If you are investing time into studying something that epitomizes the intellectual capabilities of the human species, at least have some standards

>>23485391
Imagine still seething over a month old post

>>23485391
You're making an assumption that everyone who is interested in philosophy wants to receive what is the equivalent of an undergraduate education in the subject. Some of us have particular interests in certain thinkers and works in such a way that we want to read primary sources. That isn't to say secondary sources should be avoided, but it would be rather silly for someone who engages with this type of work as a hobby to model their reading after undergraduate syllabi.

>>23485391
Secondaries are invaluable, but if you're not reading primaries, you are in danger of understanding a biased simulacrum of the text. I use secondaries as a way of motivating my reading of the text (often in a contrarian way). It's not a replacement for reading the original. Most people who overly emphasize secondary sources are pseuds of the sterile academic variety, people who are content with regurgitating the dogma of the day and are frightened by murky, uncertain questions.

Besides, how are you going to know if a secondary source is worth its salt if you're not familiar with the original text? A lot of commentary is not worth the paper its printed on.

>>23485629
>you have to get a degree to be interested in something
>MUH CERTIFICATIONS!!!
we need to place all Anglos into camps, effective time now.

>Not a single person in an undergraduate program is reading Kant's critiques or anything by Hegel all the way through.
I don't know what dogshit university you went to, but in my undergrad I read full books by Hegel, Plato, Descartes, Boethius, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Buber, Kierkegaard, and probably others I'm forgetting. Of course profs and grad students read secondary sources because they need to contribute to the existing literature. Sometimes they also assign secondary texts in undergrad courses. But you're educated stupid if you don't attempt to wrestle with the primary text first. Don't care about your board drama so I didn't finish reading your post.

>>23485637
H.S. Harris, he will hold your hand through the entire Phenomenology line by line through his two-volume work Hegel's Ladder.

I love how pseud OP kept bragging about some mid-tier university while dying on the hill of his midwit opinion.

if you do a philosophy degree you will be blindsided by the small 'in group' of smart kids and lose the plot entirely

>>23486471
>Besides, how are you going to know if a secondary source is worth its salt if you're not familiar with the original text? A lot of commentary is not worth the paper its printed on.
The funny thing is this point is made to OP in the linked thread, and he totally ignores it.

>>23485391
>Went to relatively obscure midwestern university
>Read Democracy in America all the way through for a course
Checkmate nigga. Also, we read Gerard Bevan’s translation for Penguin Classics. Does anybody recommend any other editions or translations? My copy is pretty beat up and I’m thinking of replacing it

>>23485391
>t. I am a bean counter

And that's okay!

>>23485391
>Don't be this person, this is what happens when you develop arrogance from thinking you can fully understand primary sources yourself. Not that reading primaries is bad, but there's no shame in admitting that there has been decades or even centuries of interpretative debates on certain philosophers done by dedicated scholars and it's hopelessly arrogant to think you can bootstrap reading a primary and not engage with any of that.

This is how you get from sola scriptura to Talmud & Hadith thumping, literally. Commentary that isn't a work worthy in itself is of no account-- and it will never be the territory.

>>23485629
>You are interested in philosophy, but not enough to actually study it at a university in an organised way? You aren't serious enough about philosophy to want to learn from professors or experts in the field.
How about I don't have thousands of dollars laying around to throw at an institution just to learn a book well? Let's turn this around, maybe you value institutional learning and secondaries so much because you're more interested in wowing people by being "intelligent" rather than in simply being intelligent. You need the asspats for the effort to be meaningful. If philosophy is the replacement of opinions with knowledge, then you prefer parroting the opinions as an approval seeker.

>>23485391
>if you do a philosophy degree
Who in their right mind would do a philosophy degree in 2024? Are people on this board this retarded?

>>23485391
Smart people don't read philosophy

>>23485391
>Today is your daily reminder that if you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries.
Where do they do that? American philosophy undergraduates barely ever read secondary sources. It is true that the majority of undergraduate reading is incomplete though. The courses which followed through works completely were better than the ones that didn't.

>>23485391
>if you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries
We've covered this. Reading secondaries means you went to a shit school.

>>23489231
>We've covered this.
I don't remember that. I remember you doing a lot of seething because it was revealed you're a philosophy minor that doesn't know what they're talking about.
>Reading secondaries means you went to a shit school.
The evidence begs to differ:
>>/lit/thread/23384949#p23385414
>>/lit/thread/23384949#p23396019
>>/lit/thread/23384949#p23396074
Assigning too much reading material is a sign of poor class pacing btw. Hence why the people in that thread who agree with you are all from shitty schools:
>>/lit/thread/23384949#p23391098
>community college
>>/lit/thread/23384949#p23395487
>Self-admitted not a fancy bigshot school
>>23486766
>relatively obscure university

>>23489346
>I remember you doing a lot of seething because it was revealed you're a philosophy minor
No idea what you're talking about. If you read mostly secondaries it means your university is shitty.

>>23489416
Review the evidence and try again.

>>23489422
>the evidence
First, someone in the past has made fun of you for going to a subpar university. Second, it struck such a nerve that you now attribute it to random strangers. Third, you're clearly not very bright.

Therefore, evidence suggests you're a thin-skinned midwit with a Napoleon complex about your loser university who is coping by pretending reading "Philosophy 4 Dummeez" justifies his narcissism.

>>23489462
That is a mistaken identification of the evidence. The evidence was presented in >>23489346, it was not about me.
It seems you continue to make basic argumentative errors like this so all I can do at this point is stop responding.

>>23489478
>That is a mistaken identification of the evidence.
Nope. It's pretty clear you're an autist who was btfo and is still carrying it around with him. That indicates a high level of narcissism which retards your reality testing and makes you come off like a retard. Ironically your defense mechanism makes you even dumber.

>>23485617
Call me a pseud, but I find that reading philosophy texts loses value at a fast rate. What matters most is how you think through and process ideas, and the most interesting parts of the texts are generally the premises they make. The conclusions become fairly obvious after that point if you think through them. After that point, the texts practically start to repeat themselves or get lost in minutia.

>>23489501
Sounds like DNF cope.

>>23489551
I just think it's more important to think for yourself and come to the truths on your own terms based on personal experience. Texts can help greatly, but they're not necessary at all.

>>23489558
>DNF cope
Yep.

>>23489560
Am I wrong?

>>23489562
Mundane.

>>23489489
I did not mean that you interpreted those posts incorrectly, I meant that you mistook what I was referring to as the evidence. I pointed out in >>23489346 that people who went to good schools (russel group, top 50 internationally, top 90 in US) consistently agree with me and people who went to unremarkable or bad schools consistently agree with you. Can you look at that post and click the links for me? Here's hoping you actually respond to the counter-evidence I made to your claim, since I just held your hand through it.

>>23489478
>all I can do at this point is stop responding.
But you made an entire thread devoted to the fact someone lit you up a month ago, lol.

I got a degree in philosophy and most of my education came from youtubers (Kane B is a godsend). Hardly read primary texts.

Primarily because they're old with idiosyncratic writing styles, or are incredibly (needlessly) dense.

I think the biggest issue is that philosophy is about ideas and arguments, but it's taught as if philosophy is the study of "philosophical authors", and so you don't end studying philosophy but rather what x author wrote and how you author responded. I don't give a shit who said what. In fact I think philosophy journals should be published anonymously.

>>23489566
So I'm not wrong. Thanks for confirming

>>23489568
>>23489570 (lol)

>>23489574
I'm confirming you're a midwit who confuses banalities with insight.

>>23489576
You gonna respond buddy?

>>23489478
>all I can do at this point is stop responding.
>>23489586
>You gonna respond buddy?
Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.

>>23489598
As I said in >>23489568 I was hoping you making your misinterpretation clear would give an opportunity for making things more clear. I.e., my hope waa that the reason for my no longer responding was no longer valid.
Well? Are you gonna respond?

>>23489611
>waa
*was

>>23489568
My school mogs your school by several orders of magnitude and I disagree with you.

>>23489611
>misinterpretation
Its clear to anyone that you were mindbroken in a thread a month ago. Being so hung up on it indicates a high level of narcissism and declaring you're going to walk away only to beg for a response is just sad.
>>23489614
>*was
Stop being so insecure.

>>23489615
I'm not sure which school you think is mine, but none of those are "shitty schools" so your premise stated in >>23489231 is shown to be false. Your disagreement is proof that freak accidents can happen, I suppose, but the pattern is clear.

>>23489623
Assuming >>23489615 isn't you, I'm still waiting for your response. Make a claim about my evidence relevant to the topic at hand, i.e. whether only people who went to shitty schools have OP's experience, not about my character

>>23489625
First of all, that is a completely separate person's post. I don't know why you could have thought we were the same person. But then again, you went to a mediocre school, so I shouldn't be surprised anyway.

Most schools are glorified daycares for overgrown manchildren. The "Russell group" (lol what a cope name) is no exception. You get into a good school (which is like top 20 USA and top 5 UK) by displaying signs of being a mature adult in high school. Everybody else gets filtered into a place where they're least likely to do damage.

This is well-understood by the cognitive elite.

>>23489638
>I don't know why you could have thought we were the same person.
It shares your false opinion. Admittedly, a lot of pseuds on here share it but the specific wording was remniscient of you.
>Everybody else gets filtered into a place where they're least likely to do damage.
Like autodidacts?

>>23489638
>You get into a good school (which is like top 20 USA and top 5 UK) by displaying signs of being a mature adult in high school. Everybody else gets filtered into a place where they're least likely to do damage.
lol. Undergraduate admissions in the US are fucked. While baseline qualifications are necessary, you only get into top schools if you're either extremely rich or extremely lucky.

Admissions only becomes fair when you look for graduate school, at which point schools can actually look at your file rather than admit you through a literal lottery.

>>23489654
I think you need to consider how many universities there are in the US to see how warped that anon's worldview is, assuming it's sincere. They're saying that less than 1% of universities are "good".

>>23485607
>you won't even enjoy it
False. Essentially, this is /lit/ and readers who opt to read philosophy at all are going to read primarily what is, in fact, 'primary,' and probably enjoy the challenge of figuring out what's what on their own.
The philosophical quibbling over points per se is for wannabe philosophers, not for general readers whose ambition is, after all, to write (as opposed to worrying about this or that employment, modification, or refutation.. of this or that).
For instance, I prefer Spinoza to Kant not because I think he's the more correct philosopher (whatever that means) but because he appeals more agreeably to my 'imagination'

>>23489665
it's true tho

>>23489631
>I'm still waiting for your response.
I reject your narrative and am now even more convinced that you:
>were mindbroken in a thread a month ago by a clearly more intelligent anon
>the fact you're still referencing it weeks later indicates narcissism; your false image of yourself was brought low
>this is subconscious as it's painfully obvious you lack any semblance of self-awareness
>you'll likely never be able to admit any of this to yourself because you'd have to realize your just a midwit who went to a mediocre school
That's it.

>>23489638
>I don't know why you could have thought we were the same person.
He has Narcissistic Personality Disorder with a dash of autism.

>>23489648
>It shares your false opinion. Admittedly, a lot of pseuds on here share it but the specific wording was remniscient of you.
I don't think you have the baseline verbal IQ to even begin analyzing stylometry properly.
>Like autodidacts?
I'd trust a passionate autodidact to give me insights over a midwit academic drone. You have to be a top-of-the-line academic, whose adherence to dogma is at least characterized by razor sharp thinking, to be worth reading.
>>23489665
Anon, I went to the best university in the world, and I don't think it's good. I worked hard and did everything right, and I felt cheated as a result.

>>23486476
based

>>23485629
>You are interested in philosophy, but not enough to actually study it at a university in an organised way
tbf I got far more doing a university education in Mathematics than I ever could in Philosophy. I took a senior-level philosophy course with no background and it was one of the easiest As of my life. Good class, but it makes no sense to get an undergraduate degree in philosophy.

>>23485391
I am doing an undergraduate in Math and Philosophy at the same time. I'm 2/3rds through and haven't yet had to actually do a single secondary reading.

>>23489840
>the best university in the world
Oxford?

What the fuck is the point of a degree in philosophy? Are you retards all so insecure by your own intelligence and nature that you need someone to hold your hand through it all?
I’ve probably got a million different better things to do than sit here and put everyone in their place, but fuck it, the bully is here and I won’t be holding back.

>>23489857
>but it makes no sense
Unstated assumptions.

My experience was that we mainly relied on excerpts of the classic works, and shorter articles of contemporary philosophers from peer review journals. A typical example would be Michael J Loux Methapysics alongside the compendium of contemporary metaphysical articles he piled together. This was what was done throughout most classes.

I mean most of the good stuff is published in journals anyway. Personaly I take offense when someone that has found success in a few articles, then decides he want to push a full length book that is relevant only as a trend, and is of no lasting importance.

>>23485391
>This person was lowered to assuming that different people responding to them were "multiposting".

>>23489648
>It shares your false opinion. Admittedly, a lot of pseuds on here share it but the specific wording was remniscient of you.

Like pottery

>>23490158
>Michael J Loux Methapysics
That's funny, I was skimming one of his books on Aristotle just a few hours ago. What a coincidence.

>>23485391
I've never seen someone seethe so much that they make a thread raging about a meaningless argument almost a month after the fact. Thanks though, some of the responses in that thread were funny.

>>23485391
No wonder contemporary philosophers suck.

Secondary texts are useful for parsing some of the denser works of philosophy, as well as appreciating the context surrounding a particular work, but you should never treat them as a means of circumventing the need to read the original text. They are tools to supplement your reading, not supplant it. Accept no substitutions!

>>23485607
Spoken like a true college cocksucking faggot.

>>23485391
I mean you’re right but only at the cost of exposing yourself as someone still seething over arguments in posts from months ago. A bit of a pyrrhic victory it would seem.

>>23485629
>You aren't serious enough about philosophy to want to learn from professors or experts in the field.
Those guys write books too dumbass. I understand the value of a degree and yeah, that would be nice to have for most of us. But the reality is that 90% of us aren’t getting into the top 10% of universities in the world — the only place those “experts in their fields” teach at by the way, state colleges and lesser universities are going to have literal non-tenured idiots teaching philosophy if they even have a department for it in the first place — is just not happening and yet we can still learn about things we’re interested in without spending a small fortune in time and money on it. /lit/s obsession with primary texts is a little far sometimes but 90% of those posts are either bait or some /pol/drifter shitposting. There’s nothing wrong with being an autodidact at all these days with our wealth of resources. Yes, you may never be accepted by the cool kid in-crowd of dysgenic new nork dimes square kids on dope. Who cares. Philosophy has the benefit of being a plastic discipline, you can apply it in nearly every avenue of life. I think the real question is why are you so fervently defending an educational establishment which has for DECADES been lamented by esteemed academics as corrupt and ill intentioned during one of the worst crises in publishing that the humanities and natural sciences have ever seen? Why are you, openminded philosopher, licking boot?

>>23490626
I hate feeling like a hobbyist and would love to go back to school and study the subject formally, but it's just not practical. I don't have the money, time, nor, if I'm being honest, ability to go to a school worth studying at. There's also the issue that I already have a shitty bachelor's degree that in no way prepared me for grad school level work, especially one that is outside my field of study.
All in all I fucked myself over and have to make due with the next best thing.

>>23489723
As I said in the very post you're responding to, we're talkong about schools and not me. But very well. I have a professionally administered IQ test where I score over one standard deviation above the mean, so by definition not a "midwit". The anon I was arguing with had trouble keeping on topic in the argument, it took them until >>23489638 to actually respond to a point made dozens of posts ago in that thread. So I dunno about "clearly more intelligent". They also exposed themselves multiple times of being a total narcissist with a worldview where less than 1% of schools provide worthwhile philosophy education. It's almost like you got the posters mixed up.
Your similar use of language, unwarranted sympathy for the dipshit I was arguing with, and similar pattern of preferring offtopic personal attacks to actually engaging with the argument suggest you're either that person's friend they summoned or that person multiposting. See? That's how you evaluate evidence.
>Wah wah autodidactism is actually more valuable than formal training
Whatever you tell yourself buddy lmao.
>>23489840
I have a verbal IQ in the top 88th percentile. So once again, laughably false analysis. Proof in pic related if you don't believe me.
>>23489750
I actually got an autism evaluation done a few months ago where they concluded I'm not autistic, lol. I can find the report for that too but I suspect you'll believe me. Maybe you ought to go back to school, Dr. Anon.
>>23490235
I wasn't accusing them of multiposting, just thought it was the same anon. But as I said in this post I do now suspect an affiliation, likely motivated by the fact that I can't call it out without "contradicting" myself.
>>23490611
I don't know why you think I'm seething. Just demonstrating what the kind of arrogance bootrapping primary sources gets you.
>>23489717
You only believe this due to sour grapes over not going to college and you know it. These two are proof:
>>23490626
>>23490857

>>23490961
>I have a professionally administered IQ test where I score over one standard deviation above the mean, so by definition not a "midwit"
>I have a verbal IQ in the top 88th percentile
>118
lol, lmao even. Midwit is 50th-95th percentiles

>>23490967
Weird definition of midwit. People in my IQ range are designated "bright" (pace >>23489462), so I don't see why that'd be.

>>23490961
>You only believe this due to sour grapes over not going to college and you know it. These two are proof:
I really don't like having my post used to attack someone else. I'm the kind of person who would like to have the kind of knowledge provided by formal education, but not everyone wants that. Some are just interested in reading certain books, and for that a different course of action is appropriate.

>>23491028
Sorry, my mistake. I'm guessing your post is the second one. I took issue with "school worth studying at" but you might have a more reasonable definition of that than others ITT. In my opinion, any accreditanted school is "worth studying at" if you ignore the financial costs (which I'm not trying to downplay). They offer majors for a reason, it's not like the professors are giving lectures as a hobby. But you're right that not everyone can go to college, and I don't mean that condescendingly but as a matter of regret regarding how our society is set up. I commend you on trying to self-teach in the absence of that opportunity.

>>23490994
>People in my IQ range are designated "bright"
That's what midwit means. It's people of middling intellect (generally 110-120 or 100-130) who are smarter than the general populace but not smart enough to be classified as gifted or geniuses. They're the middle managers, sociologists, and engineers of the world.

>>23490961
>posts iq score to convince opponents that you’re better than them
Serious question…. Autism?

I figured it out everyone. OP's autistic. As proof, see OP and >>23490961. Cool your titties OP, getting mocked weeks ago doesn't require point by point rebuttals.

>>23491075
>I took issue with "school worth studying at" but you might have a more reasonable definition of that than others ITT.
My standards are certainly not as high as others', but as someone who went to a not so great school and was frequently dissatisfied with the quality of education, I wouldn't say that any accredited school is a good choice.

>>23491108
>>23491113
Kek clued in at the same time

>>23491115
I also want to say, that I think most people who read philosophy as a hobby are generally more interested in understanding the history of philosophy rather than becoming philosophers themselves, which will inevitably lead to a different approach than what is seen in the institutions of the English speaking world.

>>23491108
>>23491113
I'm not autistic as I said in that very post, lol. Don't make me post excerpts from my report.
>>23491095
I was under the impression that "midwit" referred to people who are actually in the middle of the spectrum, hence all those bell curve memes. So that'd be like 85-115 IQ.
I'm not a genius though, no. But if "midwit" means "not a genius" it sort of loses its potency as an insult. 2% of all people are geniuses, very few people on this board qualify.

>>23491132
>Outing yourself as a newfag this hard
Lurk more

>>23491132
OP:
>I'm not autistic

Also OP:
>I was under the impression that "midwit" referred to people who are actually in the middle of the spectrum, hence all those bell curve memes. So that'd be like 85-115 IQ.
>I'm not a genius though, no. But if "midwit" means "not a genius" it sort of loses its potency as an insult. 2% of all people are geniuses, very few people on this board qualify.

>>23491131
I definitely think academia has a tendency toward tunnel vision despite claims that it has the opposite tendency. And yes this is doubly true for fields that ignore their own history, i.e. analytic philosophy and economics.
Sorry your experience at your school was negative. When I make claims like "any accreditanted school is 'worth studying at'" it's with the aim of defending people like you against asshole elitists. Academic philosophy is full of people obsessed with the Philosophical Gourmet Report, it's insufferable. So I feel compelled to argue the opposite way.

>>23490961
>I scored 3 points above being a midwit and my autism test came back negative!
Bruh...

>>23490961
>I have a verbal IQ in the top 88th percentile. So once again, laughably false analysis. Proof in pic related if you don't believe me.
people are rightly laughing at you for this, but no one has pointed out the funniest part yet
the fact that you selectively revealed this without mentioning any other scores is strong evidence that your percentiles in all the other categories are lower. since there's a noise component to any test result, this means your verbal score is likely to be an overestimate.

>>23490961
I feel very bad for you that you didn't think this was an embarrassing thing to post. You really are as dumb as we all thought you were, and you even posted the picture proof.
>They also exposed themselves multiple times of being a total narcissist with a worldview where less than 1% of schools provide worthwhile philosophy education.
It's not a narcissist view, it's just the truth. College standards were completely watered down by the GI bill and the drive to get as many people credentialed as possible, and few schools kept even the semblance of rigor.

>>23485391
Read only secondaries if you only want to end up with a degree and no wisdom

>>23485607
>You won't even enjoy it
I enjoy it

>>23490961
>I actually got an autism evaluation done a few months ago where they concluded I'm not autistic, lol. I can find the report for that too but I suspect you'll believe me.
We don't believe you.

>>23491875
If anybody says something like:
>I actually got an autism evaluation done a few months ago where they concluded I'm not autistic, lol.
and expects that to be convincing, then they definitely are on the autistic spectrum.

>>23491880
Do you think he's psychologically disturbed or just an asshole who doesn't realize he's a midwit? There's an obvious thread of narcissism in his posts but if it's due to being a schiz and not just a retarded dick I feel like we should leave him alone.

>>23491941
Nta, but not disturbed, just clueless and overly self-involved. He almost literally sounds autistic, but if he in reality isn't, he's just got a garden variety case of NPD. Not harmful, just a dick and status/approval hungry.

>>23492075
>status/approval hungry
It's just so odd on a website dedicated to anonymity. The fact he seems to be ruminating on losing an argument to stranger(s) a month ago and referenced the fact he recently underwent psychological testing makes me worry for him a little. On the other hand, he's such an obnoxious asshole with an unwarranted opinion of himself above others. When it comes to making fun of him I'm conflicted.

>>23491701
My overall IQ is 121.
>>23491749
I didn't show it because 1. anonymity concerns 2. verbal IQ is what was being discussed. I have ADHD so my processing speed and working memory are low, but my perceptual reasoning is on par with my verbal IQ, if you want to know so bad.
>>23491749
Nobody in this thread thinks I'm "dumb", even you. You're probably just resentful that your little psychoanalysis got denied.
>Refuting my claims that you have a low verbal IQ is embarrassing!!
Yeah sure lol. Maybe don't make easily refuted claims.
>It's not a narcissist view, it's just the truth.
I know published heavyweights in philosophy from schools that are closer to the top 10%, hell some even in from state universities. You're just a delusional narcissist (projecting that label onto me, lol).
>>23491875
>>23491880
>>23491941
>>23492075
>>23492148
Stop talking to yourself.

>>23492335
>Nobody in this thread thinks I'm "dumb", even you.
NTAs. I think you're incredibly dumb. As other anons have pointed out it's likely due to your combination of narcissism and lack of self awareness (e.g. being proud of a midwit IQ and convincing yourself that everyone making fun of you is a single person).

>>23492372

>>23492372
>being proud of a midwit IQ
Only 8% of the population has a higher IQ than me, I'm gonna guess you aren't one of them.
By the way I don't think this is particularly important, I just brought up my IQ score because othere were making claims about my verbal IQ.
>Screenshot
Yeah I totally don't know incognito is a thing bro. Lol. It's either you talking to yourself or you and some Discord budd(ies).
>Narcissism
I've never heard this from anyone in my life, so I'm gonna guess they know better than you. Please go ahead and show me where I'm being narcissistic. In >>23491075 and >>23491180 where I apologize to a well-meaning autodidact and defend low-ranked academia against assholes like you? Sounding like projection my friend.

>>23485391
Most debates over primaries are midwits arguing over other midwits' misreadings.

Then dumb shits like you gatekeep understanding by making claims like this.

There is a feverish desperation among "academics" to publish ANYTHING just to remain relevant (God alone knows why we participate in a model that makes it so) and now we are inundated with the hallucinations and machinations of those suffering from a deadly combination of
desperation and the inflated sense of competence that status and authority confer.

>>23489910
You usually have to read secondary sources in upper division (3rd and 4th year). Even then, depending on the professor and course you won’t have to.

>>23492335

>>23492482
Well I'm not autistic, I don't know what to tell you. Take it up with the shrink I guess.

>>23492500
You definitely have Asperger's. And the fact that you needed to get tested is evidence biasing you towards being on the autistic spectrum, since you were presenting enough symptoms warranting the test. It's like how if somebody knows their IQ because they were tested as a child, it's probably because there were diagnostics being run on them due to some other problem.

You’re really just a midwit if you don’t thoroughly engage with both. Even if you think modern academia is a joke there are commentaries through the ages. Ideally you would read through the primary material (it doesn’t have to be an entire work at once) at least three times so you can actually have a good understanding of the finer nuances of the arguments. Secondary material is for bolstering your understanding or hearing different opinions and arguments for or against the primary source. If you don’t use secondary sources in this way and are just using them to understand the work you’re wasting your time and money on a degree. Just ask chatgpt or go to a wiki. The professors are useful to talk to but there is no reason to not deeply engage with the material. If you don’t plan on going to graduate school (even if it’s not for philosophy), then why are you even getting a philosophy degree? Degrees are a joke btw, not difficult at all. I take 16+ units a quarter with a 4.0 and majority A+ in all my classes. It’s not even difficult, but the real value is in deeply engaging with the studies. What you’re doing by putting people down who like to read and study on their own just screams insecurity at your own middling intelligence, and your boasting of only being a standard deviation above the average is sad. t. 143 iq

>>23492512
Yes I do have symptoms of autism dsince as I mentioned I have ADHD which overlaps with autism. No I do not have Asperger's.
>And the fact that you needed to get tested is evidence biasing you towards being on the autistic spectrum, since you were presenting enough symptoms warranting the test.
Lol what sense does that make? They first decide I'm autistic and then put on the evaluation for show? If it said I'm not then I'm not.

>>23492441
>Only 8% of the population has a higher IQ than me
Narcissistic autism. Resorting to pedantry over what constitutes a "midwit" underscores the fact you're a midwit and lack self awareness.
>Yeah I totally don't know incognito is a thing bro.
Narcissistic autism. Multiple people have pointed out you're a midwit who behaves like a retard and you cope by pretending it's just one person.
>I've never heard this from anyone in my life
I'm sure you filter it out (e.g. pretending several people qualifying your behavior as narcissistic and your posts as midwittery are one person).
>Please go ahead and show me where I'm being narcissistic.
See above. You're incapable of admitting it though.

You're a narcissistic autist coping over the fact his self perception doesn't match reality. You'll never be able to understand just how much of a loser you actually are due to the fact you cope by falling back on a false perception of yourself. Given the fact you're still ruminating over an argument you lost over a month ago my guess is that you're also resentful and that's why you're probably in therapy. You likely have few friends, if any at all, because people like you are not stimulating to converse with and just aren't fun to be around.

>>23492556
>Resorting to pedantry over what constitutes a "midwit" underscores the fact you're a midwit and lack self awareness.
I really, really don't think you're over 92nd percentile IQ, sorry anon.
>Multiple people have pointed out
It could be Discord buddies, sure.
>Given the fact you're still ruminating over an argument you lost over a month ago
I won it though, as explained in OP. Not really "ruminating" over it, more like trying to combat popular misconceptions on this site.
Better luck next time Dr. Anon, lol.

>>23492392
>>23492571

>>23492591
I'm not the one who thinks people read primaries cover to cover in undergrad. Lol.

>>23492571
>I really, really don't think you're over 92nd percentile IQ
I wouldn't tell you if I were because when it comes down to it we're just strangers on the internet. However, I will point out that the fact you're fighting to maintain an illusion that you're smarter, and therefore better, than random anons is representative of narcissism.
>It could be Discord buddies, sure.
See what I mean? That's a pretty high degree of fantasy projection and paranoia.
>I won it though, as explained in OP
So you won it because you say so? LOL! The fact you're obviously ruminating on it still indicates that deep down you yourself don't even believe that. Anyway, it's clear to me that those anons in the other thread, and now this one, got the better of you. If you weren't so narcissistic you could get over your delusions and move on...but here you are.

>>23492617
>I wouldn't tell you if I were because when it comes down to it we're just strangers on the internet.
Yeah sure that's why lmao.
>those anons in the other thread
This was the giveaway, you keep referring to multiple anons in the other thread but there was just one by their own admission.

>>23485638
Because doing what you love is more important than making money.

>>23492632
>Yeah sure that's why
Since you asked, I haven't taken an IQ test since I was a kid. I scored 152 and was placed in a gifted class. Not that there's much reason to bother telling you this; I'm not particularly proud of that "accomplishment" and you'll likely assert I'm making it up. You're in the habit of imaging reality in a way that gratifies your perceived superiority over anonymous strangers on the internet. It's all cope on your end, bud.
>This was the giveaway, you keep referring to multiple anons in the other thread but there was just one by their own admission
I didn't give it a close look but given your proclivity toward attributing multiple posts to a single anon ITT it's safe to say that's likely what you did in the other one as well. That in combination with the fact you've been ruminating over an online argument for a month, and your constant insistence that anons accept your perception of it, indicates you have personality/emotional problems stemming from narcissism. Given that, it's not that far of a leap to intuit you have deeply rooted issues concerning self esteem which you've, defensively, attached to a perception of yourself as being intellectually superior to your peers both real and, as here, imagined.

Seeing as this is a literature board I have no problem profiling you like this based on the textual evidence you yourself have provided us with. I'd almost feel sorry for you if you weren't such a pompous moron who still can't compute when he's been told.

>>23492813
>It's all cope on your end, bud.
Yeah this /lit/ thread just happens to have the highest concentration of 140+ IQ people on the planet, lol, sure.
Anyway what happened to not sharing with strangers? Did I pull a nerve?
>I didn't give it a close look but given your proclivity toward attributing multiple posts to a single anon ITT it's safe to say that's likely what you did in the other one as well.
Nothing analogous to this happened, the opposite did i.e. they accused multiple people of being me.
>Seeing as this is a literature board I have no problem profiling you like this based on the textual evidence you yourself have provided us with.
Yeah I hope you didn't have any grades attached to "profiling" like this. Let's turn it around and I profile you. I think you're a lonely guy with some superficial friends and a life obsessed with your engineering career. You encounter all sorts of autistic people with big egos because of the kind of workplace you go to, and you project those people onto me because you're so used to people being that way that you misread character cues. If you have a girlfriend you likely see her no more than once a week and occasionally consider dumping her. You keep your chud politics to yourself which is part of the reason you have trouble forming close connections. To make up for your feelings of isolation, you go on this board and absorb its inane culture and all the accompanying lingo e.g. "midwit" in an attempt to gain some sense of community. You then get tilted at what you percieve as smug behavior from people who have studied philosophy because of your regrets in choosing a "marketable" degree, and you convince yourself 99% of philosophy departments are bullshit for "midwits" anyway.
>can't compute when he's been told.
I actually paid attention in my logic class anon, I can evaluate arguments correctly (unlike you, it seems).

>>23492872
>Yeah I hope you didn't have any grades attached to "profiling" like this. Let's turn it around and I profile you. I think you're a lonely guy with some superficial friends and a life obsessed with your engineering career. You encounter all sorts of autistic people with big egos because of the kind of workplace you go to, and you project those people onto me because you're so used to people being that way that you misread character cues. If you have a girlfriend you likely see her no more than once a week and occasionally consider dumping her. You keep your chud politics to yourself which is part of the reason you have trouble forming close connections. To make up for your feelings of isolation, you go on this board and absorb its inane culture and all the accompanying lingo e.g. "midwit" in an attempt to gain some sense of community. You then get tilted at what you percieve as smug behavior from people who have studied philosophy because of your regrets in choosing a "marketable" degree, and you convince yourself 99% of philosophy departments are bullshit for "midwits" anyway.
NTA but I don't think that describes anybody on /lit/.

>>23493024
Why?

>>23493040
it just doesnt lol. maybe I'm wrong.

>>23490235
Kek he's doing this with a bunch of anons now, see picrel.

>>23492335
Retard paranoia. Speaking of, at >>23492441, you say:
>Yeah I totally don't know incognito is a thing bro. Lol. It's either you talking to yourself or you and some Discord budd(ies).
So apparently you don't know that incognito mode prevents you from screenshotting as a security measure, but after getting assmad about an old thread enough to open this one, keep doing what you said an anon in that thread did, it's a really funny schtick.

>>23492525
>Lol what sense does that make? They first decide I'm autistic and then put on the evaluation for show? If it said I'm not then I'm not.
Shocker, you can't follow that anon's simple reasoning.

>"I'M NOT AUTISTIC! I'M NOT DUMB! I'M NOT AUTISTIC! I'M NOT DUMB! I'M NOT AUTISTIC! I'M NOT DUMB! I'M NOT AUTISTIC! I'M NOT DUMB! I'M NOT AUTISTIC! I'M NOT DUMB! I'M NOT AUTISTIC! I'M NOT DUMB!"

>>23492571
>I won it though, as explained in OP. Not really "ruminating" over it, more like trying to combat popular misconceptions on this site.
>Better luck next time Dr. Anon, lol.
Kek this nigga tryna pull a "I'm not even mad"

>>23492872
>Anyway what happened to not sharing with strangers?
It's not about sharing--or oversharing as someone with personality problems like yourself is wont to do. It's hypothesis testing and character analysis based on textual evidence on a literature board.

Despite the fact I pointed out we're anons, with no way to confirm one other's claims outside how we behave ITT, your pattern of behavior, represented in your posts, tells on you. In this case, you need to insist someone who may or may not have superior intelligence to yourself is lying in order to maintain a narcissistic self deception which you attempt to reenforce by imagining you're convincing others. Aside, if I had ignored the question you likely would have brought it up again, you've already attempted to force the idea I was avoiding it; you created a space for yourself wherein no answer given, even not answering at all, could shake your narcissistic veneer.

You have a superiority complex, as per the evidence stated by myself and others in previous posts, but got you ass handed to you. This was a month ago and yet you still haven't moved on. You ruminated on it and made an entire thread trying to get anons to confirm the anon(s) who owned you were wrong to reinforce your self perception. What has ended up happening is people making fun of this rather pathetic fact, a fact obvious to everyone save yourself, and you falling into the same pattern demonstrated in that other thread...
>Nothing analogous to this happened
You complained about the anon(s) who btfod you crying about samefagging and yet you've cried samefag multiple times ITT; someone pointed this out above. That's projection. On top of that there are instances of you tagging random people you think agree with you in that last thread, as well as this one and one of these even called you out after, while asserting you're speaking to only one person whenever a post makes fun of you. What you don't realize is this reeks of desperation for approval, from anonymous strangers no less, and betrays the likelihood you suffer from narcissistic personality disorder (vulnerable subtype).
>You encounter all sorts of autistic people with big egos
>you project those people onto me
I don't think you have a big ego; you have a fragile ego. Have I and others not pointed out repeatedly what creating a thread devoted to an argument you lost a month ago says about you? Have several people not made fun of the fact you posted a picture in a futile effort to dispel the idea you're a midwit?

No one ITT sees you as an intelligent person. You're a lolcow with no self awareness that continuously shoots himself in the foot by exemplifying his autism then retreating behind narcissistic cope. The really sad thing is that this is all you really have to offer us. Not insightful comments or thoughtful arguments; just a sad display whereby you provide us with laughter while never being in on the joke: (You).

>>23493171
>So apparently you don't know that incognito mode prevents you from screenshotting as a security measure
Lol only on mobile.
>B-but you're contradicting yourself!!!
Yeah I knew you were gonna pull this one.
>>23490961
>But as I said in this post I do now suspect an affiliation, likely motivated by the fact that I can't call it out without "contradicting" myself.
Even if you're unaffiliated people (doubt), it doesn't matter. All of you are failing to follow basic argumentative inferences in a way I suspected was unique to the person I was arguing against but might just be a feature of the STEM larpers of this board. For instance, I was not "boasting" about my IQ, just countering a claim that it isn't high. But that seems lost on "all" of you.
>121 isn't high
Yeah I'm gonna somehow doubt this site is the most miraculous collection of MENSA members ever created. Especially with the displays of genius you regularly see here like "you're narcissistic because you revealed information about yourself".

>>23493171
Lol, OP is unreal. I kind of hope he gets into the habit of making monthly threads wherein he tries to entice others into accepting his delusions of mediocrity by recapping arguments he lost.

>>23493203
People called you narcissistic because you opened a thread about a month old argument you had like a seething spaz who can't let shit go.

>>23493222
Kek the follow up thread to this one in a month will be great, when his OP will say one anon tried to gaslight him into believing the awful conspiracy that multiple people think he's a retard

>>23493178
Their reasoning was that I'm autistic because I went for an autism evaluation. This is false as shown by the fact that I got a negative result on said autism evaluation.
>>23493186
Back to your Discord.
>>23493201
>It's not about sharing--or oversharing as someone with personality problems like yourself is wont to do. It's hypothesis testing and character analysis based on textual evidence on a literature board.
Lol. I was referring to you sharing your supposed IQ, dipshit.
>but got you ass handed to you.
>the anon(s) who btfod you
>the anon(s) who owned you
Didn't happen, you're Discord buddies with that person since anyone unbiased would see I won. >>23490611 for example, despite sharing your distaste for my behavior.
>No one ITT sees you as an intelligent person.
You're dedicating a lot of time and energy to "owning" an unintelligent person, lol. I think it's because you feel threatened.
>On top of that there are instances of you tagging random people you think agree with you in that last thread, as well as this one and one of these even called you out after, while asserting you're speaking to only one person whenever a post makes fun of you. What you don't realize is this reeks of desperation for approval, from anonymous strangers no less
It was just citing evidence for a discussion. My opponent did the same in the last thread, before I did in response: >>/lit/thread/23384949#p23396079
I mean I agree they're a narcissist but I don't think that's your point.
>You're a lolcow with no self awareness that continuously shoots himself in the foot by exemplifying his autism then retreating behind narcissistic cope.
>You're autistic and narcissistic!!! YOU ARE!!! IF I SAY IT ENOUGH IT'LL BECOME TRUE!!!
Lol. Why are you so dedicated to convincing me I have conditions that I know for a fact I don't? Up until a few months ago I did think I was autistic, I have nothing to hide on that front.
I have a hunch my description stung a nerve. Interesting you didn't respond to it and just defelected it back at me.

>>23485391
>Hegel: A Very Short Introduction
Can someone PLEASE drop a link to this book? I can't find it anywhere

>>23493222
>>23493232
Stop talking to yourself/your discord buddies.
>by recapping arguments he lost.
I spelled out in the OP how I won. You're welcome to explain how repeating "you went to a shitty school" and "only the top 20 universities in the US offer quality philosophy education" were knockdown arguments.

>>23493264
The libgen link should work no? https://library.lol/main/CA61C29DA6E2B63B2FE7D79C1C818273

>>23493268
And the retard keeps going.

>This person was lowered to assuming that different people responding to them were "multiposting"

>>23493299
(You)

>>23493260
>Their reasoning was that I'm autistic because I went for an autism evaluation. This is false as shown by the fact that I got a negative result on said autism evaluation.

>>23493260
>I was referring to you sharing your supposed IQ
Yes, retard. To which I responded it wasn't about "sharing with strangers" but seeing if I could predict your responses. That's all I'm going to read for now because I honestly can't stop laughing about your "autism evaluation".

Seriously though, please make another thread next month. This shit rivals the elephant anon thread.

>>23493417
>retard
Lol big boy words. Try cooling off.
>>23492617
>I wouldn't tell you if I were because when it comes down to it we're just strangers on the internet.
This is all I was referring to with "sharing". You contradicted yourself by claiming you wouldn't share your IQ and then you did in the very next post. Lol! Probably because I upset you.
>>23493417
>That's all I'm going to read for now because I honestly can't stop laughing about your "autism evaluation".
Yeah sure that's why lol. Keep seething.

>>23493432
Calm your tits, autist. Go stim while looking at fanopedia articles about Sonic the Hedgehog lore or something, lol.

>>23493447
>I'm not mad you're mad!
Dr. Anon here thinks they know better than actual psychologists whether I'm autistic. And you have the gall to call others narcissistic, lol.

>>23493432
>Keep seething.
You made a thread about an argument on an older thread, you're the only one seething

>>23493463
>B-but you did the thing!! You referenced an old thread
Do you ever get tired of repeating yourself? Lol. Keep seething.

>>23485391
>if you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries
that's why universities are pleb factories

>>23493471
>Do you ever get tired of repeating yourself? Lol. Keep seething.

QRD:
>a month ago OP made a pointless thread about reading secondary sources over primary sources (likely because someone owned him in a debate and teased him about not having read some book given the nature of this thread)
>some anons told him that secondary sources have their place but relying on secondhand information alone inhibits truly interacting with the given philosopher
>OP made a blanket statement that university degrees are based on secondary sources and therefore he's right (totally ignoring arguments as to why reading primary sources is beneficial while maintaining the straw man that whoever was disagreeing with him was saying they have no place...this is likely harkening back to that anon who made a fool out of him for not having read whatever text)
>anons gave counterexamples relating to their own experiences in university
>OP pretended all the counterexamples were from one person (again) and straw manned the idea they were saying secondary sources have no place (again)
>a few anons started making fun of OP's school for being inferior and pointed out his style of debate indicates his subpar education
>this really got to OP, people noticed, and anons started increasingly mocking him
>OP meticulously went through the thread to find people who agreed with him even in the slightest and kept insisting that all counterexamples and ridicule didn't count and came from a single person (he also continuously referenced previous posts despite the fact people had already responded to his ideas while he ignored theirs)
>judging by the thread it wasn't just one person but OP was thoroughly destroyed and ridiculed
>OP, a self-absorbed narcissist who lives entirely in his own imagination, was shook
An entire month passes
>OP makes a new thread framing the argument from the other thread in his favor (lol)
>it's obvious to everyone that OP is a petty faggot still ruminating over an argument he lost on paper but must convince himself he won in his head (lol)
>in the header he outlines the bad behavior of that "single anon"
>within a few posts he's literally doing everything he said the other anon did like accusing people of samefaggory and such (lol)
>OP falls back into the pattern of ignoring what people who disagree with him say, focusing in on posts from people who (seemingly) agree with him, and pretending its one anon making fun of him or sometimes a Discord conspiracy or something...
>OP gets called out for being a midwit and having a thin-skin (again, this faggot ruminated about an online argument for an entire month and made a thread about it LOL!) so he starts getting pedantic to prove he isn't one
>OP doesn't realize his behavior is why he's a midwit and posts a picture of an IQ test result trying to prove he's smart
>it's barely above midwit
>anons laugh at him and call him an autist
>OP states that he was tested for autism (LOL) and it came back negative
>anons laugh, OP is ridiculously clueless and has 0 self-awareness

Lmao this shit is hilarious
Keep at it OP I'm sure you'll convince the haters soon enough
You got this champ

>>23485391
>Don't be this person, this is what happens when you develop arrogance from thinking you can fully understand primary sources yourself.
The problem is that appealing to secondaries is the basis for this judgment of "full understanding." It's circular logic. If you don't read the secondaries, you don't fully understand the primary text... according to the secondaries. I find it far more valuable to interact with primary texts and get what I get from it. I'm pretty uninterested in having the Approved Opinion on pretty much anything.

>>23493676
>a month ago OP made a pointless thread about reading secondary sources over primary sources
I didn't make that thread, lol.
>OP pretended all the counterexamples were from one person (again)
I didn't do that. Here's what I said:
>Many of those replies are quite patently not by philosophy majors, >>23385366 makes this explicit since they're asking how common it is. And one of the people you cited talked about reading the CoPR in high school (lol, yeah right) which means nothing. <span class="deadlink">>>23391098 says they took a couple of philosophy classes, i.e. not a major.</span>
>>/lit/thread/23384949#p23396144
At no point did I claim these were all the same person.
When I say I was arguing against one person, I mean that was uncontroversially acknowledged by both parties in that thread. Not like in this thread's situation where I claim there's sameposting and the other party denies it. It was just one person with a very obvious typing style that I recognized in this thread in >>23489615 and >>23489638.
>judging by the thread it wasn't just one person
You're welcome to point out anywhere in that thread where I made a sameposting accusation. I'll wait.
>a few anons started making fun of OP's school for being inferior
Again, this was just one person. Feel free to post links to prove me wrong.
This sort of dishonesty is frankly low, even by your standards. You really need to get some perspective, you can't recover from lost arguments with greentext strawman walls like this.
Here's an example:
>>23489231 makes a claim about schools. I post >>23489346 countering their claim with evidence of others' experience at their schools. >>23489416 simply reiterates their original claim about universities. >>23489422 is me reiterating my last claim about universities in turn. >>23489462 then completely changes the topic to me and my character.
Here's the facts. Lots of philosophy undergraduate courses use secondaries. Very few read primaries from cover to cover. If you disagree with this, it strongly suggests you did not go to college. It's a pretty uncontroversial claim.

>>23493676
Also:
>OP doesn't realize his behavior is why he's a midwit and posts a picture of an IQ test result trying to prove he's smart
That was in response to an explicit claim about my verbal IQ:
>>23489840
>I don't think you have the baseline verbal IQ to even begin analyzing stylometry properly.
It wasn't in response to anyone calling me a "midwit". More proof of your dishonest argumentative ways.

>>23493676
>(he also continuously referenced previous posts despite the fact people had already responded to his ideas while he ignored theirs)
>>23493782
>I post >>23489346 countering their claim with evidence of others' experience at their schools. >>23489416 simply reiterates their original claim about universities. >>23489422 is me reiterating my last claim about universities in turn. >>23489462 then completely changes the topic to me and my character.

As if seething over a month old argument wasn't enough, it appears guy has spent his entire weekend monitoring this thread without sleep. Holy shit you're a loser!

>>23493827
>tldr
No one cares and everyone is laughing at you.

This thread is weird. I had an interest in philosophy but I think I'll stick with literature.

OP, did you by chance make the latest /lit top 100 books chart?

>>23493833
OP is teetering on the edge of full blown schizophrenia.

>>23493830
>it appears guy has spent his entire weekend monitoring this thread without sleep.
And you were doing what?
>>23493831
Yeah you and your two Discord buddies.

>>23493833
>This thread is weird. I
You're telling me. What I thought was going to be a rather short exchange turns into hours-long harassment by what seems to be a couple of particularly dedicated individuals.
>OP, did you by chance make the latest /lit top 100 books chart?
No, why do you ask?

>>23493838
>And you were doing what?
I just got here.
>Yeah you and your two Discord buddies.
The QRD is accurate. You're schizophrenic. Go see a doctor.

>>23493855
>You're schizophrenic. Go see a doctor.
Dr. Anon needs to cool it with the diagnoses, what's next for me? Epilepsy?

This thread is some of the most carefully crafted bait I've seen in a long while.

The worst part isn't that OP thought a 118 IQ was going to leave us all speechless. It's that he thinks a degree in philosophy matters when you could simply just become immortal through actual practices he could read about in philosophy. But I guess being limited by 118 IQ will make him oversee that.

>>23493862
Autist who created a thread because he was BTFO'd in an argument over a month ago needs to take his meds.

>>23493782
>Again, this was just one person. Feel free to post links to prove me wrong.
>This sort of dishonesty is frankly low, even by your standards. You really need to get some perspective, you can't recover from lost arguments with greentext strawman walls like this.
>Here's an example:
>>>23489231 # makes a claim about schools. I post >>23489346 # countering their claim with evidence of others' experience at their schools. >>23489416 # simply reiterates their original claim about universities. >>23489422 # is me reiterating my last claim about universities in turn. >>23489462 # then completely changes the topic to me and my character.
>Here's the facts. Lots of philosophy undergraduate courses use secondaries. Very few read primaries from cover to cover. If you disagree with this, it strongly suggests you did not go

>>23493875
>he was BTFO'd in an argument over a month ago
Yeah I'm gonna want to change doctors, especially since that thread was less than a month ago lol.

>>23493862
>Dr. Anon needs to cool it with the diagnoses, what's next for me? Epilepsy?

>>23493883
>especially since that thread was less than a month ago
>[May 17th]
Meds, anon. Meds.

>>23493904
It's the 16th.

>>23493914
You're autistic.

>>23493926
You said it was over a month ago, which it isn't. Sorry this upsets you.

>>23493932
It was a month ago though.

>>23485391
Any secondaries that you would recommend specifically?

>>23493955
Secondary for which primary?
Often, the secondary worth reading are really their own form of primary source distinct from what they are commenting on.
OP is posting of pic for Hegel. In fact I dare say that Jean Hippolyte, on the surface a secondary source for Hegel, is simply better than Hegel. Arguably Alexandre Kojeve too in his restricted sphere.

>>23493955
>>23493955
Well since the OP image is Hegel, I think Fritzman's "Hegel" was pretty good. It was very balanced and well-reasoned in its arguments, especially with regards to being charitable to other interpretations. And all in crystal clear prose. I read it when I was trying to tackle Hegel's "Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline" and found it interesting in its own right.
I don't recommend the OP book despite my posting it, it was sort of a shitpost to allude to the last thread. Although I hear Singer's 1983 book "Hegel" is good.

>>23494021
>In fact I dare say that Jean Hippolyte, on the surface a secondary source for Hegel, is simply better than Hegel. Arguably Alexandre Kojeve too in his restricted sphere.
I have experience with this in the Marx scholarship. Heinrich's and Postone's interpretations of Marx are frankly better than what the man himself believed. Sean Sayers' as well, to some extent.
That was maybe a point I should have touched upon in the OP, secondaries are basically indistinguishable from primaries of their own at the end of the day.

>>23494040
Singer's book is every bit as teeny tiny and meant more as an introduction. My favorite book on Hegel is (perhaps lazily) Kaufman's biography

Careful guys, OP is cracking

>>23494326
Nobody cares about your attempt at a Discord raid, we were discussing secondaries. Either contribute to discussion or move on please.

>>23494640
>Nobody cares about your attempt at a Discord raid, we were discussing secondaries. Either contribute to discussion or move on please.

>>23494319
>Singer's book is every bit as teeny tiny and meant more as an introduction
Did you mean the OP image or the 1983 book?

>its the reddit screenshot poster whines about primary sources post again

>>23494786
I mean pic rel's as short as the micro-introduction OP has up at the thread's beginning. Perhaps a little longer than OP's, but not appreciably so-- < 100 pp.

>>23494326
The fact OP made this thread in the first place means he cracked long ago.

You need context. You engage with your time, you engage with slightly old texts, you engage with very old texts. You need a way in. That's going to be what people are saying today.

You can bog yourself down in an excess of secondaries, sure. But you're not gonna raw dog the history of philosophy, come on now.

>>23495803
Perhaps. But the way into Hegel (for instance) is his own History of Philosophy: a species of 'secondary source' that deals only with 'primary sources'. Now, having read many of those primary sources already (on one's own) helps this endeavor, but is by no means necessary IF one is okay with accepting Hegel's 'reeling-off' lock, stock, and barrel.
So far as Hegel himself is concerned, once one 'gets' that for him metaphysics is the analysis of categories, logic his own method, politics the setting up of a state he feels most conducive to the furtherance of Spirit (or culture), etc. reading him isn't really at all difficult.
t. not engaged at all in this thread's back and forth

>>23495840
>But the way into Hegel (for instance) is his own History of Philosophy: a species of 'secondary source' that deals only with 'primary sources'.
If you'd actually read that book you'd know that qualifying it as a secondary source is dumb. Are you baiting?

>>23495848
No. That's why I said 'a species' or a type. I know it isn't, but it can be perceived as one certainly as it purportedly sets out to do what a more objective (theoretically) historian of philosophy like Zeller 'does'. But of course it's Hegel 'writing' (or speaking) so the bias is bound to be 'Hegelian'. It does stand out as one of his more straightforward books, however, which isn't surprising given that it's compounded of students' lecture notes.

>>23495883
>No. That's why I said 'a species' or a type
That doesn't make your point any better and just outs you as a pretentious pseud. First, it's not a book written by Hegel but a series of lectures collected and compiled posthumously (inb4 you try to shift the goalposts by requalifying what you meant by a secondary source). Second, it wasn't even based wholly on Hegel's own words but notes taken by his students (inb4 you miss the point and quibble over how those are secondary sources). Third, it's a reframing of history according to Hegel's own theory of such and not merely commentary meant to elucidate the work of those referenced (i.e. it's an original work in which its author's own novel overarching theory is presented).

Finally, it's pretty fucking funny that you're trying to compensate for the fact you don't read primary sources by referencing a book that hasn't even been fully translated into your language (inb4 "the only access is through a secondary source," Hegel scholars have to speak German).

>>23495848
That's it in 3 vos., anon. As no doubt (you) doubt my sincerity. I certainly doubt yours

>>23485629
Finally some quality bait

>>23495898
Kek. You type far too slowly, idiot.

>>23490961
>>23490994
>>23491132
>>23492335
>>23492441
>>23492520
>>23492813
None of you are actually hi-IQ, because if you were, you would understand that posting your IQ score on the internet will convince zero percent of your readers that you have something relevant to say.

t. 178 IQ

>>23495904
>I should have known better
Lol
>>23496025
>You type far too slowly
No you.

>>23496154
In the future, read posts through. The point stands whomsoever the anon
>No you.
What of it?

>>23496172
>I can't read
We know that already.

>>23496251
>We
Anything else?

>>23496271
That's all. Feel free to seethe all you want on the way out.

>>23496340
kek

>>23494640
Uh oh, where'd you go? Lol

I have a sub-100 IQ and I get through life just fine.

>>23492607
>I'm not the one who thinks people read primaries cover to cover in undergrad. Lol.
I've read through your entire cringe thread and this is specifically the thing that's pissing you off. That philosophy students have the gall to read an entire philosophy book, and then say that it's probably a good idea for other philosophy students to do the same thing, and that it's probably more important to do so than reading secondary lit.
This is quite the hill to die on, anon.

>>23497058
Well, according to him, the only reason to read Hegel through his own writings is if you’re expecting some academic reward or praise, not for the sake of engaging it for one's own understanding. Quite the dull cunt, innit he?

>>23497083
>Quite the dull cunt, innit he?
Yep kek.
You have to question where his interest in philosophy even came from if he's so derisive about reading primary works. That is literally the thing that appeals to me with philosophy - that I have direct access to the thoughts of history's greatest thinkers.

It might be even more important for an autodidact to use some secondary sources. In university, even when you read a primary source, you still have your professor and the other students to discuss the text, you don't have this when you are on your own, so if you want a second opinion you have to read it.

>>23497096
It's interesting to read Schopenhauer's writings specifically dealing with this issue. He absolutely rips on people primarily interested in philosophy academically, the small minded people going on about x's commentary on y and trying to get some edge into the paper mill in this way, and speaks to the reader about how much nuance there is directly reading the greatest thinkers in their own words that absolutely gets lost in interpretations and digestions.

>>23497115
I don't think a single person so far has disputed this at all.

>>23497117
>nuance
NTA but it's pretty clear OP doesn't understand nuance.

>>23497117
Any chance you can tell me the name of those writings? They sound interesting and Schopenhauer never holds back.
>inb4 you send me secondary literature on the subject
as funny as it would be

>>23485391
I read primaries and realized I had already come to many of the same conclusions.
If you don't understand this feel YWNBAP

>>23497309
I believe this is the work in question.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Literature

>>23497527
thank you kindly

>>23497527
That's cool, but imma need a secondary on that on account of the constant agita I get reading primaries

Philosophy degrees are complete garbage retard. Have you wondered why there’s been no notable philosophy to come out of a Western academy other than pop sci bullshit? It’s because they don’t read philosophy. Heidegger spent his whole life reading Aristotle.

>Being is replaced by having
>having is replaced by merely appearing
>Reading philosophers is replaced by reading about philosophers
>OPs empty mouth is replaced by a mouth with a cock in it

>>23485391
You are absolutely right.
>>23485505
Hegel is incomprehensible trash. Admitting something doesn't make sense is better than pretending it does. Sometimes the emperor has no clothes.

>>23490961
I just wanted to tell you that you are 100% correct and not to let the other anons get you down :)

>>23498954
>Hegel is incomprehensible trash
The fact that people, many people in fact, have written books about their comprehension of Hegel, implies that you just are not smart enough to comprehend Hegel. it's Ok. Many people cannot. It is a filter.

>>23490961
Just kidding. You're a retard and this thread is embaressing.

>>23498954
Do not besmirch Hegel.

>>23493871
>The worst part isn't that OP thought a 118 IQ was going to leave us all speechless
They did not. They offered the best possible refutation to the accusation that they are a midwit and unintelligent.
>>23493875
>>23493926
Why do you keep claiming he's autistic? I see no indication that he is autistic. Seems perfectly normal to me. I guess it's just an insult you throw at everyone you dislike, huh?

>>23496052
Idk, he convinced me he's 118, and thus refuted the other anons' claims.
>>23497276
How?
>>23498557
I don't know much about philosophy but almost nobody knows any cool new math that came out in the last few decades, and there is plenty such cool math, it's just too complicated for normal people to understand. It could be the same way with philosophy.

>>23499001
OP samefagging

>>23499001
>They offered the best possible refutation to the accusation that they are a midwit and unintelligent.
By behaving like a midwit and posting an IQ score within variance of the midwit range?
>>23499001
They're calling him autistic because of how he acts and he confirmed a psychologist picked up on it enough to issue a test, lol.

OP I just wanted to say that it was absolutely hilarious how much you mindbroke so many anons here. All the constant lying about what you said/claimed, deliberate misinterpretations, nonsensical accusations of you having superiority complex/autism/whatever else is one of the clearest demonstrations of cognitive dissonance I've seen.
I have had similar experiences whenever I express an original and controversial opinion and provide good arguments for it. When I interact with such people, I both find it funny because how obvious it is that they're experiencing cognitive dissonance and how deranged they start to act but also a kind of bitterness because of the constant attacks. As a dispassionate observer I want that you're not insane and are actually 100% in the right.
>>23499010
I understand why you would feel that someone who agrees with and defends OP is samefagging in a thread full of OP haters, but me and OP both know we are not the same person :)

>>23499024
>They're calling him autistic because of how he acts and he confirmed a psychologist picked up on it enough to issue a test, lol.
Have you considered that it might have been his own idea to get diagnosed?
>By behaving like a midwit and posting an IQ score within variance of the midwit range?
First claim is just a meaningless insult. As for your second bizarre claim, what exactly is the "variance of the midwit range"?

>>23493863
I've come to learn that people call your thread/ideas "bait" if they experience cognitive dissonance on reading them yet refuse to engage with them. A simple act of dismissal by attributing bad intentions.

>>23499001
>They offered the best possible refutation to the accusation that they are a midwit and unintelligent
They offered the one thing that confirms without a doubt they are a midwit

>>23499042
What's your definition of a midwit?

>>23499007
>he convinced me he's 118
Midwit is in the 100-115 range. Psychometric tests fluctuate by a few points so if he had posted something that wasnt within the variance of falling within 1 standard deviation from 100 anons would agree. Besides, the guy made another seethe thread where he posted a book about IQ prep...he studied for an IQ test and still fell within the variance of being a midwit, lol.
>>23499035
>Have you considered that it might have been his own idea to get diagnosed?
Doesn't matter. Declaring you've been tested for autism because others have been making fun of you for behaving autistically is autistic behaviour in and of itself.
>what exactly is the "variance of the midwit range"?
Within variance of the midwit range. I explained it above but since you're slow I'll restate. While there's no technical definition of a midwit, it's based on others perceptions of you, it basically means those that fall within 1 standard deviation from the norm of an IQ test. Psychometric testing is imprecise and a person taking a test will fluctuate within a reasonably tight range (I think for IQ tests it's +/- 3 but I'd have to look it up...it's at least that). Therefore, OP posted a score that is within the variance of falling into the midwit zone.

OP wants to focus on percentile because it makes him feel superior to a certain percentage of the population. However, midwit is a category of person so falling within a given standard deviation is more apt. Again, "midwit" isn't a technical term and is based on the opinions someone expresses and how they express them. OP puts forth midwit opinions and defends them in an autistic fashion.

As someone with a mathematical background, it's very bizarre how hung up you people seem to be about primary sources. Nobody in math reads primary sources when they don't absolutely have to. The content is always better clarified in subsequent iterations of the same ideas. Secondary sources (i.e. textbooks) do the job of synthesizing, clarifying key ideas while minimizing the irrelevant, unproductive ones. Simplifying the arguments, minimizing assumptions. This is how a subject that's alive evolves.
I'm absolutely baffled as to why you wouldn't want to save time and do the same with philosophy, unless you're not actually interested in learning cool new ideas and instead are interested in fetishizing some particular author, his peculiar writing style, don't value your own time and how these ideas were received and developed further in the subject.

>>23499071
>Midwit is in the 100-115 range
So you admit he falls outside of the midwit range lol.
>Declaring you've been tested for autism because others have been making fun of you for behaving autistically is autistic behaviour in and of itself.
How is it autistic? I swear you people will call anything "autistic" without any thought.
>Within variance of the midwit range. I explained it above but since you're slow I'll restate.
You literally just gave a range above, and his IQ fell outside of that range. You refuted yourself.
>While there's no technical definition of a midwit, it's based on others perceptions of you,
I asked for YOUR definition, and you gave me one.
>it's based on others perceptions of you, it basically means those that fall within 1 standard deviation from the norm of an IQ test
Falls outside of the midwit range according to this definition as well.
>OP wants to focus on percentile because it makes him feel superior to a certain percentage of the population
It's obvious that he was talking about the percentile to refute specific claims about his intelligence made by other anons.
>However, midwit is a category of person so falling within a given standard deviation is more apt
You sound like you don't know what words standard deviation and variance mean in statistics.
>OP puts forth midwit opinions and defends them in an autistic fashion.
Nothing about his behavior looks autistic to me. You just sound mad lol.

>>23499072
Because learning math is like learning a language wherein you spend time practicing whereas reading philosophy involves interacting with someone else's thoughts. There's a reason they teach math largely through rote learning.

>>23499084
>So you admit he falls outside of the midwit range
Nope. I knew you were slow so I explained variance below that. Not going to bother with the rest because it's becoming obvious this is just OP samefagging.

>>23499095
You have clearly never studied any math beyond calculus.

>>23499098
Please quote the exact sentence where you explained variance.

>>23498979
Read Popper "The Open Society and Its Enemies" to better understand why Hegel is nonsense.
>>23498970
Many people have written books about their comprehension of the Kabballah, numerology, astrology, flat earth and other nonsense. Doesn't mean these subjects are not nonsense.

>>23499099
I have and the point is that the majority of mathematics education consists of rote learning. A very VERY small fraction of people move beyond such but one doesn't even encounter something like the concept of a proof until they're in university.

This is why it's different than something like philosophy. There are books like pic-related wherein the author belabors himself to break something into its parts so a student can better understand it. If we're talking about philosophy a simplified summary won't do. I'm not saying that secondary sources aren't enlightening and you shouldn't read them but if you think you've gotten all you can get by reading bullet points for Heidegger you're deluding yourself.

>>23499103
Why? You're a disingenuous retard. Reread the post and actually engage with it or fuck off. I don't care either way, lol.

>>23499115
>I have
>pic is a book on calculus

>>23499112
Do not try to hide behind popper, we already have Imre Lakatos, he clocked popper and turned his brain into a 3 stage Hegelian algorithm, popper is a dessicated turd by comparison. Stick tolerance paradoxes or whatever his self-defeating idea was.

>>23499123
Huh, I'm not aware of any response to Popper's criticism of Hegel by Lakatos. Where can I find it?

>>23485391
As an American with a BA in Phil, in my metaphysics course we read Critique of Pure Reason. With Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, and other primary sources as preamble. But not one of my classes ever even mentioned Hegel existed. So I guess you get partial credit?

>>23499125
Read Lakatos. Better yet since this is a secondary thread just go to twitterpedia or find someone else who did the work for you. If you were filtered by Hegel it won't matter anyhow.

>>23499120
>no response
I accept your concession. I was going to go with Velleman but I wanted to bait you.
>>23499123
>Imre Lakatos, he clocked popper
Lakatos tried to reform Popper in order to save him.

>>23499139
How exactly did the 'reform' take place?

>>23499130
For my BA, Kant and Hegel had their own courses devoted to them whereas those you mentioned as preamble were covered in a survey course you had to take in order to move on to individual philosophers. Did your school consist of courses that devoted to a single philosopher (if so, which years of study did those become open) aside from conceptual ones? In my degree you read CoPR cover to cover in a course titled Kant, lol.

>>23499147
It's been awhile and I'd have to refresh in order to give a good answer so forgive me if I'm a little vague. Lakotos refined Popper's idea about falsification and hypothesis testing by saying there was a "hard core" to a given theory and satellite hypotheses which scientists test in relation to their acceptance of the "hard core" itself. This was in reaction to criticism that Popper's theories don't actually provide a real picture of how scientirix practice plays out in the historical record, Popper himself retreated to the idea his theory was an idealization by the 50s, and set against Feyerabend's scientific anarchism. With how things moved toward social constructivistism after the Lakotos/Feyerabend era it seems to me that the latter won the day when it came to how theories concerning the character of narratives relating to scientific development and practice in academia. However, I'd have to reflect more on this but Lakotos is kind of a warning about the dangers of such characterizations and how a lack of formality, centralized around a common core, is necessary for real progress (re stability).

>>23499147
By the way, I'm not the original anon with whom you were arguing. I just saw you mentioned Lakotos and I had a brief period where I was really interested in him after encountering him in a course.

>>23499160
No, there were not single philosopher classes. Although, there were the ever changing survey courses. The program was setup... poorly, so nothing had prerequisites. Also it was analytic philosophers all the time, at least as far as moderns go. It was only through the honors college that I could actually take a course on existentialism.

But it was a total party school, so what should one expect I guess. Of course my doctoral program had quite a bit of professors sleeping with the students, so maybe it's all the same shit everywhere.

>>23499210
Sorry, not survey courses. Seminars, on all different topics. Classes that undergrads or grads could take. Those were pretty fun.

>>23499183
Yes he borrowed Hegel from the Encyclopedia I believe and compared Popper's falsification to throwing ideas into the abyss. This was his 'naive' popper algorithm, basically just a retard who throws ideas away while screaming falsification and then probably wonders why they never get much done. The next algorithm up starts to blend ideas he took from Kuhn, namely that progress starts to occur but with statistical anomalies, this midwit version of popper keeps going instead of shitting his pants like a bitch. The 3rd stage is the methodical and sophisticated popper, at this point poppers, Kuhn's, and Lakatos's ideas have fused together. At the final stage the participant is able to grasp when regressive vs progressive results are occurring, they may even decide to buttfuck some dogmatic twat like popper and keep going because even if the theory is wrong there is still scientific or mathematical progress that can be made regardless. He also criticized the notion of opting for retreads of less false vs continuance in favor of finding better explanatory theories. Maintenance work is regressive by nature, and leads to dogmatism. He was writing a paper a day while popper was picking turd fragments out of his ass crack. He went from Stalinist to delivering an in-house kill on Leninism. He died before he could respond to Feyerabend's dilemma, otherwise he probably would have clocked him and turned his brain into another 3 stage algorithm.

>>23499010
Definitely.

>>23499049
OP.

>>23496052
This joke is only for high IQ people

>>23499029
Thanks. I've been busy with obligations and so haven't been posting but I wanted to let you know I saw your posts. I relate to your description of how it feels to argue with these kinds of dipshits.
>>23499071
>Besides, the guy made another seethe thread where he posted a book about IQ prep...he studied for an IQ test and still fell within the variance of being a midwit, lol.
Lmao the above Anon must be right that I mindbroke you if you're assuming random other OPs are me. I think the only posts I made outside this thread since yesterday were >>23496425 and >>23498221.
>variance
As I said earlier my overall IQ is 121 so your "variance" cope wouldn't even work if it was statistically sound, which it isn't. Not to mention my verbal is a bit lower than it should be because I misheard one of the similarities questions (my hearing is not very good).
>(I think for IQ tests it's +/- 3 but I'd have to look it up...it's at least that)
Even by your assumptions it doesn't work because 115 is still in the "bright" range. Lol. Average is 85-114 since each bracket starts at the standard deviation and not one IQ point above it.

>>23485607
I don't know, Anon, back in high school I did get laid by impressing a girl with how much I knew.

>>23499873
>I've been busy with obligations and so haven't been posting
Great of you to clarify that you absolutely haven't been posting, retard.

Next time don't make your samefaggery so obvious. Christ.

OP is either a natural ;) when it comes to being retarded on purpose or he's completely oblivious to how much of an embaressment he is to himself. Either way he's retarded.

>>23499112
>Popper "The Open Society and Its Enemies" to better understand why Hegel is nonsense.
Popper, whose native lsngusge is German, cites English mistranslations of Hegel's Philosophy of Right to make some of his arguments. This underlines the whole reason OP is a retard, if you'd actually compared Popper with the primary sources themselves, it'd be clear that he distorts his targets for the sake of polemic. But you trust the secondary without any feeling that the secondary would need testing to see whether it sufficiently stands. Shameful.

>>23485391
>if you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries
And you also never get a job, because it's not a real degree.

>>23500328
>dude but how can you wageslave with philosophy! education is about wage slave training.
>enlightenment? I'm too busy earning money for Mr. Goldberg.
Incidentally, I have a BA in philosophy and it landed me the easiest job I've ever had, which let me travel the world, and it funds me a two bedroom apartment with its own study room. So glad I never got bogged down in some industry or heaven forbid, a trade. If I took the basic troglodyte advice I always got, "learn a trade, study engineering!" I'd be stuck in some shit wageslave position with overtime, or working a trade without any of the opportunities I have now.

I've come to learn that's the problem with being a STEMcel. STEMcels believe because they possess paper qualifications with the same name of disciplines the great scientists of old created, they're one in the same kinds of people. A basic category and process error. Really, they're contributing to a colossal system of sham, an abyss for taxpayer dollars attracted by the namesake of technology, propped up by a phony financial system. "Oh, but people pay for it, it must be useful!" Wrong. Just look at the entertainment industry. Utility is not an economic motive, demand is.
No surprise, they learn midwit procedures that geniuses don't care about. That's the problem with being a STEMcel, no idea how to think outside the box for their career. Not the kind of thinking possible with them.

>>23500314
Popper's native language is Jewish, AKA lies.

>>23485391
Holy shit legendary thread

>>23485391
>Today is your daily reminder that if you do a philosophy degree, you mostly read secondaries.
Your sentence is inaccurate, it should read "you're a retard" after your comma.

Philosophy is for pseudo-intellectuals who think they're extremely profound, press any philosopher long enough and they'll admit they can't truly know anything for sure since everything's perceived by our senses and interpreted by our brains. It's just useless mental auto-fellatio and vanity, like those probability "mathematicians" who try to tell you that 1 out of 2 is akshually 33% or 66% because of some convoluted word problem they added to it.

>Not a single person in an undergraduate program
Who cares? You appeal to modern Marxist colleges as an authority? You're a joke.

>>23500360
>apartment
>but it has its own study room!!1!
lol@rentcucks.

bump

>>23489654
>Undergraduate admissions in the US are fucked. While baseline qualifications are necessary, you only get into top schools if you're either extremely rich or extremely lucky.
I guess having the correct tribal affiliations fits the luck category.

>>23501894
Jewish higher IQ and more academically inclined culture explains this.

>>23499873
>Lmao the above Anon must be right
Obvious samefaggotry.
>the only posts I made
Pic-related (>>23493203). You express midwit opinions and defend them autistically.


Tell your shrink about your 4chan behavior and let us know if she thinks it's healthy.

>>23502079
>Obvious samefaggotry.
That really isn't me, sorry. I myself was surprised someone was defending me so much.
>Pic-related
Oh yeah that is me but your description didn't ring a bell because of you describing it as an IQ prep thread. That's a random WAIS IV image I got off Google without really looking at it. But even still, I don't know why you would assume from how it's being used in that thread that I preped; I wasn't aware IQ prep was a thing honestly, sory of defeats the purpose of the test. I also don't know why you think it's seethe, it's just amusement at how statistically unlikely it is you're all Triple Nine Society members. Sounds like you're projecting how you feel there, Anon.
>Tell your shrink about your 4chan behavior and let us know if she thinks it's healthy.
I don't have one but if I did, what would I even say? "I BTFOd a few people so hard in an argument that they started fixating on calling me autistic and a midwit" (both of which my shrink would know are false, making you look funny)? Like notice that you responded neither to >>23499084 nor >>23499873. For the former you said it's because "it's becoming obvious this is just OP samefagging." Even if that were true I don't see the connection, why would it matter for that argument if I'm pretending to be someone else? I think you realized you have no response and chickened out by shifting to personal attacks, same with your response to my post. It's all you know really.

>>23502192
>writes an essay with the authorial voice of a homeschooler
>"i totally btfoed anons by making a thread about a month old argument i'm totally not still seething about"
>"not autistic btw"

>>23502192
>That really isn't me, sorry.
No one believes you, retard. You made it too obvious.
>Oh yeah that is me but your description didn't ring a bell because of you describing it as an IQ prep thread
LOL! Yeah, anon. A thread where you posted the book you used to prep for your IQ test (in which you still received a score within midwit) because you were seething about being BTFO'd ITT totally slipped your mind.

Dude, if you're intentionally being this retarded and embarrassing congratulations. If not, holy shit. You're honestly the most pathetic and unself-aware person I've ever come across.
>>23502249
>homeschooler
Imagine the bullying if this guy's parents didn't have the foresight to take him out of public education. It's almost enough to make you feel bad for him but then you realize it's his own fault for stubbornly denying the reality the social cues around him present.

>>23502340
>totally slipped your mind.
Yeah it was a throwaway shitpost thread that got deleted by a mod. Not all of us center our life on 4chin.
>but then you realize it's his own fault for stubbornly denying the reality the social cues around him present.
I'm not the one imagining evidence for false conclusions, like that the other Anon is me or that I got homeschooled. Or that I preped for an IQ test. Or diagnosing me with the entire DSM, lol. It just makes you look funny in a sad, deranged way, honestly.
Other Anon, if you see this before the thread goes archived I wish you luck with these chumps, assuming you choose to engage them. I'm way too busy for this, I probably won't be coming back to this thread as amusing as it can be; people like this are total timesinks.

>>23502480
>gets made fun of for creating another seethe thread and samefagging
>links posts he made the day before (kek) and replies to his own samefag posts that he wasn't posting (kek)
>archive evidence is posted
>"I JUST FORGOT ABOUT IT!"
Omg you're an embaressment, lol.

>>23501894
In that case, it's not about winning the lottery, it's about being rich and well connected so you can game the system.

>>23500535
>they'll admit they can't truly know anything for sure since everything's perceived by our senses and interpreted by our brains
>modern Marxist colleges
Holy fuck, you don't even know what you're talking about. Marxists are a small fraction of academic philosophers.
Almost no philosophers give the trite stoner line of "we can't really no, maaan." The whole point of questioning "how do you know?" is to see if one has a coherent worldview with rational justifications, even of basic things we take for granted, and to question the basic assumptions our own society feeds us.
You have no idea what philosophy even entails, but feel entitled to make grand and sweeping insights. Literally, that's what a pseud is. An ignoramus who pretends to have special thoughts.

>>23485391
Reminder actual scientists nowadays read nothing and just poop out paperslop entirely created by ChatGPT.

>>23502192
>Oh yeah that is me
Holy shit so you were lying the whole fucking time even when others correctly pointed out that that was you? What motivates you to do this? You are so transparent I swear.

>how statistically unlikely it is you're all Triple Nine Society members
That line of reasoning doesn't work here. This place is a hang out for a fair number of people with high IQs, because it offers an avenue of conversation that it's very difficult to get anything like elsewhere, and so naturally attracts such people who recognize this. Like, I'm the guy on that other thread claiming to have a 140 verbal IQ, and while making the comment I suspected you were the same anon given the subject matter and manner of posting.

You don't seem to get how unusual your posting style and manner of dealing with things is and how obviously you stand out to people here. Relative to others here, you're no where near as smart as you seem to think you are, and you are clearly having issues perceiving this, if you aren't just an outright troll.

>>23500535
>like those probability "mathematicians" who try to tell you that 1 out of 2 is akshually 33% or 66%
Wait, are we doing Monty Hall now?
>verification not required

>>23485391
Actually, this thread was a reminder that Philo students are useless pseuds.

>>23503223
>Actually
Newfag.

This mentions his A System of Logic as being very important, but why the full text impossible to find in any published books, even excerpts are excluded from most of them?

>>23503217
Every good prisoner knows you can't trust a warden, death sentence > life sentence, and nothing matters until you get past the fence.

>>23492655
This is a serious problem in today's world. People think you should 'do what you love' instead of actually being productive members of society.

>>23504350
>Its bad if you aren’t a good wage golem like me. My boss’s boss’s boss’s boss needs a new private jet this year and we all need to do our part to contribute to it!
If you think the only thing which contributes to society is being as good of a drone you can be, then you should reevaluate what the ‘serious problem with today’s world’ really is

>>23504362
It's not about being a drone; it's about being productive. Work is usually difficult and unrewarding. Very few actually get to make a living doing what they enjoy. Normal people do not, and a teaching that tells the common man his life is wrongly lived is foolish.

>>23502046
False flag post trying to make Jewish apologists look retarded by being incapable of reading a chart.

>>23502850
There are still more non-Jewish whites than Jews that are rich and have some networking, yet they integrate ivy league at a lower rate than negroes, probably due to the riches and high society connection characteristic of this latter population.

>>23502046
>Jewish higher IQ and more academically inclined culture explains this.
If that were true, the Asian bar would be through the roof compared to Jews.

>>23504803
>>23504482
The bar is relative to all high ability students. Any group with a higher than average IQ distribution will be very much overrepresented at high IQ cut offs. This is incredibly basic. All the chart is saying is that jews have higher IQs than average.

>>23505375
>Any group with a higher than average IQ distribution will be very much overrepresented at high IQ cut offs
Yes, but, if that were the reason, then Jewish and Asian overrepresentation would be close to equal, not many multiples favoring Jews.

>>23505375
>The bar is relative to all high ability students.
The iq is already factored in by belonging to high ability students as defined here, which is already far enough to bypass any such argument. There is no magical cutoff of 130 or 140 beyond which peopel are magically all Jewish. Non-Jewish whites remain the overwhelming majority even then, and those measures are irrelevant beyond this point (unless you think Lagan is the greatest philosopher to ever live). It's also factored in other ways in the source:
>https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/AmericanMeritocracy.pdf
Most damning is the evolution over time which precludes any such arguments:
>while non-Jewish whites were left as the most under-represented student population, with relative numbers below those of blacks or Hispanics. Since then Jewish academic achievement has seemingly collapsed but relative Jewish enrollment in the Ivies has generally risen, while the exact opposite combination has occurred for both Asians and non-Jewish whites. I find this a strange and unexpected development.
>We are therefore faced with the clear conundrum that Jewish students seem to constitute roughly 6 percent of America’s highest-ability high school graduates and non-Jewish whites around 65–70 percent, but these relative ratios differ by perhaps 1000 percent from the enrollments we actually find at Harvard and the other academic institutions which select America’s future elites. Meanwhile, an ethnic distribution much closer to this apparent ability-ratio is found at Caltech, whose admissions are purely meritocratic, unlike the completely opaque, subjective, and discretionary Ivy League system so effectively described by Karabel, Golden, and others.
>One datapoint strengthening this suspicion of admissions bias has been the plunge in the number of Harvard’s entering National Merit Scholars, a particularly select ability group, which dropped by almost 40 percent between 2002 and 2011, falling from 396 to 248. This exact period saw a collapse in Jewish academic achievement combined with a sharp rise in Jewish Harvard admissions

You can't say 'the border is porus' without saying the trip is short or someone has made mistake.

Lol, what a thread. You're a "special" one, OP.

>>23503384
I think these have the full text, but I could be wrong.