/lit/ - Literature

science will always be too blunt of an instrument to dissect the human mind

Why do people continue to make philosophy after him?

It is clear that things should have moved on to trolling.

What does philosophy have to do with President Van Buren?

>>2384642
you answered it yourself, OP.
because we keep asking why.

>>2384650

I regard being blunt and to the point to be a virtue.

>>2384659
How can you be blunt and with a point?

>>2384659

>blunt and to the point

contradiction in terms, sport

>>2384661
>>2384663

Somebody jab these two in the ribs with a billy club.

>>2384705

as usual the scientific community falls back upon its ultimate recourse, violence

yawwwwwwwwn

>>2384705
See? Jab, never stab.

>>2384663
Ah, but can a point not be blunted?

>>2384709
Not violence. Illustration.

>>2384730

rhetorical violence has time and time again proven the precursor to physical violence, you need to bone up on your 20th century history

>>2384717

i smoke two points in the afternoon and then i feel alright

>>2384711
I don't understand why you think that supports your false dichotomy.

Stab is not the only thing you can do with points.

>>2384738
But stabbing can only be done with a point. A jab is with a blunt object, like the blunt end of a pencil, a finger, or a fist.

Completely agree with OP.

I love philosophy, I really do, I've read more philosophy books than any other kind, of that I am sure.

Anything that even smells partially modern (in terms of era not label, as I'm fully aware modern philosophy is accepted as beginning as early as the 1700's), is absolute and utter bullshit, or rehashing of old ideas. You can legitimately read "the greats" - Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Aquinas - bla bla bla you get the caliber of works I'm talking about. Completely ignore the modern works and nothing of value was lost.

Everyone from the 1900's onwards, apart from Bertrand Russel and Jean-Paul Sartre are fucking irrelevant and useless. Furthermore, half of them from the 1800's are the same - like Wittgenstein for example, I'd like to dig him up, resurrect him, just so I can punch him in the fucking cock.

/thread.

>>2384736

You make a physical argument. Naturally, what must follow is a physical experiment.

>>2384742
"The blunt end" of all those things is a point.

>jab v
to poke, or thrust abruptly or sharply, as with the end or point of a stick.
>jab n
a poke with the end or point of something; a sharp, quick thrust
Random House Dictionary

You are misunderstanding a word to only the reduced aspect you want. You can poke somebody with a blunt object.

>>2384766

This motherfucker better watch out for...

>>2384749

Coz your cock and bullshit wordplay is sounding awfully like Wittgenstein.

>>2384766
>to poke, or thrust abruptly or sharply/
So how can something be pointed and blunt again

>>2384749
>thinks Wittgenstein is irrelevant
>has the nerve to try and /thread

Yet he still managed to suffer from sexism.

>>2384749
>apart from Bertrand Russel

He was pretty low tier. He didn't understand the point of philosophy and completely wanted everyone to disregard metaphysics because it went over his head.

That said, modern philosophy dealt more so with the repercussions of ideas in the modern age. An example would be the Frankfurt School.

This is the only thing I dislike about discussing philosophy - arguing over semantics.

If you legitimately need a definition to understand a term in it's correct form of usage in a complex argument, that is understandable.

But if you just want to derail a discussion based on bullshit literal technicalities... why discuss the point in the first place other then to elevate your pretentious ass to "that annoying faggot I want to put in a choke hold."

You're obviously intelligent enough to take part in a philosophical debate, and note technical problems... so one would gather you therefore have the ability to piece the vast majority of the information together without having to be baby stepped through every fucking term and punctuation mark made.

People like YOU destroy great deep philosophical debates and discussions, in fact I smacked a guy in the face at a party from my college lecture back when I was a senior for being "that douchebag" in the classroom and pretended it was an accident he pissed me off so bad with his incessant whining.

>>2384769
I didn't start the wordplay buddy. It started with
>I regard being blunt and to the point to be a virtue.
>How can you be blunt and with a point?

I'm just illustrating the concept. This surprisingly difficult concept is, (to be blunt and to the point) a poke. A prodding. Y'all are the Wittgensteins trying to to turn a witty malapropism into a rhetorical send-off to some anon.

>>2384790
A poke isn't blunt and to the point.

>>2384772
Because you can abruptly thrust a blunt object at someone.

>>2384794

You are achieving nothing, sorry to have to tell you.

>>2384783
Word.

>>2384794

Obviously you have never been poked in the ribs.

>>2384797
You're conflating "sharp" and "abrupt". Either you consider in your meaning of "abrupt" the same meaning of "sharp" then you are using a "point", or you consider them to be different, then it may be "blunt", but not a "point", but an "end".

>>2384814
"Thrust sharply" has the same meaning as "thrust abruptly." Those are equivalent adverbs describing the action of the thrust (meaning "quick" with the sense of "forcefully"). They are not limited by the thrusting object.

I can thrust abruptly or thrust sharply with anything capable of thrusting. Like my penis. However, my penis is not a "sharp object." It is rather malleable, in fact, and upon impact with a firm surface becomes quite blunted.

>>2384835
>I can thrust abruptly or thrust sharply with anything capable of thrusting. Like my penis. However, my penis is not a "sharp object." It is rather malleable, in fact, and upon impact with a firm surface becomes quite blunted.
>It is rather malleable
No one needs to know about your inability to get it up.

Anyway, you're confused about what is metaphor and what isn't. Also about the meaning of sharp, since you can have something malleable and sharp. Firstly, what is sharp and what is blunt is relative. I may consider something blunt that you consider sharp, they aren't inherent properties though we think of them as such (this is the confusion of the poking in the rib posts, the object is not inherently blunt). Secondly, all language is metaphor, and one can at least not mix their metaphors. In this sense something can be sharp and blunt like something can be high and low at the same time.

>>2384880
There is no person in the history of the world that would consider a fingertip to be a sharp object.

>one can at least not mix their metaphors
I prefer to take arms against a sea of troubles.

>>2384931
>I prefer to take arms against a sea of troubles.
And by resisting end them?

>>2384749
>mfw Wittgenstein is some far out shit, yo.