/lit/ - Literature

>applicable to everyday life
I sense some potential in this thread - but I have to ask: are you being serious? Most of all it was the comment on Nietzsche being a waste of time that planted the seed of doubt in my mind that this is just another one of "those threads".

>>2690761
Yeah, I'm being serious. I said that I think reading Nietzsche would be a waste of time if I end up getting nothing out of it.

Honestly, there isn't very much in continental philosophy if you're a practical man with practical concerns. This stuff is much more for people who are paralyzed by the endgame of life, or by the "ultimate motivations for doing anything."

There's another thread on the front page of /lit/ about this guy who can't do his homework within the "oppressive frame of academia" but is quite happy to read books outside of school.

Continental philosophy is for people like him. You would probably get nothing meaningful from it if you ground yourself in reality and pragmatically accept society and choose to live within it and play by its rules, at least outwardly. However, it's still fun to read the bullshit and laugh at how intellectually paralyzed some people can become.

>values his time
>goes on 4chan

>>2690775
I wouldn't describe myself as a "practical man with practical concerns", and existential questions occupy a great deal of my thoughts. But I've always been skeptical that other people can provide acceptable answers to these sort of questions.

>doing any kind of philosophy
>2012

>>2690797

>>>/sci/
>>>/b/
>>>/hm/

You will gain insights about humanity and our context/historicity by reading the thoughts of those brilliant men whose influence advanced culture and thought toward (or against) what it is today.

>>2690746
Nietzsche will make you think, he doesn't provide solid answers to anything. His philosophy is more of an expression of him as a person than something systematic. Which is great, because people in need of systems lack integrity themselves.

That said, I have never spoken to anyone who has read Nietzsche without getting anything out of it. I don't even think it's possible. The very idea that reading Nietzsche could be a waste of time is pretty much unheard of. It astounds me. I'd say the burden of proof is on you in this case.

>>2690773
Well then I'd have to say that Nietzsche's highly applicable to life as well as an interesting read. What's different in him is the fact that his ideas ultimately stem for Heraclitus, whereas the ideas of every other philosopher prior to him, who anyone gives a fuck about, stem ultimately from Parmenides.
Parmenides was the faggot who believed that all change is illusion and the guy who so influenced the raging thundercunt that is Plato, and Heraclitus was the guy who couldn't step into the same river twice. So there's why Parmenides doesn't have any use outside of Plato's cave of circlejerking and why Heraclitus does.
Nietzsche then ellaborated on all this and also came up with a dichotomy of things that are life-empowering and things that are life-hampering - instead of bullshit universal, categorical and useless truths, goods, and wrongs. A system of values that actually makes sense and makes you not a complete idiot to be around.

I'd also suggest Heidegger who also completely disregarded most if not all philosophy before him to focus on the human condition and the human condition only - with a good focus on angst and worry.

>poeple worshipping nietzxhe

he was a fucking nazi guys. youre all retards

>>2690868

0/10 that was le heidegger

>>2690819
>Bro, I've completely misunderstood every philosophy I've ever read, and here are my opinions

>>2690883

No, he's pretty spot on actually.

>>2690883
Forgot this board was for twelve-year-olds and that I needed to preface everything with "in my humblest although sincere opinion". Thank you for contributing negatively to this board. Oh and I'm right and you obviously know it.
5/10 making me reply, well that's your opinion, well I don't care etc.

Here's a question: If Habermas was equally influenced by pragmatists (Dewey, Dilthey, Mead, and James) and by his Frankfurt forebears (especially Adorno), is he a "Continental?"

>>2690897
Don't people call him a Marxist though?

>>2690897

Yes

>>2690910

Meh, he's quasi-Marxist in books like "Legitimation Crisis." But his theory of Communicative Reason is too optimistic in the sense that it considers humans as primarily rational, which I just can't agree with. And it is far more rooted in Dewey than Adorno.

Actually, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are paragons of clarity compared to later "continental" philosophers. Not that I would particularly recommend them either.

If you are interested in elucidation, stick to the analytical tradition stretching from Thales to Descartes to Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine et al.

Definitely AVOID bullshit artists like Heidegger, Sartre, Gadamer, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, Foucault, Levinas, Derrida, et. al. They conflate obfuscation with depth.

>>2690930

Wittgenstein is remarkably similar to Heidegger and equally as difficult because he was literally obscurant who refused to make his points clearly.

Most analytics misread him.

>>2690930
I agree with everything you said except for your comment on Wittgenstein. Because to be frank, he's really difficult to understand 90% of the time.

>>2690936
Not Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. His later work can get a little foggy, sure. But there are still insights to be mined.

>>2690930
>Heidegger
>bullshit artist

http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/02/10/science-proves-heidegger-partially-correct/

The historical aspect and impact of contiental philosophy for me is interesting enough to be worthwhile to read and study. Many ideas that effect our society, and our society historically, has been influenced by contiental philosophy. But that being said, I personally feel that it hasn't really effected my everyday life.

ITT butthurt analyticals with small vocabularies and attention-deficit inabilities to follow syntax more complex than simple single clause declarative sentences.

>>2690945
I get where you are coming from, especially regarding the later Wittgenstein.

And of course, the Tractatus is not exactly beach reading. It is easy for someone today to take for granted its ideas and not grasp the immense impact it had on the development of logic and the philosophy of language. The concept of "truth tables" for example. That was all groundbreaking shit at the time.

BTW, I recommend Max Black's "A companion to Wittgenstein's Tractatus" which decodes the book line by line and fleshes out the ideas in a more digestible form.

Also, read all of key Frege papers beforehand so you know the context.

>>2690960
The Emperor has no clothes, Corky. Sorry you were taken in.

>>2690984

How do you know?

>doesn't understand continental theory
>somehow to them this means they are smarter when it is so obviously the opposite
>will never get over this delusion

>>2690893
>>2690896
The whole "Parmenides vs Heraclitus" thing is a great way to make complex ideas seem super simple. It still only leads to dunces mistakenly believing they've actually understood something. Also, while you've seen a kind of family resemblance to Parmenides from Plato, the allegory of the cave isn't in opposition to Heraclitus at all (and even with your understanding of it I can't see how you think it is). Finally, Nietzsche and Heidegger mostly look at post-Socratic philosophy. A very large part of Heidegger's work is dedicated to Aristotle, and both took Plato's philosophy very much to heart (Heidegger with the idea of philosopher king, and Plato is like the Idee Fixé of Nietzsche's TSZ).

>>2690984

false generalizations, errywhere. Just because I think Adorno was the most thorough, rigorous philosopher of the 20th century does not mean I think all Continentals are worthwhile.

>>2691007
If you thought Adorno was baller, you'll love Walter Benjamin.

>>2691011

I'm well-versed in Benjamin, thanks.

>>2690950
>>2690979


Wittgenstein gets easier to understand as he progresses. PI at the very least says everything it intends to. It's essentially phenomenology with a few self contained argued points which can be taken at face value. The Tractatus is infinitely more complicated.

The Tractatus refutes traditional philosophy by elucidating the link established (or implied) by earlier philosophers between logic and language and then shows that language cannot ground philosophy as such, but suggests no improvement on the grounds that philosophy is valuable only insofar as it is made valuable. He advocates an eminent humanistic (and possibly solipsistic) conception of value and a quietism which is formulated only to please his desire to stop philosophizing. None of this is stated in the book. Only some of this is shown in the book. One needs to read his private notes and biography to even begin to understand what he meant by the Tractatus.

Few commentators focus on his ethics and aesthetics which is the central subject of the Tractatus.

Wait... since when was analytic philosophy more practical than continental philosophy? I got FAR more knowledge about how I could live my life from reading Nietzsche, Deleuze, Foucault, etc., than from reading fucking Saul Kripke and all that shit about possible worlds or from Donald Davidson's principle of charity.
Yes, I am definitely one of the ones who hasn't read that much analytic philosophy, but from the admittedly small amount of it that I've read I do not see how it is applicable outside of an academic setting. Nietzsche is, for me, the philosopher who will be a wellspring of ideas for both specialists and lay-persons hundreds of years from now, not someone like Kripke or Quine or whomever... Wittgenstein is a different story

>So please, convince me that there's something worthwhile in continental philosophy. What novel ideas, applicable to everyday life, has come from it?

There is none or not much. Try reading something like Continental Philosophy, a very short introduction.

Or better yet, just stay away from people who spout nonsense. Unfortunately, this makes it rather difficult to speak with humanities people. U can draw ur own conclusions about the state of humanities from that information...

>>2691047
If you want advice on "how to live your life", go to the Self-Help section.

Philosophy is an inquiry into the fundamental nature of the world - not a fancier version of "Chicken Soup for the Soul".

>>2691047
>than from reading fucking Saul Kripke and all that shit about possible worlds or from Donald Davidson's principle of charity.

U chose an example poor example. Principle of charity is very important for being rational when talking with other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Not all analytic filosofy is useful in any everyday sense, in fact most of it isn't. This is true for both continental and analytic. What isn't the same is that continental is mostly nonsense while analytic is mostly sense, even if it is rather useless for everyday life purposes.

>>2691063
>U chose an example poor example.

>U chose an extremely poor example.

fix'd

>>2691059
wow, i wish i could sticky this post to /lit/, it would solve so many arguments on this board before they begin

>>2691068
Such a shame it's bullshit.

>>2691059
>disregarding ethics as being part of philosophy
>not regarding it as the most important part of it

Don't do that. Let the scientist figure out how life works and let philosophers work out how to deal with it.

Adorno's "the Authoritarian Personality" is an excellent handbook on how to avoid being a dickhead, from which some analytics could benefit.

>>2691063
Continental isn't nonsense, it just deals with different questions and problems. Like analytical philosophers they tend to generate an esoteric vocabulary. If you were to familiarize yourself with the tradition, Derrida wouldn't be unintelligible.

>>2691077
The point is, reading a bunching of vapid mewling horseshit is never the answer.

If you are genuinely interested in Ethics, read Derek Parfit's "Reasons and Persons".

>>2691087
Read up on the Sokal Affair for a counterexample to that idea.

>>2691073
I don't understand, you mean you think the post is good or bad?

Maybe "enquiry into the fundamental nature of the world" is an overstatement, but a lot of people on /lit/ make threads that are more or less, "I want a philosopher to read so I can develop a personal politics to quiet my identity crisis as a young adult. Name your favorite philosophers, /lit/."

this is barking up the wrong tree, wouldn't you agree?

>>2691078
But high-RWA people are the only people worth knowing. Unless you enjoy bad company.

>>2691099
All halfway decent philosophers and scientists distance themselves from that shit.

>>2691099
I'm familiar with the Sokal affair. It doesn't constitute a refutation of continental philosophy. That's like saying an anecdote disproves a theory.

I realize that continental philosophy isn't a "scientific theory", but the same principle applies here. If anything the Sokal affair is a commentary on academic publishing rather than philosophy in general.

>>2691087
>Continental isn't nonsense, it just deals with different questions and problems. Like analytical philosophers they tend to generate an esoteric vocabulary. If you were to familiarize yourself with the tradition, Derrida wouldn't be unintelligible.

It's generally nonsense or deliberately obscurantist. In neither case is it worth reading.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824-postmodernism-disrobed

^ that is the kind of nonsense that kind of thinking produces. Ofc, this is why it is often paired with pseudoscience fields or fields with large amounts of bad science, for instance, psychoanalysis and sociology, respectively.

The works of continental writers like Derrida simply do not meet accepted standards of clarity and rigor.

To call such scribblings "philosophy" is a grave error and an insult to real philosophy.

>>2691119
>I'm familiar with the Sokal affair. It doesn't constitute a refutation of continental philosophy. That's like saying an anecdote disproves a theory.
And right here we have the difference between science and continental philosophy. In science, a single incidence is exactly enough to disprove a theory.

But then continental philosophy is a tradition entrenched in white, upper class male leisure time, so naturally it's just too complicated for anyone outside of their white, upper class male party to refute ever.

>>2691124

>>>accepted standards of clarity and rigor.

Which are what, exactly?

>>2691125

> In science, a single incidence is exactly enough to disprove a theory.

Hm, can you name an instance of this? I hate continental philosophy, but you're obviously not a scientist if you think this.

>Trying to find applications in NEET CHA to support your last man society.
>WHY NO PRACTICALITY?

YER DOIN IT WRONG

>>2691142
>Gravity is described by equation x
>Except here's a recorded instance of gravity not behaving as described by equation x
>After verifying that there is no mechanical or human failure, we revise our description of gravity to equation y

>>2691133
Enroll in a mathematical logic class if you are curious.

>>2691125
jesus christ, "continental philosophy" is not a theory and it doesn't make predictions. it's a vague umbrella term for everyone who doesn't write like bertrand russell.

>>2691156

You said a single instance you drooling moron.

>>2691183
If that single instance is shown to be free of any human or machine error, it is good enough to disprove anything. Go choke on a chainsaw if all you have to offer is more pejoratives, ok?

If one examines capitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject neotextual materialism or conclude that society has objective value. If dialectic desituationism holds, we have to choose between Habermasian discourse and the subtextual paradigm of context. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a textual nationalism that includes truth as a reality. In a sense, the premise of the subtextual paradigm of context states that reality comes from the collective unconscious.

if you can't find ideas in foucault applicable to everyday life please eat an actual dick irl

>>2691198
>implying any of foucault applies to life, real or otherwise

>>2691166
Right. It is unfortunate that many of the people that criticize continental filosofy, and filosofy in general, do not understand science or filosofy in general.

Science does not work just by 'strict falsification' as 2691156 seems to think.

>>2691198
Interesting suggestion, given that Foucault ate a lot of actual dicks IRL.

To the point of dying of G.R.I.D.S., in fact.

So sad.

>>2691122

That Dawkins article reads like a bunch of childish back slapping.

Sokal has a history of some really ill-founded and badly conceived attacks against any form of philosophy that he considered too "subjective" or "post-modern" that seemed more grounded in a war of personalities than any actual philosophy.

existentialism may avoid a midlife crisis
but I wouldnt know Im not 40 yet

>>2691208

read discipline and punish, dude

>>2691198
>implying foucault didn't eat actual dicks

He was gay, you see.

>>2691222
>>2691232

is this some kind of new humor i don't get where you point out the obvious joke like the poster didn't do it intentionally?

>>2691208

>implying power/knowledge doesn't exist

>>2691256
Homo says what?

>>2691228
>That Dawkins article reads like a bunch of childish back slapping.

Always evading the issue. I don't give a fuck about what u think the article 'reads like' or the 'style' or 'tone'. Just consider the content, the reasoning, the evidence.

If you want utility and application to everyday life, you don't generally ask what truth, reality, morality and conscious experience consists of. That is continental philosophy.

If you want philosophy that's concerned with everyday life, go to science and psychology, philosophy's children. They are natural philosophy through empiricism with preconceived goals and an arbitrary (but sturdy) base: hedonism, improved standard of living for individuals or groups, the pursuit and categorization of knowledge of nature because it's fun, etc. No inconvenient questions about what matter and substance "really is," or about how an interface between reality and subjectivity is possible, what truth is, what knowledge is, etc. You assume by fiat that the thing in perception is the thing-in-itself, you assume that we share a similar intersubjectivity, you assume that causation is a fundamental precept of reality, that matter "just is," that there is no point in discussions of reality outside empirical observation of our perceivable surroundings, etc.

Philosophy is what takes over when a small handful of people aren't satisfied by the answer "physics is a set of fiat rules, reality exists and persists because it does, and quantum particles pop into existence randomly in void because they do" when asked what the most fundamental Form of reality is. If you aren't satisfied by "nothing came before the Big Bang because there was no spacetime", if that seems to fundamentally miss the point of the question, then you turn to philosophy. If you want to know why or what you "should" do, and aren't content just following instinct and established mores, you turn to philosophy. Of course, this has virtually no application to modern everyday living whatsoever.

>>2691232
>implying OP didn't eat actual dicks

He was gay, you see.

>>2691853
There is a typo in your post. The first line says "That is continental philosophy". It should just say "That is philosophy."

>>2691853
Best post on 4chan I've seen in a long time.

>>2691853

>Of course, this has virtually no application to modern everyday living whatsoever.

But how to live your life is what Philosophy is all about

and political philosophy is still alive and kicking

>>2691853

> If you aren't satisfied by "nothing came before the Big Bang because there was no spacetime", if that seems to fundamentally miss the point of the question, then you turn to philosophy.

I was agreeing with you till this point. What reality was before the Big Bang is a question science can answer much better than philosophy.

>>2691920
Philosophy has nothing to do with "how you should live your life", you egregious moron.

>>2692051
If you've read so much philosophy that you can into it enough to make that statement, but haven't once taken anything from it and let it affect how you act or even just used it to reflect on your life, then congratulations: you've achieved the impossible.

>>2691862
Well, according to him homosexuality is a discursive construction. Not sure whether that includes his AIDS, though...

ITT: We debate language reform guy's decision to use a tripcode

I personally think it was the worst decision of his entire post history here on /lit/. Like, the guy has nothing going for him beyond this shitty novelty gimmick of typing like a handicap (which he couldn't stick at full blast anyway), and here he is posting the same generic garbage responses anyone else could have wrote up, and already has, about why continental philosophy is shit and derrida is a poseur fag etc etc. So of course all that adopting a tripcode is going to do for this guy is highlight more obviously how shitty and vapid his posts are.

Bringing it back on-topic: which people make better posts, analytics or continentals.

>>2692372

>>2692375
How's it going

>>2692377
>D&E
>2012
ISHYGDDT

Just entering into this (fairly interesting) thread: I'd like to say that from the historian's perspective, Foucault is pretty much essential reading on undergraduate reading lists around the world, for good reason.

Aside from his subject-specific studies (d&p, m&m etc), his train of thought on genealogy, power/knowledge and the institution have pretty much shaped how many humanities subjects are studied. You have to give the gaylord credit for that.

BUT, that being said, reading Foucault, or any continental philosopher for 'self-help', or to find a system that one can identify with, is the road to mental onarism.

>>2692383
*onanism

If you want something out of everyday life, I'd say Kierkegaard.
The concept of the golden mean should give you something (that's Aristotle).
Perhaps you could just start thinking for yourself, if you are able.

>>2692409

>>2692383
Foucault is valued as a historian mainly by people who are not historians. The entire idea of monolithic epistemes following one after another rather than any actual development does not explain any actual historical chain of events. For him everything was invented in post-Enlightenment France, but that is not the case. enjoy your sweeping generalizations and useless 'method'.

>>2692372
Why people don't just anonymize everyone using 4chan X is beyond me. What you're doing is feeding into the trend and giving them exactly what they want, which is attention, and you're helping turn 4chan into the tripfags' own little Facebook wall.

>>2692414
>Haha, I don't know why this guy is bad, but someone posted a nonsensical chart that I found kind of funny!
Stop listening to Russel you fuck.

>>2692421
Keep talking out your arse, budd.

>>2692424
>>2692414

But this chart IS absolute shit. Kierkegaard is valuable in terms of defining different types of human emotion and their causes.
Some of his conclusions are definetely down below the x-axis, but some of his observations are above the limit.
You are one of the people who believed it would make sense to explain Beethoven's 9th scientifically.

>>2692420
>Why people don't just anonymize everyone using 4chan X is beyond me
I guess you must be a bit of a simpleton then, because I, and most people like myself, don't want to visit an imageboard community where I'm not able to know who actually knows what they're talking about and who's just being a passive-aggressive asshole and shitposting because he's bored.

>>2692414
I'd prefer kierky over ipods.

Also, science is simply the valedictory arm of philosophy. Ipods are not science.

>>2692414

>>2692414
I'd prefer kierky over ipods.

Also, science is simply the valedatory* arm of philosophy. Ipods are not science.

>>2692439

>>2692453

>Why people don't just anonymize everyone using 4chan X is beyond me
I guess you must be a bit of a simpleton then, because I, and most people like myself, don't want to visit an imageboard community where I'm not able to know who actually knows what they're talking about and who's just being a passive-aggressive asshole and shitposting because he's bored.

>>2692439

Is that because you are not able to tell the difference just from reading the post?

No, really, I breathlessly await your explanation.

>>2692503
There is no effective way to be able to tell the difference just from reading the post. Prove me wrong.

>>2692508
You just read the post. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Is it funny? Is it trying to be funny? Who it's by is irrelevant mr phony D&E.

>>2692523
>You just read the post.
What post? Who's responding to me?

>>2692523
>Who it's by is irrelevant
In this case, btw, it actually is, because your post is entirely worthless and therefore incapable of being judged. But if we were having a discussion of real substance and I were to ask whether ASOIAF was a good series of books or not, then it would be of paramount importance that I knew what person it was that was giving me their opinion on that matter.

>>2690746
Why are mentioning Nietzsche as an example of continental psilosophy? There are far more better thinkers,,,

>>2692500
So you want posts to be judged on who wrote it and not on its content. Different strokes, I guess. Though okay, I can see why you'd not want everyone to be anonymous. You're looking for a "community". A place where you can feel you belong, where people know you and you know them. I'd recommend reddit for you, but you seem a little bit too fond of cuss words and "fuck you simpleton asshole shit"-type of arguments for them to really appreciate you. Although you could try it out, then come back here when you're ready to "get constructive".
Looking forward to your return, friend.

>>2692638
>So you want posts to be judged on who wrote it and not on its content
There isn't any difference. You don't demonstrate the quality of a post solely by appeal to its content, which would simply be to take a post in a contextless environment.

>A place where you can feel you belong, where people know you and you know them
No, that's not what I'm looking for.

>I'd recommend reddit for you
No, 4chan is fine

>>2692638
>you seem a little bit too fond of cuss words and "fuck you simpleton asshole shit"-type of arguments
only in relation to simpleton asshole shit types of individuals