/lit/ - Literature

Nice philosophic statement

What a terrible philosophy you have OP, you didn't define any of those words.

PS: philosophy defines its concepts all the time, you just didn't have the trouble to know this

>>3280396
>philosophy defines its concepts all the time

[citation required]

>>3280409
>in philosophy we dicuss our incoherent ideas about concepts we can't define
[citation needed]

>>3280409

Go to bed, Mr. professional philosopher.

how do i know that what i know as the color red doesn't look blue to someone else? and how are we supposed to ever find out? if i say, "well, it looks similar in color to an apple," it wouldn't do anything because in their eyes apples are what i know as blue.

you know what i mean?

>>3280420
Do not confuse colors with the name of the colors. The issue is not with the colors, but with language.

Do you think what you think you think, OP?

>>3280420

I was asking myself this very question when I was in 3rd grade. Move on.

>>3280385

Of course philosophy deals with things we have trouble defining, that is its whole purpose. As for philosophical concepts being incoherent...that just makes me think you're too stupid to understand them. Unless you can give me a couple of examples. Which you can't, and won't.

tl;dr OP is an idiot.

>>3280385
this is the case for most phil.fac. students I know.

solution: study history or engineering like myself

>>3280434

Because history is totally objective.

that's why you go out and read the actual books instead of just the wiki summaries

>be angry at philosophy rather than underlying reality itself

>>3280432
>As for philosophical concepts being incoherent...that just makes me think you're too stupid

"“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.” "- Kierkegaard, a philosopher.

>coherent
>philosophy

>>3280434
>solution: study history or engineering like myself

I'm leaning towards Engineering now, thanks for the support anon.

>>3280449

It's convoluted, but I can make sense of it. Metacognition leads to a sense of self. That wasn't that complicated.

>>3280449

You've just gotta have a brain.

>>3280479
>Metacognition leads to a sense of self

>doesn't realize that it's circular and mostly ironic

>>3280498

>thinks Keirkegaard was writing satire

Nope.

>>3280498
>>doesn't realize that it's circular and mostly ironic

This statement is less coherent than Kirkegaard's. Elaborate, if you dare.

>>3280509
definition of self is circular
its intent is satirical

2deep4u, don't bother

>>3280520

I'm pretty sure that he is talking about the awareness you have of your own thoughts, and then about the awareness you have of that awareness. He is saying that is where the real self lies. Perhaps I'm wrong, but by that interpretation there isn't any circular logic(I think circular logic is what you were referring to, it would be easier to tell if you were more articulate).

>>3280498
how is that circular?

>>3280539

It's not, he's just an idiot. Watch, now he's going to play it off as a troll.

>>3280520

i get the circular part. but how is the intent satirical?

>>3280543
>how is the intent satirical?

because Kierkegaard.

>>3280549

Is English a second language for you? Why can't you communicate with more than sentence fragments?

>>3280560

Alright, thanks for that completely arbitrary piece of information.

>>3280553
for[SIC] me English is the fourth language. But I'm not him so nvm.

>he is so mad

>>3280553
Wow, is that hard to understand? I never read Kierkegaard and I got what the anon meant.

>>3280565
>>3280542

I'm calm as fuck bro. $100 unrustled.

>>3280549

jesus christ, gimme a fucking break and explain your fucking concept or get the fuck out.

>>3280430
Did you find an answer or did you surrender?

>>3280579

He can't, he's a moron. We've been over this. Watch, now he's going to respond with another UMAD? variation.

People getting trolled left and right in this thread. Abort!

>>3280596

It's not all trolling, sometimes morons really do just get their shit slapped and then resort to a few desperate UMADs before closing the tab.

>>3280567

i guess commonplace generalisations aren't hard to grasp ...

>>3280570
>I'm calm as fuck bro, fuck
>>3280579
>jesus christ, gimme a fucking break and explain your fucking concept or get the fuck out.
>>3280583
>>3280584
>he's a moron.

>please explain the obvious to me

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

>>3280584

still, i'm just really curious. is there anything kiergegaard has to say about satire?

(i'm shocked by my own philosophy-assburger)

>>3280449
>"“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self...the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self

The definition of circular definition is this definition itself.

>>3280607

But it isn't a circular definition. He is saying that our metacognition, our ability to have a sense of self, and then to relate that sense of self to our physical self, and then to relate those things in convoluted ways while meanwhile relating all of those feelings back to ourselves is what makes you you and me me.

I mean, I don't totally understand it and it would take sitting down and studying that shit to really grasp all of the finer details, but I can gather enough to know that it isn't a tautology.

>>3280642
>our metacognition
> our physical self

He never uses those terms.
He never defines what he means by self.

He just uses synonyms like "self" and "itself" to say the self relates to the self.

>I mean, I don't totally understand it and it would take sitting down and studying

It's circular and satirical, don't bother.

>>3280654

>It's circular and satirical, don't bother.

You are circular and satirical, albeit not intentionally.

>>3280654

Are you aware that the quote you posted is just one out of context passage from an entire book?

>>3280609

Some people think K was satirizing Hegel. It's a bullshit theory, btw

>>3280685
>Are you aware that the quote you posted is just one out of context passage from an entire book?

A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation's relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation's relating itself to itself. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two. Considered in this way a human being is still not a self.... In the relation between two, the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation; thus under the qualification of the psychical the relation between the psychical and the physical is a relation. If, however, the relation relates itself to itself, this relation is the positive third, and this is the self....

I hope this clears it up for you.

>>3280697
>the relation is the third as a negative unity, and the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation;

>the two relate to the relation and in the relation to the relation;


lmfao, K was making fun of all those philosophers and theologians that built absurd "systems" to get to truth

>>3280697

Great, you posted a slightly longer quote. Just saying, reading the whole book might give you a little more insight, as opposed to just random quotes and writing the whole work off as satire because it seems absurd to you.

>>3280697
>But what is spirit? Spirit is the self.

ahahahah

please stop speaking out of your ass.

>>3280732

This stuff was written in the 1800's.

>>3280654

>He never uses those terms.

Because he wrote this shit in the 19th century and that term didn't exist. You really are a mouth breather, all kidding aside.