/lit/ - Literature

>>4374046

>I am looking for books that criticise/analyse philosophy and reveal that it is ultimately gibberish and a waste of time.

You want intellectuals to defend your intellectual insecurities? How ironic.

you can only criticiza philosophy with philosophy

>>4374046
If you want the ultimate meta-cynic, look no further than William James. He believed that all philosophy came from psychological mindset. In his decision to strip philosophy of its very dignity, he is the most skeptical philosopher who has ever lived. Even Nietzsche, in his infinite edginess, deigned it necessary to declare that, while all other truths were false, his was truly true. James admits that even his own philosophy is driven by a desire to shape his worldview to his subjective world, not by some inane "quest for truth"

Probably can find something along the lines of "philosophy is obsolete because of science".

You realize that in the past, when nothing was known of human psychology as a science, philosophy was the only thing we had other than religion to address a lot of really important issues. That's why people took it seriously even though it was confusing and nonsensical. It at least tried to take on some really difficult topics. Nowadays, not really.

stephen hawkins declared philosophy is dead at the start of a brief history.
in reality though those who are a contempoary critiques of philosophy just espouse post-modern philosophy i.e zizek

>>4374070
ahaha but then james loves Religious experience and creams over it as PROOF.
interesting story of him and his brother, both obviously experience something weird when they were young

OP is a moron.

being and time
the tractatus logico philosophicus
philosophical investigations

>>4374046
Rorty attacks a certain branche of philosophy, while, of course, propagating his own version.

You will never find a work that does away with the totality of philosophy. Would be an oxymoron or a performative contradiction or something of the sort.

u.g. krishnamurti

>>4374046
>careful thinking about stuff is ultimately gibberish and a waste of time

Atleast you wear your confirmation bias on your sleeve.

>>4374274

>krishnamurti

He might not have been so big on a systematized philosophical groundwork in his own personal writings but he still saw the power for self-governance that can be maintained by analytical reasoning through a philosophical approach to thinking as integral.

>>4374046
This is basically what analytic philosophy did using the language of formal logic attempting to harmonize philosophy with modern science.

Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy trash talks every major philosopher from the pre-Socratics up to his time, excepting of course the pure truth of analytic philosophy.

Good source if you want quick critiques of specific philosophers or ideas instead of all of philosophy, like its one thing.

>>4374073

lol

>>4374276

Holy shit, dat rekt.

>>4374046
>>4374046
>I am looking for books that criticise/analyse philosophy and reveal that it is ultimately gibberish and a waste of time. Basically, books that attack philosophy.

So basically you want to read more philosophy ?

You're not going to find it because no intelligent man believes philosophy is gibberish and a waste of time.

Read this, OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistinism

>>4375737

If you like that, you'll love this:
>Basically, books that attack logical consideration
>Some suggested Richard Rorty - I Am a Sophist Who Overestimates His Own Intelligence. Does this conform to my vague, jealousy-driven preconceptions? Your confirmation of my worldview, please.

>>4374046
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Glenn-Becks-Common-Sense--Control/dp/1439168571/

One cannot attack philosophy without a philosophic framework, a standard of value, to do it from. To get the closest to what you want just read nihilists or people that put down the foundation for nihilism (Kant). If you want to not take definitions of philosophy seriously, read Pragmatism writers. They hardly reject philosophy, but they do reject (to varying degrees) the possibility of principles or lasting real knowledge, so that's kind of close.

>>4375756
Poor Philistines! They weren't Philistines at all.

A philosophy can be attacked, philosophy cannot be attacked. At least not with a fucking book.

I don't get this idea that all philosophers are joining hands and walking towards a common goal. They are wandering around, going places, going back. You may criticize a place or a stride, but if you ought to say walking is useless, then you won't bother going anywhere to say this, as well as you won't resort to books to legitimize your anti-intellectualism.

Just read Ecclesiastes and pat yourself on the back.

>>4375764
Thanks Anon, this is exactly what I was looking for!

>>4374073 Science relies on knowledge of metaphysics and is incredibly reliant on a very strict reason based reality focused epistemology. Science is not seperate from philosophy, nor does it precede it.

The logical positivists disregarded ethics and metaphysics as nonsense, but they were still philosophers.

Maybe you don't really know what philosophy means, Stephen Hawking attacked philosophy as being useless yet he was probably talking about the philosophy of science. Logic for example is hardly useless.

>>4374073
Philosophy is science, actually

It's all summarized in this pic.

>>4375823
Why is something true unless it isn't?

>>4375793
Philosophy is the opposite of science. Science is about explaining observations in reality while philosophy is about useless made up problems without basis in reality.

>>4375827
How can anything have no basis in reality?

>>4375829
Because logic.

>>4375833
That isn't a logical assumption at all.

>>4375772
I'm sorry, but I might have missed something. How exactly does Kant lay a foundation for nihilism?

>>4375827

How can something you think have no basis in reality? How can you say this without resorting to philosophical tactics? How can you possibly criticize an entire way of thinking - especially when you yourself must use this way of thinking to criticize it? These are all questions which your pitifully small mind cannot cope with.

>>4375851
>philosophy
>thinking
Choose one.

Every 5 year old can more or less eloquently produce verbal diarrhea. Philosophical drivel is devoid of any content other than mindless platitudes, commonplaces, trivialities and absurd falsehoods. Pure anti-intellectualism. And no, I'm not using philosophy when I criticize philosophy. I'm using my common sense.

>>4375827

Philosophy is the active pursuit of wisdom. It is the human tendency to rationally approach human life. Science is a specific activity within this broader activity. There are questions in ethics and politics which are fundamentally matters of value and not truth as we conceive of it. There are questions of the foundation of the natural science which cannot be addressed from within the natural science. To think otherwise, without justifying oneself reasonably by engaging in the philosophical discourse, is not to be in tune with the history of thought and the fine distinctions made by other rational agents. Your tendency has the character of reducing man to something less than a rational and political animal by means sheer stubbornness and ignorance: "One is tempted to say that to be inhuman is the same as to be unteachable, to be unable or unwilling to listen to human beings."

>>4375868
You're just doing exactly what you criticize philosophers as doing.

>>4375868
Some good claims there; we're waiting for your arguments that back them up (inductive or deductive, go ahead).

>>4375868

You know, I was never this obnoxious as a teenager. I don't really know how people manage it.

>>4375878

>ethics
>independent of intersubjective truth

Now listen, I don't wanna turn this into an ethics thread, but I will if I have to. But I basically agree with what you say otherwise.

>>4375878
There is no wisdom and nothing rational in stupid and pointless questions like "Hurr durr, does reality really real?" or "Is my blue the same as your red?" You should have grown out of that nonsense upon entering primary school.

>>4375879
You got a taste of your own medicine? How do you like it? I guess it's the only language philosophers understand. I mean they chose philosophy because they lack the talent for science and math, are thus incapable of understanding logical and rational arguments, let alone constructing them on their own.

>>4375884
>implying you know what deduction and induction mean

>>4375899
>posts le epic doge meme
>accuses others of being "obnoxious"

>>4375904

The only notion of truth paraded by non-philosophers is the empirical, objective notion.

>>4375907
>There is no wisdom and nothing rational in stupid and pointless questions like "Hurr durr, does reality really real?" or "Is my blue the same as your red?" You should have grown out of that nonsense upon entering primary school.

Thanks for clearly demonstrating that you don't actually know what questions philosophers ask, much less how philosophy operates.

>>4375907
>asked to give inductive or deductive argument
>instead makes a poor insult
Confirmed for troll.

>>4375907

I'm beginning to run out of pictures here.

>>4375918
Why don't you tell me? Show me an intellectual result of philosophy.

>>4375907
>There is no wisdom and nothing rational in stupid and pointless questions like "Hurr durr, does reality really real?"

This is the fundamental question that led to the promulgation of the modern natural science. The guy who asked this question also wrote a highly influential text on the scientific method. The basic notion of scientific understanding relies on systematic doubting appearances.

>"Is my blue the same as your red?" You should have grown out of that nonsense upon entering primary school.

"While still at school our children get taught that
water consists of the gases hydrogen and oxygen, or sugar of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Anyone who doesn't understand is stupid. The most important questions are concealed."

>>4375926

You just keep going, don't you?

>>4375928
What cannot be settled by experiment or mathematical proof is not worth discussing. Enjoy your pseudo-intellectual preschool tier escapism while normally functioning human beings do actual work in reality.

>>4375938
>What cannot be settled by experiment or mathematical proof is not worth discussing.

Why are you talking then?

>>4375938

You're bleeding me dry, man.

>>4375850 Because his philosophy essentially rejects any real knowledge as possible, rejects the validity of the senses, rejects even the realness of reality, and then proceeds to strip the idea of values from ethics and replaces it duty, even specifically stating that if one finds value in ones duty that it is at best amoral, stating that only a duty done against ones values or predispositions is truly moral. Kant is nihilism with awkward Christian leftovers.

>>4375938
>>4375946

bump so that my victory may be lauded by the rest of /lit/

>>4376070
Eh. I remember his ethics being a lot more complicated than that. I'll have to go back and take another look.

>>4376070

>being this uneducated