/lit/ - Literature

What I know is that you don't know shit about Philosophy or History.

>>4945959

>Implying they're mutually exclusive

>>4945959
Seems like you're not a very abstract thinker, friend. And that is okay.

>>4946006

"I think therefore I am" has nothing to do with whether you should spend your time partying or running a charity.

Philosophy loses meaning once it becomes a sub-culture among intellectuals who are only intelligible to each other.

/lit/
I'm trying to read a large text
usually I don't give enough of a shit to bother with notes and all that, I just read through and move on
but I'm fucking trying with this one

switching on and off to write out notes is a bitch and slowing my reading pace to a crawl
but marking up the book with ugly ass highlights would be awful


help

>>4946038
an example of a sentence that doesn't mean anything

>>4946021
Every philosopher works out their metaphysics before their ethics OP, always been this way. You can't simply separate the two.

Ethics are metaphysical

⇒philosophy
⇒solving any ethical problem ever

I have yet to see evidence of this. So far it seems philosophers are talking out of their ass and making subjective appeals to emotion just like everyone else when it comes to ethics.

>>4945959
>metaphysics
>why
No.

>>4946730
Jesus

>>4945959
>>4945959
Philosophy underlies and integrates all things we do. It's the study of the information structures we use to quantify and conceptualize our existence and all of it's aspects. Philosophy is the oldest science.

Your ontological status renders your question meaningless

>>4946730
Every single ethical problem that EVER was solved, was solved by philosophy. In some indirect way.

>>4946840
If you have to resort to such platitudes as relabeling every thought as "philosophy", then you're only underlining how dead the academic discipline of philosophy actually is.

>>4946730
>>4946760
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

>>4946847
Tautologically true, considering that the set of solved ethical problems is empty.

>>4946849
no that's not true

>>4946849
>>4946849
Is not philosophy the study of "Why am I here?" "What should I do" "Who am I really?" "What do I need?" and all of the other most fundamental questions of our being?
Every thought is, by extension, influenced by philosophy. Philosophy as a field encompasses and encludes anything that carries with it questions like "Why."

Consider it more like "History of ideas"

>>4946855
>denial

>>4946863
⇒Every thought is, by extension, influenced by philosophy

Sure, just like every bird is influenced by ornithology. Without ornithology birds wouldn't exist, amirite?

>>4946865
>meaningless assertions
we can all play this game

>>4946869
Every thought is influenced by phenomena that are within philosophy's realm of study.
Every bird is influenced by phenomena that are within the realm of study of ornithology.

>>4946876
⇒Every thought is influenced by phenomena that are within philosophy's realm of study.

Nope. Thoughts are deterministic neuronal activations. Do you even biology?

>>4946880
I could ask you the same. There is no proof that consciousness is limited to the brain. We can't look into the brain and see what you're thinking. We can only see THAT you're thinking. What you're thinking seems to exist in some realm that has not been quantified and measured and defined yet. They are not necessarily deterministic. In fact, it's entirely possible that nothing is deterministic, given the inexplicable behaviors of the particles that make up all of these different sets of phenomena.

Do you even Physics?

>>4946880
If we assume that consciousness is no more than measurable and decodable data, then there could concievably be a way to understand it, and thereby give someone the opportunity to make a choice that differed from the determined path. Consciousness must transcend physical reality.

Have you not heard of the double slit experiment? The forces of observation and awareness effect activities at the quantum level.

>>4946891
The hard problem of consciousness has been solved by quantum physics.

>>4946896
Quantum mechanical wave function collapse is the only physical effect of consiousness and the key to understanding it scientifically.

>>4946906
>>4946913
But consciousness still operates in a way not dependent upon the material brain. The brain is more a recievver, than a generator, of consciousness.

>>4946985
Great. I'm sure science will explain it someday. Because philosophy never answers any questions and never solves any problems.

>>4947004
Reasoning>Empiricism

>>4948576
Only if it is scientific or mathematical reasoning. Philosophical "muh baseless assertions" kind of reasoning is bullshit.

>>4948589
...dude, life is the base of their assertions. If you don't "read" life the same way as someone then of course you wouldn't reach the same conclusion, but really bro...you're talking about Logic, not reasoning.

>>4946170
I think he means when it doesn't have practical meaning for the laymen, it then loses its meaning. Which is silly.

>>4948589
>>4948616
>Logic
>Baseless assertions
top kek

>>4948661
The discussion was about philosophy. Logic is a field of math.

>>4948674
My fucking ass.

Logic as a school of philosophy predates the existence of numerals.

>>4946985

>But consciousness still operates in a way not dependent upon the material brain

Why do you believe that? Did mommy drop you on your head as a child?

Is there any point to getting deep into modern philosophy these days? Let's assume "to troll /sci/" doesn't count.

>>4946019
>abstract thinker

A computer scientist is an abstract thinker.

Come to think of it, I suppose "how the fuck do we deal with Fordism" would be one reason to utilize philosophy.

>>4945959

i would not tottaly agree with you beacause philosophy is pretty usefull to create theories whih are good when you can prove them in scientific way. Many syrious science theories was taken from philosophy.

>>4948716
Formal logic didn't exist prior to the 19th century, where it was invented by mathematicians.

>>4946730
i mean you're retarded, but you happen to be right
they're all ultimately meaningless word puzzles, none with any more validity (outside the rules of philosophy itself) than another

>>4948728
⇒A computer scientist is an abstract thinker.

I'm sure that's the reason why they majority of CS students fails their already dumbed down high school level math classes. And they can't into programming either. 199 out of 200 CS graduates failed to do a fizzbuzz program in a job interview.

>>4948739
Fuck you, this better be bait.

No wait...you're autistic. Get off my /lit/.

>>4948740
Yeah I heard about that one. CS grads are just gonna teach themselves fizzbuzz by heart (whatever the fuck that means).

They'll have to keep coming up with new tests to keep applicants on their toes. An evolving virus of laziness.

how the fuck do we deal with Fordism

>>4945959

Philosophy is a mental exercise.

It hones the mind by taking both scientific and anecdotal evidence and postulating theories that seem to make sense. It is creative because it gives rise to original thought.

Philosophy is also a way to cement and rationalize the way you perceive the world around you. It gives rise to questions that have never been asked as well as concepts that have never been meditated upon.

>>4948750
There is no original thought in philosophy anymore. Philosophy is dead. It died in the 19th century. Nowadays philosophy is just endlessly rehashing the same arguments which are already known to every child.

>>4948754
Is the blue you see the same blue I see?

>>4948764
How old are you? Are you literally 5? Do you think you're deep for considering untestable nonsense?

>>4948764
It might be. Science shows that there may be a certain set of people who view color inversely however.

>>4948764
Serious question: How old are you? Normal people realize around the age of 5 that this kind of "thought experiment" is fruitless and has no relevant implications. For all practical purposes it makes no fucking difference how we subjectively see colors, as long as we agree to call them by the same names. Since the difference is not scientifically testable, it can be dismissed as irrelevant.

>>4948777
I think you took his post a little too serious.

>>4948777
I was being a smart ass, you fucking philistine...

I'm 23.

I could have said something about angels and tips of pens, or just said, "How do you know you know? How do you know you know you know?"

If you can't understand why I said what I did...it's because your sense of humor is broken. Sorry about that.

>>4948777
Actually the whole color thing is scientifically theorized to exist. Please refrain from using science as material for an imaginative leash.

>>4946852

You have no idea what kind of bullshit are you pulling. This is after all /literature/ not /philosophy/.

>>4948787
>your sense of humor is broken

... says the faggot who believes "pretending to be retarded" is highbrow humor

>>4946880
>deterministic neuronal activations
do YOU even biology

>>4945959
ethics? right way to live?
I think a "why" here could help you
why is it so wrong to kill someone else?
why is it considred a way to live if you're merely following footseps blindly , study work and die?
what i m saying is there no right or wrong ,mere consepts created by us so why should we take anything seriously? including thinking

>>4946873

yeah faggot if it is not true then say why do you think it is not true and leave to someone else to decide if you are right or wrong, saying that makes me think of shitposting

>>4948795
No you stupid fuck, the point is that I grabbed OBVIOUSLY low hanging fruit. It was a lowbrow joke, made funnier if you didn't just read what I said, but understood why I said it.

Fucking autists...

>>4948808

You need to lay off with the new-age crap, it is a reductionist chant at its best

What about social philosophy?

>>4948819
like marx? what do you mean?

>>4948735

>formal logic invented
>invented

lolerblades

>>4945959
it's cool when people who aren't smart try to say things
actually it's not

>>4948777

It actually teaches you about the potential fallibility of the physic laws extracted from experience. But since philosophy is dead, and you're too advanced for our primitive minds, enjoy your relevance.

>>4948984
Do you believe it was brought to us by aliens or something?

>>4949039

Philosophy is asleep not dead.

>>4949048

>Logic is a field of math.
>it was invented by mathematicians.

Top fucking kek.

>>4945959
>stoicism and its ethics
>not grounded in metaphysical stance of muh epic paneinthenatureism
>epicureanism and its ethics
>not in metaphysical stance of materialism

>>4949048

It relies on the source of information.
It is like saying someone long ago invented hearing the birds sing.

try discovered

>>4949074
Where did he discover the logic? Is it an external phenomenon that he came across like the bird?

>"look bob, there's a proposition by the water hole"

>>4949074
Formal logic was invented and not discovered. Nothing in nature tells you how to formalize logic.

>>4949097
With individuals like this, I fear for the future of mankind.

>>4949114

don't worry, he must be trolling.

>>4949114
Only teenagers care about "the future of mankind". Grow up.

>>4949127
yep, he is definitely trolling

>>4949133
Dismissed then.

>>4949133
It couldn't be anything else.

That post is so saturated in irony...it just moved to Brooklyn, started a gourmet organic cheese co-op, and donated 50.00 to the Reading Rainbow Kickstarter.

>>4949114
Wow, you're even more stupid than I expected. I bet you believe material implication is synoymous with causality. Unfortunately this is not true. Logic is not a good description of nature, as the following example shows:

>Imagine a series circuit with two switches A and B and a lamp C.
>If both switches are ON, then the lamp will be ON.

>In propositional logic:
>(A /\ B) => C

>You can easily check the following logical entailment (go through all models of the LHS etc):
>{(A /\ B) => C} |-- (A => C) \/ (B => C)

>Therefore it is sufficient for the lamp to be ON if one of the switches in ON and the other is OFF.
>This contradicts the physical design of a series circuit.

Bonus points if you recognize which book I took this example from.

>>4949074
How was the compactness theorem "discovered"? Can you show me where it appears empirically? Infinity doesn't even exist in our universe.

>>4949133
Being an educated adult is considered "trolling" now? What has this board become?

>>4948739
Your words are inspiring me to become a philosopher. Fuck reading the past, I'm going to blank slate, and hope I don't bump into anyone else's ideas.

Typical "pragmatic" mongoloid. Everything HAS to have a purpose or a goal, nothing can be worthwhile important as an end in itself. Everything has to be a mean to an end. I bet you majored in STEM, fucking retard.

Also
>Stoicism
>Epicureanism
>legitimate schools of philosophy

>>4949293
forgot to add "or" in between worthwhile and important

>>4949188
I'm 99% sure you've been trolling but just in case you aren't, you are fucking retarded and the furthest thing from an "educated" adult

>>4945959

young OP pleb >>4946200

Morality and and study of ethics and inherent particle of metaphysics and study of the essence.

>>4949313
Cool ad hominem, dipshit. You forgot to post an argument.

>>4949365
>ad hominem
I think you need to relearn what this is. Unless you are claiming to actually be retarded, in which case you have somewhat of an excuse.
>>4948735
the fact that you said this is indication enough that you might be. Do you even Greek/Latin, bro?

>>4949365
An ad hom must be part of an argument. Otherwise it's just an insult.

However, this is an ungenerous way of looking at that post. There was an argument. You're uneducated and not an adult. Being retarded is given as evidence. You have yet to refute this.

>>4949397
I'm under the strong impression that you have no fucking idea what formal logic means. No, we're not talking about your r/atheism tier "debate a christfag by yelling 'straw man' in his face" kind of "logic" or whatever you mistakenly believe this word means. We are talking about formal, i.e. mathematical, logic. Please try to read up on the topic - even though you're most likely gonna give up rather quickly due to your demonstrably low intelligence. And btw: yes, I do latin and greek.

>>4949402
Cry me a river, dimwit. I posted facts. Nobody cares whether you dislike the facts. Go back to /pol/ if you want to burst into tears whenever someone proves you wrong.

>>4949411
Ad hominem isn't even a fallacious argument in the fight context anyway.

>>4949411
BEE TEE DUB, NIGGA!

>>4946985
It absolutely is dependent upon the material brain, have you ever seen someone with brain damage?

>>4949424
I see people with brain damage every day. They are posting on /lit/.

>>4949411
I've taken one 200 level and one 300 level course in logic and got A's in both of them, I'm not saying that I am a master logician or anything but I definitely know a little about it. Sure, formal logic today is a little different from what the Greeks were doing but it's based on the same exact concepts

>>4949434
Then how can you claim it's not dependent on the material brain when messing with the material brain directly affects consciousness.

I understand that you could whine "but maybe its just altering the brains ability to receive consciousness", but unless you can prove that it's stupid to assume. Just fucking duck test it.

>>4949417
It's only fallacious when it can influence the outcome, i.e. influence outside observers.

>>4949440
⇒but it's based on the same exact concepts

Do you also believe astrology and astrophysics are "based on the same exact concepts"? You're a moron. What the ancient greeks did was dilettantish pseudoscience and is in no way comparable to modern science or math.

>>4949460
We still use concepts from their math.

>>4949460
>ancient greece
>modern science
lel no fucking shit it's not anywhere near as refined as it is today but come on man... if p, then q; p; so q...you know this. You're pretty much saying that 2+2=4 isn't relevant to 4x^16-x^5/25y^2z^3.

Philosophy has been turned into a profession it was never meant to be. It's a subjective thought process, more logical than religion, less empirical than science. People need to understand the opinions and perceptions are 'SUBJECTIVE' , every school of thought and ideology was just a widely accepted opinion. Humanity doesn't need philosophy, but humans do. It helps many people to expand their imagination, to help find answers themselves. It's a constructive process, and has led to rise of many great humans and helped a lot of non scientists find their way in life. Humans crave for 'objective truth', an answer to everything. Philosophy, like religion is just another way of finding that.

>>4949492
Truisms : the post

>>4949511
Well it does say 'something new' in relation to all the posts this thread. Seems like people need to be reminded of even the basic truth.

>>4949492
>Humanity doesn't need philosophy
Religion is essentially applied philosophy and has driven progress for thousands of years

>>4949460

We are still using Greek ideas and metaphors to describe reality. Who do you think first thought of Atoms?

Sure we can predict the amplitude of a ball thrown in the air or the rotation of some planet, and other irrelevant stuff with no philosophical ramifications -- but we don't really know much more about reality than the greeks did.

>>4945959
>such as Stoicism and Epicureanism.

Philosophy is inherently good and necessary, the "love of wisdom" is a good thing.

But philosophic tradition is fucked. The entire tree is rotten and needs to be leveled.

>>4949824
I think Kant legitimately changed the game. What he really did was absorb the external categories into the structure of the internal processing of the individual. Nobody had really done that before, it was almost a proto-psychology. The Greeks had the Nous but it was distinct from what it parsed in the world

>people dissing Stoicism.

why?
>tfw reading Seneca and rereading Meditations.
how can anyone righteously dismiss stoicism?? It is an agreeable philosophy for one's life. I've also read Nicomachean Ethics. That is also a delightful book. Maybe you guys are into some depressing ass philosophy.

>>4949973
4chan = teenage neechians

>>4945959

>implying Stoic ethics make any sense at all when divorced from their metaphysics

>>4949886

You need to read the Stoics real bad if you think that Kant was the first guy to do this. Or hell, Hume.

>>4949988

This.

>>4949448
Perhaps the physical damage affects the ability of the brain to communicate with the body, but evidence has yet to prove that consciousness is lost to those with damaged brains.

>>4950033
>I'll take motherfucking comas for 600 alex
>I'll take being knocked unconscious for fuck you alex

>>4949824
The Greek's conception of an atom has nothing more to do with our modern model of the atom than sharing its name. All the ancient greek "atomic theory" was fantastic drivel even /x/ would ridicule nowadays.