/lit/ - Literature

>>5076602
>degenerates
reported for bullying

>>5076616
>>5076602
Samefag

That's why your thread didn't bump fuccboi

>>5076621
I saged you dumb faggot

pretty sure samefagging bumbs threads. Do you even know how 4chan works, you scrub?

OP is a silly freshman piece of shit loser

>>5076635
Trust me samefagging doesn't bump your thread :^)

>tfw been on 4chan for 7 years
> have never learned how to sage

>>5076649
you just type "sagve" in every field

>>5076694
I chuckled

>>5076602
i agree. brain in the vat is some real shit.

I'd love to discuss with you but I have no sufficient reason to believe you exist. Could you please prove to me that you're not just an imagination generated by my own consciousness?

>>5076757
why should it matter what i am - real or fake, it's significant either way. i'm just an anonymous poster on an imageboard, i could easily not be real.

>>5076602
I like metaphysics. I don't think there is a most important branch of philosophy.

>>5077094
What is the ontological nature of "importance"?

>implying metaphysics isn't just a bunch of nonsense arguing about grammar

I skimmed Wittgenstein's wikipedia page, I would know.

Is the Will to Power theory metaphysics?

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

>>5078406
blow me

This is unfortunately because most are ignorant of contemporary analytic metaphysics and are unwittingly couched in Medieval associations of metaphysics. A pity, but what can you do.

Try reading (not until you satisfy the prerequisites mentioned below, however) someone like Kit Fine, Ted Sider, Williamson etc. and you will drop flat on your ass of seeing how rigorous these things are treated these days. And that's a good thing; or perhaps not. That's for you to judge.

But don't even think for a second that you will manage to grasp even a fraction of what they are dealing with if you're not fluent in the conceptual framework of the area in question, Set Theory and First-Order Logic: a prerequisite to almost every contemporary analytic field or subfield, not just metaphysics. If it's physics you're interested in, you will have to be aware of its conceptual and empirical developments too.

Study independently. Avoid /lit/ at all costs (it's a shithole, really); or better yet, quit frequenting it. Meeting someone that actually knows "what's what" in this day of age is RARE on here. In that regard, today is your lucky day.

>>5078414
Yes because it implies an existence of an essence beyond physical realm that our being seeks to encapture.

>>5078419
#rekt

This really depends on how narrowly you defined metaphysics. If you mean in the sense of something more real than the physical, then of course philosophy doesn't take it seriously any more; in this sense, metaphysical = supernatural

>>5078585
>something more real than the physical
>metaphysical = supernatural
How do you not get tired of posting absolute gibberish?

>>5078632
meta = beyond
the physical
super = beyond
the natural

>>5078647
'Physical' and 'natural' are not equal concepts.

Second of all, 'meta' does not mean 'beyond' and you're making an error in thinking and proposing that dissecting a concept into its constituent word-parts and stating their respective meanings shows what the discipline is all about.

>>5078673
This is why I made the distinction in the definition. The Greek term "metaphysics" is meta as beyond, but the term has broadened since the Greeks.

>>5078585
everyone remember this post next time you think about taking feminster seriously

>>5078709
I will remember it.

>>5078709
Didn't need any more proof, but ok.

>>5078419
Why was Diogenes such a meanie?

What is the answer to his question, though? It's interesting.

jokes on you faggot I like metaphysics

lately I've been thinking about how the phenomenology of ,seeing/things seen in, mirrors is the same as things see in glass. So if I magically had a birds eye view of the depth of your visual field while looking out an open car window, it would extend into the street, whereas if the window was wound up the depth of your field would stop at the glass inside the car. When you look at the closed window you aren't seeing beyond the surface of the pane it's an illusion like things seen in mirrors they have no depth. you mistake this illusion for 'beyond the glass' thinking it's the world outside when it's not, just like how you can't walk through mirrors. This explains things like water refraction and magnifying glasses. If i put my magnifying glass over my finger, my finger looks huge, but I'm not seeing beyond the surface of the magnifyglass, I'm not looking at my finger, just like how you're not actually looking behind you when you look at a mirror (this is apparent when the mirror warps or smashes), my visual field ends at the surface of the magnifying glass, what is beyond that is completely unknown

>>5080903
Because he was a baw$e.

>>5080930
But what if your eyes aren't real?

hey what is metaphsyics

>>5080934
what does that even mean?

sure you could say the inner lens of your eye is what you're REALLY looking at, but what does that even mean?

nobody not the scientists or philsophers have any real idea of how perception works. I dunno about you but I look at things in the world, not some retardation about images in the brain or some shit

>>5080903
The answer is "Plato is talking complete bullshit".

Most important branch of Philosophy:

Epistemology>Ethics>Logic>Metaphysics

>>5081149
Bait harder. Logic is a branch of math and not philosophy.

>>5081168
Logic predates the numeral, you baiting son of a bitch.

>>5081174
Nope. Lrn2history, faggot.

>>5076602
Because most metaphysical questions aren't solvable. Besides, the person who laid the foundation for metaphysics was Aristotle and he was wrong about nearly everything.

>>5081149
Epistemology has been solved by the scientific method.

>>5082750
Elaborate, autist.

>>5078509

Nope. The Will to Power is a psychological principle, mainly. It's not a metaphysical force that underlies all reality -- that's a common misinterpretation, based on some stuff Nietzsche scribbled in his notes (but didn't fully develop or publish).

OP just ignore people bashing metaphysics. Most of them actually dislike philosophy in general.

>>5082988
science fiction, feminism, mind control, character development, and deep plots

It is the most useless. Metaphysics is people jerking themselves silly over shit that we will never know for sure.

>>5076602

Political philosophy makes ethical assumptions
Ethical philosophy makes epistemological assumptions.
Epistimology makes metaphysical assumptions.
Metaphysical philosophy makes logical assumptions.
Logic makes basic axiomatic assumptions.

Most people you meet think politically or ethically because these areas are common human concerns. The brighter people you think meet epistemically, because they want to proceed rationally. Very few people think metaphysically because metaphysics is usually removed from their concerns by 1 - 3 steps, making it feel extremely abstract, and it's very hard to think about intuitively for this reason. It requires a lot of study. Most people can't even handle, "how do I know the table is real?" let alone "what is being and how does this have ramifications for how we consider tables?"

>>5082971
One of its most important mentions is actually in Beyond Good and Evil, but it is just a thought experiment. Nietzsche doesn't mention the will to power much at all except for his unpublished work.

>>5083022
good post

>>5083035
And another one, again not as merely a psychological principle.

>>5083050
And another one mention it regarding life in general.

>>5083022
It's also important to note that you basically can't talk about metaphysics in a rigorous way using plain language. Plain language is primarily used to deal with things in the social (political) and personal (ethical and epistemological) areas, so there's a serious lack of vocabulary, especially vocabulary that is precise or vague enough. You have to invent terms by attaching them to huge bodies of exposition or by trying to jerk a bit of normal language laterally. Furthermore you might even strain against the local connectives in our language, things like "and," "or," "because" etc, especially if you don't think they're accurate. You know who else uses language like this? Insane people.
You also, now, have to deal with some of the more mathematical branches of the sciences, statistics and physics, because it's pretty clear these are clearly useful, and perhaps illuminating, models of the world, and these come with prequisite understanding of math (and philosophy and english majors are sometimes just people who were never good at math.)

>>5078487
>day of age

heh

>>5076757

>OP starts metaphysics thread
>you come in here saying epistemology is the first philosophy

>>5083862
prolly deserves that title more than metaphysics tho tbh

>>5076757
>>5083862
>>5083865
>thinks this post doesn't also rest on all sorts of Phil. of Mind shit the poster doesn't even take a crack at.
>thinks epistemology is first philosophy
>doesn't think that they arrive at this conclusion by assuming naive notions of existence, being, and other metaphysical concepts.

Metaphysics is for wankers. Pataphysics is the patrician discipline.

>>5081214
So we can't solve whether space is a substance? Or whether our past selves are as real as our present selves? We can't solve whether things retain their identity when they undergo change? Consciousness?

I think these questions could be resolved through the appropriate advances in science. I think the whole point of metaphysics is that it poses questions that need to be asked, but that science has yet to be able to come to grips with. Cosmology was considered metaphysics 100 years ago and look where we are now

>>5083865
>>5083894

What the fuck ever. Existence precedes any form of knowledge or theory of mind.

Does ontology exist? Can you prove it?

>>5084344
>we can't know nuffin

And once again we seek refuse under the giant safety blanket of solipsism.

Nothing could be more philosophically worthless.

>>5084713
Boo hoo. Why are you so upset by the idea that you might be making baseless assumptions?

To answer op: yes and no.

>>5080930
Wow kid way to complicate something every 5 year old understands
Feel smart?

>>5080963
One could post the same type of reply to what you originally posted
Also its a joke about will smiths son

>>5084728
What a pointless post

>>5083035
>>5083050
>>5083058
I'm reading Thus spoke Zarathustra atm and I've read half of on the Genealogy of Morality. What should I read next by Nietzsche?

I've read a few pages of Will to Power.

>>5076602
>What the FUCK do you retards have against metaphysics.

Many people have a religious few of science, whether they like it or not. The bases on which their beliefs rest are incomplete and have plenty of room for questioning, but must not be questioned lest all of the work that rests on them be invalidated.

Other people like to use a lot of words without defining their terms, and/or don't comprehend half of the issues they're dealing with when trying to tie metaphysical implications on physical phenomena. And the conversations turn into big circlejerks.

They agree with you that answering the big questions is important, but they don't see the potential that what philosophy can do, because they've dismissed it as baseless speculation. Rather than what it is, pretenseless re-questioning.

>>5084758
Will to Power was edited by his stormweenie sister brah, skip it.

I recommend some secondary literature to reinforce your own interpretation and/or your ability to interpret

>>5076602
What are you talking about? /lit/ likes continental philosophy way more.

>>5083926

>Existence precedes any form of knowledge

I've never seen numbers in the wild.

>>5080903
Emptiness doesn't have an essence, it's defined by absence.

>>5084872
Wild sevens eat a lot of nines. Sends a lot of sixes running.

>>5084872
How many stars are there?
The answer is a number.
How many atoms are there?
The answer is a number.
How many galaxies are there?
The answer is a number.
How many cells are in your body?
The answer is a number.

Maths exists outside of our perception, since the universe has been running since before we percieved it.

>>5084974
>how many...

>>5084974
>he thinks his dualistic worldview precedes conceptual thought

>>5084988
The questions might not already have existed, but the logic behind them always has.

>>5084993
>literally believing in magic

Fuck off Plato

>>5084974
>>5084993

You're pretending like a number refers to some object (which, in the case of a number, would have to be metaphysical, wouldn't it?).

But, if I tell you, "fetch me 5 five red apples", then you'll go to the store, find red apples, and pick them up while counting "1,2,3,4,5", terminating when you reach 5. It is clear, then, that the meaning of a number is its usage and nothing more - why assume it refers to an object? It suffices for it to be a pattern of usage.

>>5084974
It does not exist until we perceive it though, unless you are talking in potentiality.

>>5085059
I'm sorry but those 5 red apples (or 5 of anything) may still have existed with or without me counting.
If there was an enormous crate of an indeterminate number of apples (or anything else), then 5 apples would still exist independant of whether they were being counted.

Or rather, the pattern described here would happen with or without being counted by any person.

>>5085102
How do you know anything doesn't exist when you're not looking at it?

>>5085114
Perceiving is not the same as sensing.

>>5085110
The very notion of 'apple' relies on a concept applied to phenomena. Individual existing objects are a result of human interpretation. Existence isn't inherently differentiated.

I prefer physics over metaphysics.

>>5085110
Doesn't matter if they exist or not. What matters is that numbers don't exist in nature, because they aren't things (they belong to grammar). Yes, five apples might exist, but that's not an example of a number in nature, it's an example of an apple at best.

>>5085120
Yes it is.

My entire life has been consumed by the metaphysical connection between phenomena get the fuck out with your implicative horseshit

>>5080903
>mfw diogenes BTFO any conception of the 'nouemenal realm' yet faggorts to this day still believe in it

>>5085388
Enjoy autism

>>5085114
Because you've looked at it or sensed it at some point prior, memory of which you can construct the idea in your mind.

If you've never sensed it than you don't know it.

>>5085388
>>>/r/atheism

>>5085388
you know deep down that metaphysics underlies everything you do

>>5085542
Good projection. It actually takes a lot of autism to not grow out of metaphysics.

>>5085620
That's where you belong. Maybe there you'll find other people who consider themselves the deepest thinkers for discussing solipsism.

>>5085684
What a vacuous statement.

>>5076602
Read some Wittgenstein, Heidegger, or Derrida and you'll see why metaphysics has been dead for at least a century. To sum up:

Wittgenstein: Metaphysical problems are problems of language. Rather than answer them (which is impossible) we ought to change the way we use language until we no longer ask illegitimate questions.

Heidegger: Western metaphysics is just an extension of the theological tradition. Metaphysics is a religion.

Derrida: Metaphysics is "white mythology", a tradition of myth-making masked by dead metaphors.

>>5085757
I agree.

>>5085757

a stunning play by the classic modern trio

>>5085699
It's not vacuous when you come to realize every physical theory ever made relies on metaphysical assumptions about the world; most physicists just like to pass it off as meaningless though

>>5085757
> Heidegger: Western metaphysics is just an extension of the theological tradition. Metaphysics is a religion.
Doesn't that just make theology an alternative to philosophy again.

Can someone please explain me like I'm 5 what's metaphysics? I don't understand from wikipedia

>>5088609
If you're 5, you're already too old for metaphysics. Just think of it as the ridiculous thoughts you had when you were younger and then you realized how embarrassingly naive and pointless they were.

>>5088616
But that's Wittgenstein

>>5088626
The hottest philosopher was also the smartest. Metaphysicists are all ugly. Coincidence?

>>5088654
Wittgenstein was neither hot nor smart. He literally had autism.

>>5076602
That image disgusts me. The greatest pleasures in life are due to a high, complex intelligence.

>ctrl+f "Carnap"
>0 results

>>5089755
The dumb ones stay on the beach, the half-smarts that get trapped in the reef think this is as far as it goes, don't expect them to know the joys of the open sea.

>>5089706

>autists cannot be smart