/lit/ - Literature

Take one topic you actually know a lot about, try to post a thread about it, and watch the dozens of clone replies recycling common memes about that thing to sound smart. Then watch as all the clone posters start talking to each other, recycling shit they heard in History Channel documentaries and podcasts, without ever having actually read or studied anything in depth.

That's why.

>>5158813
And isn't that exactly the same thing as what happens here?

>>5158813
Nah. Real.reason is it would kill this board...so its kind of pointless to make one board that just replaces another...

70% of the good threads on lit are Phil or history or political/religious...

Also Phil is just a subset of literature.

i like it that a topic is at least tangentially related to some existing literature or scholarship. it keeps it from being less of a clusterfug. discussion is fine, but in the end, if you're really interested, you have to do the reading. preferably first, discussion following.

a history board would attract mostly /int/ and /pol/ types making my country vs yours threads and asking people to post pretty images of state propaganda art made some period before the alleged leftist degeneracy of their country began.

a philosophy board would be infested by /sci/ making my degree vs yours threads

As horrible as it is, this is the best possible arrangement

Reminder that moot actually created an LGBT board

>>5161523
We should post philosophy on there. (Because philosophy doesn't matter anymore, just like LGBT issues.)

Philosophy belongs on the literature board because philosophy is literature.

>>5158807
Philosophy, a soft science, has been rendered moot by the hard sciences, like chemistry, physics, and math, which have disproven philosophy entirely so that nobody with a brain cares about the ramblings of psychotic alchemists anymore, nor believes they can create gold and eternal life, except for the few people on /lit/ who want to get a job searching the mystical universe using outdated modes of thought by studying the archaic ramblings of other idiots who studied other idiots in a past long since proven to be filled with idiots. Hence, modern professors of philosophy use obscurantism to disguise the fact that they are saying nothing, and /lit/ philosophy students, from which universities make large amounts of money, which their rich parents are dishing out, have such diminished brains that they are essentially living in the middle ages.

>>5161569
I wish I understood why people enjoy trolling.

>>5161569
0/10
This is what a philosophy degree affords you

This is already one of the slower boards. No need to make it even slower.

>>5161569
i tip my fedora in honor of you, nobleman.

>>5161580
>>5161590
>>5161603
Except this is actually a legitimate argument a politician might make to justify cuts to funding Humanities. Say you happen to be a politician yourself, would you come up with a legitimate refutation, or simply bash them with > yuh trollin > yuh fedora rhetoric?

>>5159037
There has never been a single good philosophy thread here. Ever. Its all teenagers or Phil 101 kids that think Sam Harris is a good philosopher and that morality don't real. Unfortunately, there is no good philosophy discussion on the internet.

>>5161680
On the ENTIRE internet?

Hay,

MayB that's a GOOD thing?

>>5161680
Because the good thinkers moved on ... about fifty years ago.

>>5161569
Science is not equipped to handle most questions that plague philosophers.

>>5161680
I won't argue with you about the fact that most of the browsers here are teenagers, but I don't like your attitude. I'm getting a very arithmetic vibe from your qualification of "good philosophy", and that don't sit well with me.

>>5161850
This is correct. Only those with a layman's understanding of science and philosophy think otherwise. It's not even a controversial assertion.

Every board is a history/philosophy board already.

>>5161850
The questions that plague philosophers were solved aeons ago. Before Jesus. Long before philosophy. The philosopher you're reading merely predicted modern science, and have since been left without a field in which to practice without bilking young impressionable teenagers out of their parents hard-earned money. They are, in a sense, thieves, who steal from the rich, to fill their own pockets. What questions do you ask that are answered by philosophers, and which haven't been answered thousands of years ago? Face it, philosophy is nothing but a university scam designed to take intelligent, rich, upper class kids and give them something to work very hard on for several years while paying extraordinary sums to be given grades on that work, wholly unnecessary but fit to keep the machinery of the illusion they crave working, and sapping their parents of much money. You are probably one of them, and they do a great job in making you feel special, while dipping their hand into your parents' pocketbook.

>>5161542
Philosophy isn't lit. Lit is the medium. Philosophy is an activity. It's like saying math is lit because mathematicians have written books on math.

Philosophy is a pure field. As pure as math.

>>5161892
>What questions do you ask that are answered by philosophers, and which haven't been answered thousands of years ago?
Damn near an infinite number, I imagine.

Choosing what to value, figuring out why we should or shouldn't do something, defining broad terms like "virtue" or "reason", and countless more.

I can present you with any number of questions that science is wholly incapable of answering.

>>5161892
So, is matter atomic or infinitely divisible? What is the nature of our interaction with the world? If I walk to the edge of the universe and throw a spear, what happens? If the world is coherent, why aren't all scientific fields converging instead of specializing/branching like we see they are? Should we adhere to a rigid moral system or a relative one? Why is that a question we need to ask? What will we do if the hard sciences somehow manage to catalog every physical datum in the universe? Is that possible? Why are you so sure of your position? What is the nature of certainty? How do we come up with these questions? Why do we ask questions? Why the why?

>>5161892
Math grad student here. You're talking shit.

Very abstract mathematics thrives on philosophical questioning and modes of reasoning to help us develop a good understanding of the mathematical concept in question.

Set theory, for example, could've been deemed useless if it hadn't been for philosophy. ZFC Set Theory resolved the barber/"set in a set" paradox. Though mathematicians developed ZFC, philosophers/logicians were the ones who saw the huge gaping hole in raw set theory. Hint: Russell.

Also, what about the axiom of choice? Banach-Tarski paradox? Problem of induction is also a very definite problem still. High end model theory is almost completely philosophy, buy many of the virtuosos are mathematicians.

>>5161569
He thinks philosophy can be disproven. He thinks philosophy is the same as mysticism. He just learned the word "obscurantism".

>>5161539
we should post queer theory there

>>5161569
1/10 made me reply

>>5161593
what's wrong with slow boards? It's no fun when a thread you wanted to have discussion in drowns in two hours just because it has small target audience which can't keep up with the rabid shiposters who create over 9000 pointless threads every minute.

>>5161892
I majored in philosophy and most the students weren't extremely rich. THere were a lot of poor guys and girls from remote towns. It's so sad that even poor people fall for this scam. Can't wait till all the old farts die out and this sad excuse for a faculty implodes.

>>5161580
it's probably the same reason i enjoy being an asshole

>>5162234
>that Foucault