/lit/ - Literature

in b4 Nietzsche

Schopenhauer for me. I based my dissertation on a modernised version of his theory of expression in music. Plus (somehow) I manage to extract a real sense of pride and happiness from the world around me from his metaphysics (regardless of pessmism - HATERS GONNA HATE)

The divine Plato son of Apollo

Presocratics, from before Plato trolled Western Civilization.

also inb4 "Eastern Philosophy"

>>629022

Good stuff.
I love Schopenhauer.

>>629026

BROFIST.
I think Kant was an idiot but his idea of the noumenal and phenomena have really stuck with me...what aspect of Schopenhauer are you most fond of?

Kirkegaard, because fuck Sartre and Nietzsche.

>>629025
I'm with this guy. Presocratics.
I still like Plato, but he just does a remake of the ideas that came before.

Andy Rooney

>>629015
h T T P : / / AT . k |m m ó A . $ € /

The coolest thing about Kripke is that when he was teaching at Princeton toward the beginning of his career, some dean in the department came to him and was like "Hey, Saul, we think it might make everyone a little more comfortable if you'd just bang out a quick dissertation so we can grant you a PhD. You know, you can just come in and we'll run a quick examination, and then we can all get back to philosophizin' in a wholesome, officially-sanctioned way."

And Kripke was like, "Uhh, if you can think of someone who'd be qualified to test me, I'd be happy to."

And the dean just clenched his fists and raged all the way out the door. Kripke still only has an undergrad degree.

Heidegger. I think he really got down some of the basics that guys like Plato missed.

Descartes

love kierkegaard.

trying to systematically organize all of life are you? i predict failure.

>>629029

I'm interested in his ascetic ideals more than anything, particularly his views on detachment.

>>629042

>I still like Plato, but he just does a remake of the ideas that came before.
His brilliant synthesis of various strands of presocratic thought is what makes him so great. In him father Parmenides and mother Heraclitus were married. In him Pythagoras came to life. In him Empedocles was perfected. Etc.

Quine.

I like his thoroughly naturalistic/holistic views on meaning, truth and ontology.

Montaigne

>>629029
Schopenhauer must've been an idiot too considering he thought rather highly of Kant.

>>629317
Schopenhauer attacked lots of Kants thoughts, most prominently the kategorischer Imperativ.

>>629328
Disagreeing with someone has nothing to do with one's evaluation of their intelligence.

Ayn Rand

>>629025
What's wrong with eastern philosophy?

Daniel Dennett.

>philosophy

I'd rather think for myself than suscribe to someone else's outlook on life, thanks.

>>629371
Any opinion you have is influenced by others.

Question.

Where's a good place to start if you're unfamiliar with the philosophy of language?

>>629371
I don't think anybody just blindly accepts one philosopher's ideas. people read something new, find that those opinions make a lot of sense, and adopt it.

>>629371
>I'd rather think for myself

Yes, because I'm sure absolutely every belief you hold was constructed from the ground up without reference to the work of other men. If you believe in evolution, I'm certain you did all your own experimentation , dug up your own fossil record and arrived at the theory without any reference to Darwin whatsoever.

No one thinks in a vacuum.

>>629371

>implying philosophy is about an outlook on life

You're one of these dumbasses that thinks philosophy is nothing but existentialism.

>>629380
But...

It is. Ever since Plato and Aristotle it's been about an outlook on life. I don't see what's wrong with that.

>>629388
You'd think that because you failed math.

>>629388

It's called analytic philosophy. Read up on it.

>>629397
Bitch please.

>>629374
>>629378
>>629379
>>629380
>>629397

>butthurt

>>629388
I bet you also judge philosophers by their deeds and not by their thoughts.

>>629397
>>629404

Way to miss the point. The point was that the choice wasn't between existentialism and analytic philosophy, because plenty of philosophy since existentialism is about an outlook on life.

>>629410
Nope.

>>629416

No, YOU (or whoever you may be defending) missed the point by_originally_asserting that philosophy is about an outlook on life when it quite obviously isn't; analytic philosopher--especially contemporary analytic philosophy--is almost just the polar opposite, and is in a sense a mechanical discipline as opposed to post-existential continental which focuses more on so-called 'outlooks' on life. You're better off keeping that sort of shit in a sociology thread.

>>629428
you have no idea what sociology is, do you?

because that is far less about an outlook on life than anything in philosophy ever could be, including your island school of advanced faggotry.

>>629428

Also, just to add one more thing: as much as I love Nietzsche and many of the existentialists, I think calling them 'philosophers' might be somewhat questionable. They can almost be associated with literary movements more than they can with philosophical movements when you get down to the bottom of it all.

>>629428
I'm only defending them against this:

>You're one of these dumbasses that thinks philosophy is nothing but existentialism.

Which is pretty fucking obvious if you consider my post was literally a reply to that one, and that I only pointed out that most philosophy, rather than just existentialism, is about an outlook on life. Including much analytic philosophy, actually, but you're apparently rather ignorant about that too.

>>629428

>contemporary analytic philosophy
>a mechanical discipline as opposed to post-existential continental

What the fuck am I even reading? Why can't I just have sex and drink a couple beers and call it a good life? What is the importance of this shit?

>>629442
Those aren't very difficult words

ITT: Brits vs The Civilized World

>>629437
>They can almost be associated with literary movements more than they can with philosophical movements when you get down to the bottom of it all.

Yes, because Being and Nothingness and The Transcendence of the Ego are closer to literary movements than philosophy. Same with Being and Time, What is Called Thinking?, Philosophical Fragments, Concluding Unscientific Postscript and The Sickness Unto Death.

I haven't read much Nietzsche so I can't remark there, but I think you're showing your ignorance pretty clearly at this point.

>>629407
Butthurt at what? just pointing out that nobody on earth is a one-man show. People think they're so independent, going around saying HURR DURR I HAVE NO INFLUENCES. that's impossible. probably some 17 year old kid who's rebelling against his parents.

ITT: people that think the only philosophy that exists is continental philosophy.

You guys are obviously not well read on this subject. If you think formal logical systems (which is what modern-day analytic philosophy is predicated upon) have to do with an "outlook" on life, then just give up. The OP's fucking picture contains of the very philosophers that I'm speaking of!

>>629461
>>629466

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. Most of the philosophyfags I know are just pretentious fucks that are "HURR DURR I IZ DEEP CUZ I READ AYN RAND"

>>629466
come on tommy, we all know you brits suck on Russels dick a lot. Get over it, its not the 20th century any more.
Now chill and disregard the trolls who have probably never even heard about shit like that.
Ever heard the story of how Wittgenstein threatened Popper with a poker?
What I mean to say is: don't be a douche.

>>629476
I read that story here on /lit/ and I think in a David Markson book

>>629466
>If you think formal logical systems

Formal logical systems are math. What analytic philosophers do doesn't become philosophy until it starts being concerned with the way the world actually is and hey presto suddenly we're producing an outlook on life.

>>629450

If you think existentialism isn't considered--and I mean academically here, not just as the general populace view it--as a literary movement, then you need to read the fuck up on the subject.

Dostoevsky's success is viewed within the scope of the success of existentialism as a literary movement for fuck's sake! I'm not going to sit on 4chan and lecture people on shit they should know before they type; if you really want a better understanding of what I'm talking about, check out William Barrett's Irrational Man. As for Nietzsche, go with Kaufmann if you ever want to read him. He's the only translator who ever truly 'got' him in my opinion.

>>629470
you are forgiven :-)

>>629478

I guess science is really nothing more than an outlook on life too, when you think about it (it is 'natural philosophy' after all).

>>629482
>f you think existentialism isn't considered--and I mean academically here, not just as the general populace view it--as a literary movement

That's not what I said. Jesus christ what the fuck is wrong with you? Can't you read?

I was challenging your claim that existentialists weren't really philosophers. That doesn't in any way whatsoever entail me denying that they produced literary works and that existentialism and its influence are relevant to literature.

Ayn Rand, because Objectivism is the only correct philosophy

>>629416
No one was saying it was a choice, but providing a counter-example. You fabricated the choice yourself.

>>629492

That was, perhaps, an overreaction on my part. And yes, I can read.

>>629497
The only counter-example provided was implicit as "not-existentialism" not a word was breathed about analytic philosophy until after the fact.

>>629494
>impliying there is a correct philosophy and i was trolled

also, i has a liking for Noam Chomsky and Descartes

>>629019
KRIPKE
FUKKEN MODAL LOGICS
brofist.jpg

have you ever used the Hintikka system? It is orgasmic.

>>629506
Oh, so you like me?

I am glad, people only tend to shout over me.

>>629515

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

>>629503
The post I replied to certainly came after, and the post it was a reply to did as well.

What you just said now does not have any bearing on the particular thread of discussion I've been involved in. Sorry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8

Genius!

>>629517
yeah, thats noam chomsky.

people often confuse him with woody allen.
pic related.

He is just a jewish pervert, tho.

slavoj zizek

>>629637
taking your trip into account, this is not surprising.

>>629641
no shit?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!
?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!
?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!
!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?
!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!?
?!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!
?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!
?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
???!?!?!?!?!!!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?

>>629643
I was about to post Confucius right after the thread was made but I didn't for some reason

ITT people who only know Western philosophy and have never heard of Eastern and Middle Eastern schools of thought.

>>629647
Thanks for deleting and reposting that so there was nothing between >>629641 and >>629645

Bitches don't know about my Zhuangzi, a postmodernists two thousand years earlier than the first European postmodernists,

>>629651
<3

Shush.

>>629654
He was also the world's first anarchist. And he first conceptualized evolution, although he wasn't able to prove it like Darwin did. Zhuanzi just that badass.

Camus

>>629684
> he wasn't able to prove it like Darwin did
>Darwin proved evolution

wut

>>629731
Let me clarify. He wasn't able to provide a real life, observable example like Darwin did with his finches. Happy now?

Just Poppin' in to say Popper.

>>629376

Read Frege's "On Sinn and Bedeutung."

Carnap.

Because fuck Quine.

>>629861
So, it's about oral sex and sin or something

>>629835
Darwin's Finches are not a real-life observable example of evolution. They are a real-life observable example of one of the basic processes that is required by evolution.

Freud, obviously

>>629065

durr I'm Kierkegaard, I loathe systematic philosophy.

Here are my three "stages on life's way..."

Albert Camus

Albert Camus

>>629878

Herpderp nice troll.

>>629388
rageeeee

Peter Ustinov?

>>629917
>I'm going to take the man who wrote a doctoral dissertation of irony, proved himself incredibly witty and discerning and then wrote a bunch of books from the perspectives of fictional pseudonymous characters at face value where he appears to contradict himself

hurrdurr

>>630000
FAIL GET IS FAIL

>>630000
Haha holy shit I didn't even know a get was approaching.

John Zerzan / Fredy Perlman

anti-civilisation ideas are the only ideas worth reading about.

>>629996
What, you've never heard of Berni Inn?

OP here, just got back from work - nice to see this thread got a few replies. I will read through it now, but I'm expecting alot of e/lit/ist faggotry :(

Karl Marx

the analytic continental flamefest in this thread is silly. yes, metaphysics, ethics etc etc are important and are subjects addressed by analytic philosophers as well, but they do not do so naively. the epistemological, logical and language stuff in analytic philosophy allows you to more meaningfully discuss metaphysics and "outlook on life" issues, without much of the confused nonsense that plagues guys like plato. it's the simple idea of clarifying your assumptions and sharpening your concepts.

the continental types here who are dismissive of analytic philosophy most probably speak from a position of ignorance.

>>630053
>the continental types here who are dismissive of analytic philosophy

I don't recall seeing any of those in here.

>>630057
you can't read then.

>>629435
>>629449
>>629478

>>630069

>>629478

Is not at all dismissive or critical of analytic philosophy. I wrote it. It's not even dismissive of formal logical systems, just pointing out they aren't philosophy.

>>629376

Russell, lectures on logical atomism
Wittgenstein, blue and brown books
Frege, sense and reference (article)
Lewis, general semantics (article)

>>630091
it is philosophy. you are using a retarded and provincial definition of philosophy and refusing to do the basic courtesy of trying to speak the same language as the guys you are talking to.

in all likelihood you are probably some sort of platonist retread.

>>630101
>No Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

Why'd you leave it out?

My favourite is Michel de Montaigne - brought up on a philosophy based purely on cultural axioms, his ability to remain independently outspoken on subjects deeply ingrained in French identity whilst remaining in popular favour (Montaigne being the mayor of Bordeaux) is brilliant. Logical reasoning eventually gives the answers to everything - I hold philosophers blessed with natural intelligence and discovered a new frame within which to think with the same impartiality I hold innately stupid philosophers who have discovered nothing. It's how one ( in this case through philosophy) applies themselves to real life which holds their subjective character into account - thus I prefer Montaigne due to his persistence in radical beliefs during an age of narrow minds.

>>630103
>in all likelihood you are probably some sort of platonist retread.
>denying math is philosophy implies one is a Platonist

Troll or idiot detected.

>>630106

Never read it, although I guess I should. But since it was a list for an introduction to phil language, it would be better to not inflict that writing style on the person.

>>630110
yes, obviously all the epistemological and linguistic stuff is maths. philosophy of mathematics and logic stuff can be thought of as maths, but more likely, it is maths in philosophical form. you are being retarded.

>>630115
>yes, obviously all the epistemological and linguistic stuff is maths

You're really trying hard aren't you? That's not what I said you thick motherfucker, I said FORMAL

LOGICAL

SYSTEMS

ARE

MATH

NOT

PHILOSOPHY

That's all. I didn't say epistemology or linguistics weren't. Read you dense motherfucker.

Ravachol is the only philosopher I respect.

>>630126
you are fucking retarded. analytic philosophy is not all formal logical systems. no one is discussing the status of formal logic.

again, you are fucking retarded.

>>630069
I wrote the other two.

I am not dismissive of analytical philosophy per se, I am dismissive of your fancy-pants attitude.
The fact that you even talk about "continental philosophy" makes it clear that you are heavily influenced by them (and are probably schooled in the UK). THat is not what annoys me. I am not defending any of the various philosophical schools, but I think you are riding on a pretty high horse.
In the end the analytics have a lot of faults as well, and you don't argue really (which is ok, considering this board) but just state shit with the same arrogant authority you see in others.
Now man up, tommy, you won the war. Its just philosophy, dude.

>>630139
>you are fucking retarded. analytic philosophy is not all formal logical systems.

I KNOW IT ISN'T YOU FAGGOT, I SAID IT WASN'T IN MY FUCKING POST JESUS CHRIST HOW DUMB ARE YOU

>>630126

1+1=2 can be proven through the propositional calculus.

>>630143
well fuck you and your confusing sentence structure.

>Is not at all dismissive or critical of analytic philosophy. I wrote it. It's not even dismissive of formal logical systems, just pointing out they aren't philosophy.

just to what fucking terms does this "they" refer?

>>630149
>just to what fucking terms does this "they" refer?

Formal logical systems. It's not confusing, you're just an idiot.

Let me guess, you didn't even bother to read the post I was talking about?

>>630162
>>630149
>>630147
>>630143

the notion that philosophy education has become a linguistics education over the years disgusts me and you two should be quiet.

>>630162
i thought you were talking about all three of the posts i highlighted. but in any case, you are wrong in that particular post. what do you call the philosophy on what can be meaningfully said about the world, or the various meta theories on knowledge etc that are not directly addressing "the world?"

formal logical systems are also philosophy. if you take the ambitious project of the logical language that underlies the construction of the systems into account, it most definitely is a philosophical project that doesn't give you a view of life. you can certainly form your view on life etc within the system, but that is not its direct concern.

>>630175
that's not the case. there are severely insular analytic departments around, but most are into pragmatism stuff and engagements with continental stuff. at least hegel and such

>>630175
>implying that linguistics is grammar
>but getting angry at the idiots
>divided feelings

>>630180
>i thought you were talking about all three of the posts i highlighted

">>629478

Is not at all dismissive or critical of analytic philosophy. I wrote it."

>I wrote it

Note that I didn't use them. Note that I linked to only one of the highlighted posts.

>what do you call the philosophy on what can be meaningfully said about the world, or the various meta theories on knowledge etc that are not directly addressing "the world?"

But they are. They're addressing what we can know or said about the world. That's a part of the outlook produced. In fact, they produce more radical shifts in our outlook on the world, generally speaking, than questions about what is actually in the world. The shift from idealism to empiricism is going to change a lot more about my worldview, values and way of life than the realization that there are quasars broadly speaking.

>or the various meta theories on knowledge etc that are not directly addressing "the world?"

Said metatheories don't exist and have no meaning without reference to theories of knowledge (for instance) that do address the world and produce an outlook. Taking said metatheories in isolation won't produce an outlook because it won't mean anything.

>if you take the ambitious project of the logical language that underlies the construction of the systems into account, it most definitely is a philosophical project

I don't follow you here. It seems to me I could make a similar argument that the man baking bricks is doing architecture. He's not, he's baking bricks no matter how fundamental said bricks are to constructing the architectural design of an architect. The brick baker might also be an architect, but that doesn't make every activity performed by him architecture.

>>630195
thank you for making me google the definition of linguistics. funny because i was using the definition given to me by a lingistuics grad and it's wrong.

>>630195
>implying linguistics don't encompass grammar

uuh, this got heated up...
first of all, this thread started out wrong completely wrong. Kripke is writing on the philosophy of language, so in my opinion he isn't even to be considered a "regular" philosopher.

I've got several favourite philosophers, currently I'm reading T.W. Adorno and Horkheimer and they wrote really good stuff.
Epiktet and Georg Simmel are also an interesting read...

>>630032

What do you think of Rudolf Carnap?

>>630222
i operated upon the presumption that you were implicitly equating analytic philosophy with formal logical systems, and on that ground made the statement in 629478.

in any case, the point is that the body of theories about the scaffolding, so to speak of language and logic required to actually engage with the problems of the world and normative stuff constitute in itself a valuable area of study. one that is worthy of being called philosophy.

obviously epistemology and phil of language in analytic philosophy developed out of a concern with the world that actually is. the point is that the meta theories are not substantial metaphysical or normative claims. this distinction is important within this particular thread because you have people who think philosophy is just diving into the big problems of life with crude ordinary language and fuzzy thinking. when you say

> What analytic philosophers do doesn't become philosophy until it starts being concerned with the way the world actually is

without clarifying what "being concerned with" means, and seems to use a naive realist phrase like "the way the world actually is," you come off as carrying platonist baggage and a dismissive attitude regarding meta level theories.

>>630276
>Kripke is writing on the philosophy of language, so in my opinion he isn't even to be considered a "regular" philosopher.

>>630276
Simmels "philosophy of money" is fucking awesome. not read enough, sadly, just like Benjamin.

>>630285
>without clarifying what "being concerned with" means, and seems to use a naive realist phrase like "the way the world actually is," you come off as carrying platonist baggage and a dismissive attitude regarding meta level theories.

The baggage you perceived in my post is a projection of your own baggage onto what I will gladly admit was a naively phrased post.

I was not attempting to do rigorous (meta)philosophy, I was just remarking that analytic philosophy was not simply formal logical systems, that formal logical systems weren't philosophy and that the philosophical portion of analytic philosophy comes with the production of actual outlooks on the world/life.

>>629978
who's trolling? Freud was one of the greatest minds of western civilization

>>630319

go to college faget.

>>630276
Holy fuck I nearly facepalmed my head off.

>>630319
Obvious troll. 0/10

>>630303
when you say "concerned with what the world really is" obviously alarm clocks are going up all over the place. given that this is the internets and not a specialist board, i just go with the general smell test when trying to understand where the poster is coming from. it's like when some guy posts "objective morality" or something. can't help but assume that the guy is a randoid.

for the general assessment of analytic philosophy and its heading, i am in complete agreement.

Simone Weil. Even if you don't agree with her points, simply finding ways to counter them is difficult in itself. The force of her convictions is what always drew me to her philosophy

>>630348
>when you say "concerned with what the world really is" obviously alarm clocks are going up all over the place.

Why?

>it's like when some guy posts "objective morality" or something. can't help but assume that the guy is a randoid.

Or deontologists. Or utilitarians.

>>630348

have you two settled your insecurities about each other now?

>>630367
because you sound like a naive realist or metaphysician.

as for the objective bit. this is 4chan, so randoids are in more abundant supply

>>630377
not yet

Friedrich Nietzsche

>>630342
>>630344
have you never read Lacan? Deleuze? Adorno? Derrida?

I suggest you re-evaluate what you call "philosophy"

analytic fag here. freud is important.

>>630427
>Lacan? Deleuze? Adorno? Derrida?

>>630427
sensible anon, and shame on all of you for thinking that freud was positing a taxonomy of sexuality--freud anticipated, when was a machinist

favorite philosopher....hmmm

Probably Albert Camus but other than him...

fuckin' DAVID HUME! he awakened me from my dogmatic slumberings

>>630449
>implying you are Kant.

>>630443
Freud was positing a taxonomy of desire (among other things), the baser of which was sexual desire.. you shouldn't take everything so literally

>>630455
I am Cant

but seriously he did, i just thought it'd be fun to use that quote.

>>630469
Since I can only communicate with freud through literature what other recourse do I have but to take it literally?

>>630480
freud's most influential idea wasn't the primacy of the sexual drive, it was the idea of the unconscious. it prompted thinking about your own thinking, another reflective cycle.

>>630504
>implying the unconscious was Freud's idea

>>630510
>implying he didn't popularize the idea

>>630527
>implying the popularization didn't obscure its meaning

>>630533
>>630510
>>630527
well, calm down already

>>629019
I hate it when philosophers think, they are linguistis...

>>630556
linguistics is to philosophy what capitalism is to proletarians

>>630562
philosophers are to linguists what scientologists are to scientists

>>630562
what i mean is that linguistics creates the conditions necessary for philosophy's exploitation and repression

>>630562
anyone who thinks is a philosopher, only the philosophers are called what they are because they communicate, a term now attributed to anyone with a brain

>>630598
kind of don't understand

>>630602
try harder

>>630617
doesn't matter..it's all sophistry and nominalism anyway...like i said >>630132

Hegel ftw!

Asian Zoom Guy

Currently reading Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist'. In b4 LOL HERP DERP EXISTENTIALISM CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY SUCKS, ANALYTICAL > ALL HURP. Greatly enjoying it so far.

>>630712
Only philosophy I need