/lit/ - Literature

Come to America. Just about every person you talk to will be some fatass that loves 70s rock n roll.

The average person can't even understand basic symbolism and allegorical meaning anon

the average person doesn't understand irony

>>6741133
>/lit/ is for the discussion of literature.
>If you want to talk about politics, go to /pol/.

>>6741133
now there are more plato and aristotle quantity not that the average is.

>>6741148
Obesity and good taste in rock music are signs of a philosopher

>>6741156
Yeah, they do. They just call it sarcasm.

>>6741156
how ironic

>>6741133
Standing on the shoulders of giants

Anyway because the white man won the colonial war Oriental philosophers with earlier and and more advanced ideas than the Athenian Academics have been ignored

>>6741179
>still not irony

>>6741175
>there is any sophistication about rock

It may be that it is what our common sense tells us, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. Common sense is notoriously deceptive; claims like these are often found out to be false.

"The average modern first worlder" is a vague notion. Do you mean a typical high-school grad? University undergrad?

Plato and Aristotle both devoted many, what were undoubtedly laborious, decades, to *raw* thinking. Does the average modern "first worlder" even come close to thinking as much? How many thoughts per day does the average "first worlder" devote to his favorite theme? How many logico-mathematical problems do you solve a day? How many hours a day do you devote your thinking to philosophical themes? Not much, I bet.

The fact that we now know more than Plato and Aristotle ever did, and the fact that these facts are a few clicks away from knowing, doesn't entail that we think more or that we trump Plato and Aristotle in "philosophical and scientific enlightenment". As a society, taken as a whole, perhaps; but most certainly not as (average) individuals. We may *think* that we are in some sense smarter than Plato and Aristotle, but the average "first worlder" is kidding himself if he thinks he thinks nearly as much as they did.

>a good philosopher
No such thing. Everyone one of the arguments against science and empiricism by philosophers amounts to 'But what ifff!!?? :'(((('.

It is a shitty field/profession/whateveryouretardscallit for morons who can't do basic logic and math. All of philosophy seems to be rear guard action against the inevitable end where science proves it to be the playground of retards. They've lost a lot of ground already and are too stupid to admit it.

>inb4 waa waah waht or where did we lose?
Physics come to mind. The movement of the planets

>inb4 some stuff isn't known so philosophy is still gud
Just because we don't know the full picture doesn't mean you get to fill in the blanks with fairy tales.

>>6741482
Just admit you have only read like 2 philosophers, and nothing contamporary.

>>6741482
>Implying empiricism isn't a position in epistemology which is itself contained within philosophy
>Implying logic isn't one of major fields of philosophy
>Implying logical positivism isn't self-refuting
>Implying all philosophy is obscurantist continental bullshit
>Implying the scientific method can teach us anything about ethics

You think you're a lot smarter and well-read than you actually are. Science and modern philosophy are overlapping and often interdependent fields of human inquiry, not everything boils down to the autistic conflict between "le cold hard facts" and "pussy muh feels artreligionphilosophy". In fact, very few (if any) unanswered questions in science and philosophy actually do.

>>6741133
True. The average physics graduate also knows more physics that Newton. Nothing special about that.

It's very easy to be philosophically and scientifically "enlightened" compared to acquiring such knowledge when it doesn't exist, or better said, to create such philosophical or scientific knowledge.

>>6741180
Fuck you commie, I take my daily iron supplements.

>>6741175
>>6741175
Ignatius plz

They may have more concrete knowledge on their surroundings than Plato and Aristotle, but that's not to say they necessarily understand those surroundings better than Plato or Aristotle understood theirs. Knowing about things does not automatically mean understanding those things.

>>6741482
>science and empiricism
The former ⊆ (logic ∪ mathematics ∪ ontology ∪ metaphysics)
The latter ⊆ epistemology

Catch up with the times, grandpa.

>who can't do basic logic and math
Philosophers have been interacting with, and made significant contributions to, both Logic and Math since the antiquity. Nearly all modern, advanced graduate texts in Mathematical Logic, Computer Science, Category Theory and Philosophical Logic make notice of Philosophy and philosophers. Modern analytic philosophers that work in certain logic-heavy fields of analytic philosophy are either logically minded philosophers or philosophically minded logicians.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

>>6741555
>not everything boils down to the autistic conflict between "le cold hard facts" and "pussy muh feels artreligionphilosophy"
Can you elaborate? Also, any examples?

lol no

the average first world professor of philosophy doesnt even really understand aristotle and plato, let alone hold any claim to being smarter than them

>>6741148
hey man don't knock 70s rock n roll

>>6741133
Perhaps. But more intelligent? No.

I was at a friend's last night and so were his older brother and a bunch of his friends. These people consider themselves intelligent and cultured suburbanites and yet they struggle to discuss anything beyond sport/video games. When they do discuss something like economic policy they can't progress beyond memes like 'education should be free because it's like good for society' and so a discussion of market structures and the material effects of pulling various levers can't be had. They think that Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are intellectuals, and believe Mike Brown was a victim. Last night I had (or tried to have) a discussion on logic with a few of them in which they denied the law of the excluded middle. I would say "but the proposition that our logic is wrong can be labelled p and then assumed true, in no possible world could the negation of p be true at the same time. It is self defeating and entirely impossible" They would then just spout incoherent rubbish about liking and respecting logic but that it might just be "from our perspective" and we've been wrong about so much before and our minds are only capable of so much, so they believe "anything is possible".

Keep in mind that these people consider themselves comfortably beyond the mean in intelligence. OP is a faggot as usual.

>>6741209

>sophistication is good taste

Gorgias pls

>>6743054
Economics is a meme science anyway.

>>6741555

>>Implying all philosophy is obscurantist continental bullshit

That's your problem, you keep fighting science on its own terms

join the continental ranks and fight the good fight from the good side, now

>>6741688
>Nearly all modern, advanced graduate texts in Mathematical Logic, Computer Science, Category Theory and Philosophical Logic make notice of Philosophy and philosophers
I'm pretty sure my copy of MacLane dosen't make notice of philosophers at all, maybe in passing but I don't remember every word of the book.

>>6741133
>The average modern first worlder is more philosophically and scientifically enlightened than Plato and Aristotle.
>Prove me wrong lit
just look at the supreme court

>>6743054
>Last night I had (or tried to have) a discussion on logic with a few of them in which they denied the law of the excluded middle. I would say "but the proposition that our logic is wrong can be labelled p and then assumed true, in no possible world could the negation of p be true at the same time. It is self defeating and entirely impossible"
lel you almost had me, mister ruseman. Law of excluded middle is not the same as non-contradiction. Many people (though probably not most, that know what it is) reject the law of the excluded middle, as it leads to some very unintuitive ideas. 5/10 for effort.

>>6741133
this is literally the most stupid thing i have ever read

>>6743100
MacLane makes no mention of Tarski, Goedel, or Russell? Very strange indeed. Would think their names would be plastered all over.

>>6743113
Whoops, typed the wrong term, I did mean non-contradiction, anyway that's not the point and doesn't change anything important.
>>6743077
Maybe, but at least you could discuss the concepts of what makes a science, its methodology, applications, etc. And we could talk about economics itself. Most people I speak with aren't able to have discussions at that level of abstraction. (Thanks state education)

>>6741482
this is you

>>6741482
Autistic people can't understand continental philosophy because it's heavily empathy based

I think /sci/ might be more your speed

>>6741188
idiot

>>6741482
BAZINGA

>>6743054
just because you are pleb who have pleb friends doesn't mean all firstworlders are like that

>>6741133
>The average modern first worlder is more philosophically and scientifically enlightened than Plato and Aristotle.

fuck no.

Ask an average modern first worlder to write his ideas of the world down and you get Twilight or 50 shades of Gay.

And if you insist that those book would be better than ANYTHING Plato or Aristotle wrote you are beyond saviour.

>>6741188
>Oriental philosophers with earlier and and more advanced ideas than the Athenian Academics
sauce?

>>6741133

Yes, yes they are.

The average modern first worlder isn't more philosophically and scientifically enlightened than Plato and Aristotle.

There, proven wrong.

>>6741148
>70s rock n roll

This is too accurate. I think the reason so many people like it is to say stuff like:

>"I like Pink Floyd, am I deep yet guys?"

>>6744229
what does that picture even mean in relation to this point?

>>6743077
Apparently those people couldn't even do think in meme science.

>>6744909
Nothing wrong with a little bit of Brian Eno, Iggy Pop, or David Bowie. Come on ya'll. Not all of us are fat.

>>6744980
i find it odd how people decide in which interests artistic integrity is important. not that i'm saying /lit/ is a hivemind, but here people more often than not will imply people are less than intelligent for reading certain books but at the same time act as if these implications are unwarranted when it comes to music.

>>6744970

The average modern first worlder is a vapid narcissistic teenage girl with no perspective?

>>6745033
emile cioran said "imaginary pains are by far the most real we suffer, since we feel a constant need for them and invent them because there is no way of doing without them."

so either possessing human traits makes you unable to understand philosophy or you think that emile cioran didn't understand philosophy

>>6744979
>Apparently those people couldn't even do think in meme science.
wat

>>6743054
>Last night I had (or tried to have) a discussion on logic with a few of them in which they denied the law of the excluded middle. I would say "but the proposition that our logic is wrong can be labelled p and then assumed true, in no possible world could the negation of p be true at the same time. It is self defeating and entirely impossible" They would then just spout incoherent rubbish about liking and respecting logic but that it might just be "from our perspective" and we've been wrong about so much before and our minds are only capable of so much, so they believe "anything is possible".
That's cute, but when you assert that "in no possible world could the negation of p be true at the same time" and "it is self defeating and entirely impossible", you are AGAIN assuming the law of non-contradiction without any philosophical argument for it. Your labeling strategy thus turns out to be (P & ~P) & ~(P & ~P) which is just an instance of the ~(P & ~P) schema.

And it's quite ironic that you scare quote their belief that "anything is possible", when you yourself use the jargon of possible worlds in your "explanation" that their belief in the negation of ~(P & ~P) is "self defeating".

Scientifically yeah, philosophically nah. The average modern first worlder doesn't have a lot of time to think high, gotta produce and consume first.

>>6742680
Science and philosophy aren't really in conflict. In the modern anglosphere, analytic philosophers generally considers its role equal or subservient to science in discovering truth, or elaborating upon empirical observations induced by the scientific method. Though this isn't new; Aristotle codified term logic in the Organon, Descartes "Discourse" was fundamental to the scientific method, Hume contributed to empiricism, Frege and Pierce worked on modern predicate logic, Wittgenstein was an absolute genius at clarifying the murky waters of language and reasoning whose accomplishments are too numerous to list here. Today, Dennet works on refining and expanding our sense of free will and consciousness within a materialist framework. Really, if you feel entitled to comment in this conversation like your POV means anything, but need to ask this question, you really don't know what you're talking about and need to read more. I'm trying to say that in the nicest way possible.

>>6743078

I don't think philosophy needs the fight with science when they've contributed so much to each other. It's juvenile egotistical wankery.

>>6744970
He's trying to say "le women are shallow whores, the average man is a heroic war veteran who knows true suffering"

>>6745049

Yes - the 15 year old girl who's struggling to get to grips with her bff moving to another state is suffering far more than the 11 year old indian boy scavenging in the streets of Delhi.

>>6745049
>so either possessing human traits makes you unable to understand philosophy or you think that emile cioran didn't understand philosophy

How is that connected between the picture and what she said at all?

>>6745049

> since we feel a constant need for them and invent them because there is no way of doing without them."

i.e. drama queens

>>6746033
the point is imaginary pain is just as real as what you're trying to illustrate as true pain through your facebook meme. because somebody has 'imaginary pain' it does not mean they are incapable of understanding philosophy, thats a dumb argument and you might be the dumb one.

>>6741175
based

no, you can't skip them

>>6741175
>>6742925
>>6744980
Rock is awful

>>6741159
/pol/ isn't about politics dipshit