/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16300014]

How would you convince normies there's any meaning to all those philosophy books you read? They seem to do just fine in life without.

[Anonymous No.16300036]

Good question

[Anonymous No.16300044]

>>16300014
Bump, I-I need an answer bros

[Anonymous No.16300054]

>>16300014
There isn't.

[Anonymous No.16300056]

>How would you convince normies there's any meaning to all those philosophy books you read?
There isn't. I don't read them.

[Anonymous No.16300058]

>>16300014
How would a normie convince you of the same?

[Anonymous No.16300059]

Some people are happy to live life without reflecting on it. Some aren't.

[Anonymous No.16300060]

>>16300014
>They seem to do just fine in life without.

They don't tho

[Anonymous No.16300082]

>>16300059
Absolutely. It's strange to reflect on this and realize that I'm probably no better off than an extrovert in all my metaphysical yearnings. I do it because it's my nature. We'll both probably end up with similar outcomes regardless.

[Anonymous No.16300089]

>>16300014
they are not for them, philosophy books are for those with an intellectual leaning
we don't need an entire nation of philosophers

[Anonymous No.16300091]

>>16300060
I think that's cherrypicking, I know successful shallow extroverts. Does a thirst for the abstract really lead to success? I don't think it does. I think it's all circumstances and tendencies.

[Anonymous No.16300098]

>>16300014
why would you convince them?

[Anonymous No.16300169]

>>16300014
Normies regularly abuse drugs to get by.
Alcohol, prescription medications, antidepressants, weed, heroin, painkillers, etc, etc.
I also consider their normal diets to be somewhat intoxicating, large meals of fatty/sugary/salty junk foods, fast food, frozen dinners, soda.

[Anonymous No.16301348]

I'm lain

[Anonymous No.16302221]

>>16300014
This image is proof that internet culture died around 2010 and although there are superficial differences between tumblr, twitter and this site they are essentially being used by the same people.

[Anonymous No.16302244]

>>16300014
>They seem to do just fine in life without.
>t. someone who isn’t friends with normalfags
A lot of them are depressed and unhappy with their lives. I knew some that weren’t but they held most of the same opinions as I do anyway.

[Anonymous No.16302266]

>>16300014
Haha. I just read philosophy to flex on these normies. Show them my big brain. My big words. My big cock.

[Anonymous No.16302290]

>>16300091
Cherry picking the majority?

[Anonymous No.16302710]

Phulosophy is really disappointing, I don't feel like I am cliser to any truth than I was before. I can understand the relations between abstract concepts with no relevance to the real life but not much more.

[Anonymous No.16302718]

>>16301348
Post programming socks.

[Anonymous No.16302736]

>>16300014
No they don't lmfao

[Anonymous No.16302741]

>>16300014
>implying there is

>>16300059
Swallowing the ideas of others doesn't have much in common with reflecting.

[Anonymous No.16303219]

>>16300014
>How would you convince normies to enter in a potential existential crisis that can last for month or years?

[Anonymous No.16303224]

>why do you read such boring books anon

>yeah some of them can be difficult to read at first, but I like reading them for the bits of wisdom they contain. Even if I don't always agree with the philosopher they often raise questions about the morality, the individual and society that give me things to reflect upon in my own life.

>I'm glad you like them anon, thanks for the answer

[Anonymous No.16303239]

>>16302710
I'm always left with more questions and never any answers. Sometimes I wonder if life would be better Living in ignorance. Probably not

[Anonymous No.16303247]

>>16300169
And you don't do any of those things? Good job revealing yourself as a Virgin underage with no friends

[Anonymous No.16303252]

>>16303247
philosophers are the biggest druggos lol
where else do they get all those wacky ideas?

[Anonymous No.16303266]

>>16300014
which philosophic work goes with honkler?

[Anonymous No.16303279]

>>16300014
You can "do fine" in life without mastering any academic field of study. People live joyous lives with understanding the rudiments of algebraic geometry or quantum field theory. What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.16303282]

>>16300014
why do you need to?

[Anonymous No.16303285]

>>16302710
You probably never studied actual philosophy, though.

[Anonymous No.16304479]

>>16302710
What are you talking about? What philosophy have you been reading?

I've always felt that the best introduction to philosophy is Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. There, you will find no "abstract concepts," and everything will be relevant to real life.

[Anonymous No.16304679]

>>16300014
max stirner troll face.

Why?

[Anonymous No.16304717]

>>16300014
>How would you convince normies there's any meaning to all those philosophy books you read?
I'm having a conversation with a friend right now trying to convince him that "pragmatism" isn't somehow separate from philosophy, and that implementing your philosophy in whatever way is the end goal regardless of what it is.He keeps telling me "but x leader wasn't a philosopher" and I try to tell him that x leader was participating in philosophical reasoning by way of deciding what he believed in and such.

[Anonymous No.16304766]

>>16300014
i never read a single book in my life, just here to shitpost about nietsche and dostoyevsky

[Anonymous No.16304768]

>>16304766
Peak /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16304788]

The cope answer is that I need to understand the why behind things.


The real answer is the intellectual high I get off reading something that makes me feel like I’m on the precipice of a philosophical breakthrough, where the mind feels like it’s rushing straight into the answers to everything I’ve ever dreamed while wading through the most complex of language no other person I know could even begin to understand, is better than any of the nights I’ve spent downing a 12 pack, huffing a few bumps, and getting laid.

[Anonymous No.16304801]

>>16300014
>All /lit/ memes except Zarathustra
Wanna know how I can tell you're an aut*didact?

[Anonymous No.16304813]

>>16304801
>he thinks Zarathustra isn't the meme book on this list
>calling others an autodidact as if it's a bad thing based off this
Wanna know how I can tell you're under 18?

[Anonymous No.16304868]

>>16304813
I'm 24, cope. Nick land and "xenofeminism" are mostly unheard of in academic philosophy. Stirner, the Wealth if Nations, and the Myth of Sisyphus are fine but are disproportionately popular on here.

[Anonymous No.16304874]

>>16304868
>I'm 24, cope.
Sure lad
>Nick land and "xenofeminism" are mostly unheard of in academic philosophy.
Yes.
>Stirner, the Wealth if Nations, and the Myth of Sisyphus are fine but are disproportionately popular on here.
That doesn't make them bad.

[Anonymous No.16304909]

>>16304479
I have read almost all books by Plato, Seneca, Aurelius, all of Schopenhauer, some Kant, some Nietzsche and a few others.
Some of those are in a way practical, Aurelius is basically life advice so I can apply it if I want but there I have the problem that it still feels like just his opinion. There is no objective proof why stoa is in any way better than smart hedonism.

But my bigger problems lie in other kinds of questions. When I started to read philosophy my main question was the existence of God, I wanted wanted either a proof for God's existence or his non-existence but no argument was very convincing, they only make one side or the other sound more or less plausible, but they aren't proofs in my opinion.

From that I also read about the nature of exietence, things like dualism, materialism and idealism, and I think none of that really describes reality perfectly. I also read some political philosophy, The Republic describes an unrealistic system and in genaral political philosophy would probably be more useful if we had hard data on some of the ideas, otherwise you just end up with conflicting views and noone truly knows what the best system will be, since in reality there are almost infinite variables.
But the God and nature of existence thing is still my main concern.

>>16303285
I don't have a formal education in philosophy if that's what you mean.

[Anonymous No.16304921]

>>16304813
"autodidact" is a euphemism for crackpot

[Anonymous No.16304926]

>>16304909
>I don't have a formal education in philosophy if that's what you mean.
I mean you don't really know what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.16304934]

>>16304926
Ok, why?

[Anonymous No.16304943]

>>16304921
Philosophy itself is just an examination of certain facets of reality through logical reason. Anyone over 130 IQ who's familiar with some philosophy could btfo a midwit with a philosophy Phd. You're just not intelligent and need to hide behind formal education to make yourself think you know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.16304986]

>>16304943
Maybe in your fantasy world. In reality, those without formal training are easily recognized as clueless pseuds. Most of /lit/ falls into that category.

[Anonymous No.16305006]

>>16304909
What do you think of this? It's not formalized with pure/impure reason or anything of that sort because I've never read the German idealists, but it's something I'm working on:
1.1 "True" knowledge of anything is impossible, as there are inherent constituents of one's perception of the world which barre us from knowing whether or not what we observe empirically or rationalize is genuinely true, or just a product of our erroneous perception.
2.11 There is a set of claims which are impossible to either prove or disprove, and which also have no 'standard' state of truth to claim something along the lines of "because there is no proof for this one state, the other state must be assumed."
2.12 Let these sorts of claims/arguments be arbitrarily named 'intangible'
2.2 Some of these 'intangible' arguments include Solipsism vs. Realism or the Matrix hypothesis, to give an idea
3.1 Despite this, the pragmatically proper resolution must be chosen; that is, for the good of the individual and the perceived world around him, as it is "his" reality.
3.2 when discussing or enacting such 'intangible' arguments, the pragmatically proper claim must be taken as axiomatic for the good of the environment one finds oneself in.
4.1 Let God be defined as some supreme being from which all moral authority flows, who is also granting of an afterlife based on adherence to this moral authority
4.21 The existence of God is one of these 'intangible' arguments, as it is impossible to know whether God truly exists
4.22 Therefore, if it were to be proven that faith in God is the pragmatically superior choice for both the individual and greater civilization/state, God's existence should be assumed as true.
5.1 The only options besides faith in God are nihilism/existentialism
5.21 Nhilism's logical conclusion is mass depravity, as the individual has no greater meaning or vested interest in his current reality after death, therefore nihilism is an illogical counterargument (as it would lead only to destruction).
5.22 Existentialism is an illogical response to nihilism, as - likewise - the individual has no vested interest in the world around him, due to there being no metaphysical repercussion based on his corporeal actions after death.
6. Therefore, it is required for the individual to believe in God and civilization as a whole to believe in God, and - because it is pragmatically the proper choice, as opposed to not believing - God's existence should be taken as "axiomatic," similarly to how realism is taken as "axiomatic" (as opposed to solipsism).

[Anonymous No.16305018]

>>16304986
>In reality, those without formal training are easily recognized as clueless pseuds.
I think you're just afraid of the fact that you wasted years of your life and massive amounts of money going to shitbutt university to "understand" something that someone with 30 IQ points more than you could have understood for free.

[Anonymous No.16305039]

>>16300014
WHERE IS ANY IMPORTANT THINKER OTHER THAN NIETZSCHE AND SMITH???????????

[Anonymous No.16305043]

>>16305018
Philosophers are already in the upper reaches of IQ. Without rigorous in-depth training, IQ gets you nothing. You also don't even understand how academia works. Students get paid to attend grad school.

[Anonymous No.16305053]

>>16300091
>Successful
>Happy
No

[Anonymous No.16305057]

>>16304909
>All of Schopenhauer
>Some Kant
Good job outing yourself retard

[Anonymous No.16305059]

>>16305043
>Philosophers are already in the upper reaches of IQ.
I never claimed they weren't. Read.
>Without rigorous in-depth training, IQ gets you nothing.
You can rigorously, in depth train yourself if you're intelligent and critical enough.
>You also don't even understand how academia works. Students get paid to attend grad school.
Not always, and I wasn't referring to grad school alone in my last reply.

[Anonymous No.16305067]

>>16305057
I genuinely don't understand those comments, I have never claimed to be some master philosopher, I only described my personal disappointment with my pursuits. Why is it bad to read Schopenhauer or Kant?

[Anonymous No.16305073]

>>16305059
>You can rigorously, in depth train yourself if you're intelligent and critical enough.
Anything is possible in theory. But it has never happened in reality. There hasn't been a significant contribution to philosophy from outside academia in the past 100 years. If you're interested in the subject, getting a PHD is the only way.

[Anonymous No.16305076]

>>16300014

I won't say there's no point to it but it's likely a hopeless endeavor
Philosophy has a trickle down effect in society
Normies get affected by it without realizing it but if they were to all suddenly wake up to that it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing either

[Anonymous No.16305078]

>>16305067
No, I'm calling you a liar
You've maybe read the Wikipedia articles of the people you've claimed to have read
I actually got around to reading the rest of your post which was even more retarded
Try actually reading before talking next time

[Anonymous No.16305081]

>>16305067
Enroll in a philosophy course if you want to experience the subject. Philosophy is not a reading exercise.

[Anonymous No.16305092]

>>16305073
>Anything is possible in theory.
Pragmatism is derivative of theory; you should know this.
>But it has never happened in reality.
Socrates/Plato/Hume/Pascal/Boole. There are many more examples of famous autodidacts outside of philosophy in other rigorous fields like engineering.
>There hasn't been a significant contribution to philosophy from outside academia in the past 100 years.
A worthless phrase meant only to nullify all possible counterarguments without any actual reasoning. The philosophers I stated above are infinitely more influential to our current world knowledge than any modern academic (although Pascal was more of a mathematician, he was an autodidactic mathematician).
>If you're interested in the subject, getting a PHD is the only way.
If you're interested in subject, intelligent enough, and regimented enough, you can do the same thing a philosophy student does without the added steps of getting a degree.

[Anonymous No.16305110]

>>16305078
I had to leave most of my books with my parents in Germany. What would I gain from lying on /lit/? I don't even claim to have the deepest ever understanding of those books.

[Anonymous No.16305129]

>>16305092
Your post indicates how clueless you are. You're talking about the state of things 2000 years ago. I'm talking about the reality of the field today. Autodidacts were of course possible and necessary before the advent of modern university education. Nowadays they are merely crackpots. Professors of math and philosophy receive hundreds of unsolicited papers every year, all of which are worthless and embarrassing pseudery authored by cranks. Much like the jaw-dropping idiocy we see every day on /lit/ from delusional "autodidacts". Those with a serious interest in the subject will invest the time to get a PHD. No one will pay your "ideas" even the slightest attention without one, and rightly so.

[Anonymous No.16305141]

>>16305006
I agree with the first few points, I also agree that God is in that sense intangible, we can not assume that he does not exist, simply because we don't have proof.
I am not fully conviced that in this line of reasoning the belief in God really can give us a strong moral foundation. If we agree that there is no real proof for God, the whole thing loses its authority.
We choose to believe in God, because that will enforce beneficial social rules but indirectly we have commited to those rules ourselves by first choosing a belief in God.

[Anonymous No.16305150]

>>16305092
If you're interested, intelligent and dedicated enough in any subject you can become competent independently, doesn't change that you're making shit way way harder on yourself than just going to uni for a few years. The amount of resources and people you have access to in actual academic setting is pretty impossible to match.
Anyone who's legitimately that interested in a subject that they'd be willing to dedicate a solid decade of their life to learning about it (at least) would just go to university.

[Anonymous No.16305151]

>>16305129
>You're talking about the state of things 2000 years ago.
Wait - Hume was 2000 years ago?
>Autodidacts were of course possible and necessary before the advent of modern university education.
These people were around during university education. What's the difference between 18th century university education and 21st century university education?
>Professors of math and philosophy receive hundreds of unsolicited papers every year, all of which are worthless and embarrassing pseudery authored by cranks.
Why do you think this indicates that autodidactism is bad in anyway? Have you ever thought that the majority of these people aren't what I described? That is, intelligent, self critical, and regimented?
>Those with a serious interest in the subject will invest the time to get a PHD.
Have you thought that historical or even modern influential philosophers are more likely to be Phds simply due to the fact that such greatly influential people are willing to go through the process of college more than others? That is to say, Kant had such a great interest in philosophy that he decided going to college for it was a good idea (especially in a time where philosophy wasn't so frowned upon as it seems to be now), whereas Hume was interested in philosophy but decided it was more worthwhile not to get a formal education. Would it not be that most people interested in philosophy are more willing to go to college, although there is a minority who are interested in philosophy that won't go to college, but rather, become autodidacts? Or is that impossible?
>No one will pay your "ideas" even the slightest attention without one
You understand that this isn't indicative of the false nature of autodidactism for those who are as I described, but rather, a logistical choice based on the previous situation you described with pseud papers, knowing that most of these 'autodidacts' aren't actually worth caring about, right? Do you also understand the terrible amount of politics that goes on in academia, in all fields, regarding publishing and the like?
>and rightly so.
I agree; maybe it would have been better for Hardy to have ignored Ramanujan's letter.

[Anonymous No.16305172]

>>16305141
>the belief in God really can give us a strong moral foundation.
This is definitely a hole if I understand what you're saying - that any moral authority would have to be created by man, correct? I've wondered about the feasibility of comparing great religious texts to find constant moral 'truths' found throughout them, and extrapolating a God's morality from it. For example, 'though shalt not kill' might be a constant among major world religions, and therefore it would be taken with this that killing is considered morally bad, in general. It might also be that such morality should simply be investigated by humans, or rather, some morality/ethical system based on how our world is could be investigated (in the same way as above, the is/ought dilemma would be taken as true, but disregarded for pragmatic reasons), and this would be attributed to a new deistic God.
It's also feasible that one should apply to their culture's major religion for simplicity, i.e that a European should be Christian, an Arab muslim, etc. so as to side step any bias that might come with choosing a religion, although I don't have an argument for this.

[Anonymous No.16305173]

>>16305151
Again, I'm talking about the situation IN THE LAST 100 YEARS -- specifically *today*. Pascal et al wrote before 100 years ago. Ramanujan wrote to Hardy before 100 years ago. The reality is that "autodidact" is now a synonym for crank.

[Anonymous No.16305188]

>>16305150
>doesn't change that you're making shit way way harder on yourself than just going to uni for a few years. The amount of resources and people you have access to in actual academic setting is pretty impossible to match.
I agree and I was never really arguing against this. Undoubtedly going to University is a superior choice for someone genuinely interested in the subject. What I don't like is people claiming that autodidactism is always just some cope though, when in reality, it's a feasible option. For example, what if someone were to choose to become a mathematician because it's what they prefer or think is more of a practical choice for university, but enjoy philosophy very much and can't waste the additional time/money to study it formally? Why would it be wrong for such a person (assuming they're as I described) to study and contribute to philosophy on their own?
>>16305173
>Again, I'm talking about the situation IN THE LAST 100 YEARS
And I'm talking about the past 5 seconds, therefore all of your arguments and mine are bunk because we have absolutely no way to investigated such claims when isolated in the past 5 seconds. Either make an argument for why we should only investigate claims made over the past 100 years (other than worthless semantics like 'but the colloquial meaning for autodidact changed!) or drop it.

I'm going to the gym, I'll check the thread on my phone or I'll be back in an hour so I can respond easier.

[Anonymous No.16305207]

>>16305188
>For example, what if someone were to choose to become a mathematician because it's what they prefer or think is more of a practical choice for university, but enjoy philosophy very much and can't waste the additional time/money to study it formally? Why would it be wrong for such a person (assuming they're as I described) to study and contribute to philosophy on their own?
You are again showing how clueless you are about how the academic world works. Mathematicians and philosophers collaborate all the time. But neither philosophers nor mathematicians collaborate with "autodidact" losers outside academia like yourself.

[Anonymous No.16305253]

>>16305188
Because it's not a feasible option, honestly. The vast, vast majority of people who learn shit themselves just end up with big gaps in their knowledge or concepts they get radically wrong, and even the ones who don't are competing with people who are similarly brilliant but have had an actual formal education.

It's not wrong of them to study it on their own, it's just a dumb decision if they want to contribute meaningfully. Even just having other educated people to bounce ideas off of is a huge, huge thing that independent people lack, and leads to a hell of a lot of repeated ideas or people talking about concepts that are already mostly dismissed or disproven (depending on field obviously).
There's no doubt some geniuses out there who can do so, but they're incredibly rare to the point of not even being worth talking about in my opinion.

Goes for any field really. Technically anyone could get published in nature, but I doubt you'll find anyone without a proper education of some kind.

[Anonymous No.16305281]

>>16305110
Sorry /lit/ is being so mean to you anon. Usually the people in the christian threads are much nicer. Maybe you should try some theology to find out about god?

If you've read Critique of pure reason you should know a priori reasoning doesn't amount to much. I have come to believe that it is easier to come to conclusions about god from the study of nature than of reasoning. Reading about the lives of prophets and theologians, it is rare to find anyone who was convinced to their position by books or argument rather than be natural experience. I think from an outside perspective it may be impossible to draw any conclusions about god, as most religions assert the evidence for god is found only in human perception and not any repeatable condition. For atheist perspective, perhaps try Epicurus. He is the only atheist philosopher from before the positivist era whose ideas have not been discredited to my knowledge.

[Anonymous No.16305339]

philosophy is useless
/thread

[Anonymous No.16305348]

>>16304909
What are your current beliefs?

[Anonymous No.16305355]

>>16305281
>Usually the people in the christian threads are much nicer.
Kek, they're few of the most nasty pricks on the board

[Anonymous No.16305821]

>>16305207
>You are again showing how clueless you are about how the academic world works. Mathematicians and philosophers collaborate all the time.
I think you're a retard and didn't bother to read what I said, again. I didn't talk about mathematicians wishing to collaborate with philosophers; I spoke of mathematicians wishing to rigorously study philosophy, and even then, I was using such a case as an example, not my entire argument. I could say the same thing about an engineer who wishes to study philosophy on the side, or a philosopher who is very interested in physics and wishes to study it as an autodidact. You can't even fucking read simple sentences yet you expect me to believe you know anything about academia, let alone work in it?
>>16305253
>The vast, vast majority of people who learn shit themselves just end up with big gaps in their knowledge or concepts they get radically wrong, and even the ones who don't are competing with people who are similarly brilliant but have had an actual formal education.
This I can again agree with, perhaps I'm setting my standard a bit high. I don't think it's infeasible, though, that someone who got a doctorate in some arbitrary field - say pure mathematics - wouldn't be able to contribute to philosophy after studying it for years. For example, as the other anon said, mathematicians collaborate with philosophers quite a bit, and even if they didn't, there's no doubt the mathematician or physicist etc. would have contacts in a philosophy department just from their time in school. If said person were to study philosophy in their leisure (and by study, I mean work through the canon along with complimentary texts), I don't think it's very far off that this person could get to a level of which they're able to contribute to the field - and even perhaps be more erudite than some who have gotten a formal education, considering - from what I know about philosophy classes - primary sources aren't very stressed.

It could be that I'm simply biased towards autodidactism though. For the vast majority of my time in school I learned material on my own, and usually at a much better pace and more thoroughly. The only real problem I observed in myself with this approach is a lack of practice at some points, which is why I add the point that someone who wishes to really study a topic on their own should be regimented.

[Anonymous No.16306061]

>>16300014
>How would you convince normies there's any meaning to all those philosophy books you read?
I wouldn't, if they want to read philosophy they can if the don't then they won't, I read philosophy because I like to so why would I try to justify doing it to people beyond because I like it?

[Anonymous No.16306084]

I hate books on philosophy. I already know what my philosophy is, why should I listen to what some overeducated old fart has to say?
>I study philosophy
Immediate red flag. That's like saying "I study my own delusions". Just do what's natural and don't be a fucking asshole retard faggot. If it makes you feel bad, don't fucking do it. And never compromise on anything ever

[Anonymous No.16306234]

Holy shit that image is peak pseud.

[Anonymous No.16306236]

>>16304909
>smart hedonism
Huh what does that mean
>hedonism
Degenerate

[Anonymous No.16306257]

>>16302221
good take

[Anonymous No.16306279]

>>16302221
Exclude twitter
Everybody knew that tumblr and 4chan are two sides of same coin

[Anonymous No.16306292]

>>16300014
>talking to normies about philosophy

Don't do that, know your audience. Talk about things they are interested in, no need to go into great detail when you mention you read philosophical texts, or if they press you give a brief overview

[Anonymous No.16306497]

>>16304943
>Anyone over 130 IQ who's familiar with some philosophy could btfo a midwit with a philosophy Phd.
next level cope

[Anonymous No.16306510]

>>16305073
>There hasn't been a significant contribution to philosophy from outside academia in the past 100 years.
Eh this isn't really true. Bataille for example.

[Anonymous No.16306517]

>>16306497
It's true. Philosophy is simply investigation of thought, ethics, etc.. People who think you need to go through x years of schooling to understand certain philosophical topics are coping. Yes you are better off getting a degree, but if you're not intelligent that degree's not going to mean anything in comparison to someone smarter than you who's fairly familiar with the same topics.

[Anonymous No.16306565]

>>16306517
Chris Langan has one of the highest IQs in the world but still has trouble being taken seriously by academic philosophy because of the amateurishness of his texts. You're coping. Also IQ means basically nothing.

[Anonymous No.16306568]

Please provide me with an oomer Identity. Reading this right now.

[Anonymous No.16306613]

>>16302718
here

[Anonymous No.16306620]

>>16306613
Now post your copy of Cyclonopedia

[Anonymous No.16306628]

>>16300014
Why are there only meme books in your image (except for Smith and Nietzsche)?

>there's any meaning to all those philosophy books you read?
Ask the guy who read over 2000 books of philosophy, religion and metaphysics, ranging from early Zoroastrianim to mystical hinduism to taoism, paganism, gnosticism, abrahamism of all strands and pre-enlightenment occultism.
Last time his answer was "reading doesn't lead to truth".

[Anonymous No.16306629]

>>16306613
Pwease be not a trap

[Anonymous No.16306639]

>>16303224
This is exactly how a conversation with a normie girl would pan out in most cases, past highschool at least.

[Anonymous No.16306649]

>>16304768
Needs more meme authors like Land or Zizek to be peak /lit/.

[Anonymous No.16306652]

>>16306629
:3

[Anonymous No.16306654]

>>16300014
Simple: I'm an autist so I need to approach life from an autist's angle. Philosophy is borne out of the autist's and neurotic's coping with a normalfag world.

[Anonymous No.16306751]

i was doing fine in life until someone got me into philosophy

[Anonymous No.16307426]

>>16300014
like philosophy itself started anon, you ask Socratic questions until they get to the difficult stuff and inevitably get confused. then pry a bit further on how they'd try to resolve whatever problem you hit. Assuming you know a decent bit about philosophy you can start making some suggestions and arguing against some of the common arguments theyll bring up and start a more nuanced dialogue. congrats youre doing philosophy with ur pals.

If at any point they just get angry and refuse to engage any further you found out how they deal without philosophy: by just denying themselves.

[Anonymous No.16307443]

>>16300014
well shit I did read the myth and yes, that pic is really me

[Anonymous No.16307476]

>>16306510
Not a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.16308166]

>>16305821
It really does sound like you're a bit biased. Any half decent phil class will include original texts even in undergrad, let alone further education. I think you're underestimating how much people in the field tend to know, and how much time they put into it.

The idea that people could contribute enough to be important as a hobby while competing somewhat with people who are similarly very smart but doing it as a career is just kind of silly, 99.999% of the time. You could study enough to hold a conversation for sure, but it's incredibly unlikely you'll contribute meaningfully without that extra a proper education gives you access to.

[Anonymous No.16309073]

>>16306613
yikes

[Anonymous No.16309084]

>>16307476
The fuck? Yes he is. Are you one of those analytics that thinks like 80% of non-analytic philosophy isn't philosophy?

[Anonymous No.16309112]

>>16305053
Yes. Nothing will make you sad quicker than poverty.

[Anonymous No.16309115]

>>16306613
Nice feet

[Anonymous No.16309154]

>>16309084
Bataille was a literary figure. He did not address philosophical questions in a systematic manner, nor are his works cited by serious philosophers today.

[Anonymous No.16309265]

>>16309154
You don't know what you're talking about. He was cited by Foucault and Baudrillard, and is still influential today in aesthetics and political economy. "The Accursed Share" isn't literary work.

[Anonymous No.16309299]

>>16309265
Foucault and Baudrillard aren't philosophers either. They're among the most infamous pseuds of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.16309300]

>>16309299
Lol okay bye.

[Anonymous No.16309307]

>>16300082
Its not an introvert/extrovert thing

[Anonymous No.16309359]

>>16300014
What am I if I've read all of these except xenofeminism and the weird anime one?

(Unironic yanggang too)

[Anonymous No.16309369]

>>16309300
It's not my fault you have no idea what philosophy is.

[Anonymous No.16309401]

>>16309369
would you quit trolling him already

[Anonymous No.16309421]

>>16303239
Knowledge isn't about knowing more, it's about recognizing how much you don't know

[Anonymous No.16309455]

>>16302741
>Swallowing the ideas of others doesn't have much in common with reflecting.
What a pedantic human being. Reading others ideas poses questions to ones self. That's where reflection comes in.

[Anonymous No.16309469]

>>16300014
>>16306084 is bait but is also exactly what normies believe OP. Interest in philosophy is fundamentally a result of introspection. You look inside yourself and see that most of your beliefs are sourced externally, then you have some event, maybe it's someone you thought was smart who you realize was an idiot, which makes you realize that some of those beliefs are untenable. So you start actively looking outward instead of passively absorbing information from others. The result is a desire to learn more about yourself through the reflections and thoughts of others and seeing how they process the world.

Hylics do not introspect. They are probably not even capable of doing so. Some people simply will never be self-critical and do not see themselves as needing to learn or having unexplored spaces. They just go through life on autopilot and you really can't say some magic combination of words to make that person change their mind. Even if you try to show that some of their beliefs are false they'll just dismiss you as a crackpot or a crank. This is a kind of change that can only come from within, not without.

[Anonymous No.16309956]

>>16309112
And working at Burger King will push me above the poverty line?

[Anonymous No.16310001]

>>16303252
lol weed sld ayahuasca lmao
Name druggie philosophers, better be the big names

[Anonymous No.16310028]

>>16304926
you don't know either

[Anonymous No.16310081]

>>16305059
>>16305043
No way you guys aren't the same person.

[Anonymous No.16310154]

>>16306654
underrated

[Anonymous No.16310162]

>>16305348
It is impossible to know any relevant objective truth. And here already I come to my first contradiction, because that statement sounds like the assertion of an objective truth.

God may or may not exist, I can only say that one option might be more plausible than the other but I can not even come up with a probability distribution. I think that given my day to day experience and some arguments following propositional logic and first order logic, with the information that I have, God seems unlikely. For example some passages from the bible seem to contradict themselves, contraditions should mean that the thing can not exist (like a Turing Machine that solves the halting problem for Turing Machines) but God might be above such logic and the bible might be allegorical in some passages.
Even if a God exists, it doesn't seem likely that it must be the Christian God.

My morals mostly come down to utilitarianism, and I am aware of problems such as the trolley problem. I am not sure if there is a solution to this. My day to day morals are utilitarianism and protection of the weak, I also value the prevention of extreme sufferig higher than the achievement of extreme pleasure.

My understanding of politics is mostly game theory, many individuals and groups trying to acquire ressources through competition and cooperation.

The root of what a valuable ressource is, be it physical or mental, is rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology. People want food, sex, children and so on.

All of this doesn't mean that there is no room left wor wonder and awe. Even if I don't have an immortan soul, my mind is my mortal soul. When I meet a woman, I don't think about atoms coliding or flesh rubbing on flesh, I hope that we will experience something awesome that we might not even comprehend, although it might be an illusion in a sense.

I am also very afraid of death.

[Anonymous No.16310181]

>>16305081
Yes it is bitch

[Anonymous No.16310193]

>>16305081
Reading is not a 'reading exercise'

[Anonymous No.16310298]

>>16304788
Aptly put.

[Anonymous No.16310378]

>>16304909
>objective proof
Doesn't exist in "real" philopshy no matter how many axioms or whatever people throw at you. Real philopshy has practical purposes and often has no proofs. Look at Marcus Aurelius, did he really need proof of Stoicism to deal with his hard life? No, the model simply worked for him and he kept at it. Find a model that works for you and follow it. And don't be afraid to change it or intertwine ideas from different kinds.

[Anonymous No.16310526]

>>16300014
As someone with a philosophy degree I don’t think you need to spend hours pouring over philosophy - some of its most useful truths can be distilled down to a single sentence

[Anonymous No.16310555]

>>16310526
Death is the ultimate defeat of the physical being. Any living organism has a history dating back millions of years, considering that any suffering regarding death is natural and justified.

- Arthur Schopenhauer -

[Anonymous No.16310564]

>>16306654 This

[Anonymous No.16310602]

>>16310181
>>16310193
^ literal retards.

[Anonymous No.16310624]

>>16300014
Philosophy is nothing more than a LARP. Your entire worldview and what you perceive as truth can change with the flip of a coin. All roads lead to the same destination in life, so what you do and what you believe is inconsequential

[Anonymous No.16311021]

>>16310624
You should just kill yourself now then, get it all over with if you're just interested in the destination.

[Anonymous No.16311031]

>>16300014
Beats me. I once told I Tinder match I was reading Muslim philosophy and that piqued her interest so I walked her through one of the arguments for the timelessness of the creation of the world in the Incoherence of the Incoherence, and all she said was "That's a lot to take in" and I never heard from her again.

[Anonymous No.16312094]

>>16300014
why does stirner get the troll face

[Anonymous No.16312475]

>>16311031
Based retard. You should have just said a 4 word cryptic sentence on it, refuse to elaborate then move on to something she was actually interested in.

[Anonymous No.16312522]

>>16300014
You can lead the horse to a river, but you can't force it to drink the water.

[Anonymous No.16312562]

>>16306654
Fucking based

[Anonymous No.16313668]

>>16300014
Philosophy is a masturbation with your brain, reading other people philosophy books is like watching some dude masturbate instead of masturbating yourself.

[Anonymous No.16313673]

>>16313668
COOMer brained confirmed

[Anonymous No.16313991]

>>16313668
based and coompilled

[Anonymous No.16314075]

>>16300014
This is more appropriate for The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus.

After all the points he attempts to make in the book, his final takeaway is nothing less than the central claim of the terrible society he proudly criticizes:

>Gots to pretend to be happeh D;

[Anonymous No.16315520]

>>16306613
nasty faggot