/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18336650]

what is this 'philosophy' thing? I've been lurking this god forbidden place for long enough to get a grasp about what you schizos are talking about but I can't make sense out of it.
> idealism
> phenomenology
> trascendental
> greeks
what the FUCK do any of these things mean? what's it used for? I've resolved to get to the bottom of this, I can't stand you banana-gulping-monkeys talking about that made up nonsense.

[Anonymous No.18336706]

>>18336650
Just read boethius consolations of philosophy

[Anonymous No.18336739]

>>18336650
There's physics which is a framework of material reality and its causation. Metaphysics is of all reality such as the proper way to interpret information (monist, dualist etc).

There are metaphysical structures (reverse/regular foundationalism, pro/ regressivism, monism, nihilism, coherentism). Those have ontological dimensions (monism, dualism, trialism, pluralism nihilism etc).
Of those that you adapt you get a natural inference rule which allows you an entirely different conception of reality. You get a different logic/math/science/technology/ethics. All new paradigms start w a new development of these and everything is traced back to a new Metaphysics. Some Metaphysics are near dead ends while others have been more successful.

[Anonymous No.18336751]

>>18336650
Fucking google them

[Anonymous No.18336823]

>>18336739
and what if, let's say, I decide to live past this "methaphysics" preocupations? do people live without knowing that they have a "methaphysical" point of view about things? does everybody have one?

[Anonymous No.18336828]

>>18336650
>what is this 'philosophy' thing?
It's the thing you do when you're to stupid to do anything else.

[Anonymous No.18336839]

>>18336823
Yes everyone has a conception of reality and act on it subconsciously or not. The rate of error occurances are a consequential way of measuring it. It has that much broadness. The reason we read biographies of people can sometimes be because it seems they have a lot figured out and with an understanding of metaphysics you can analyze which is particularly true and which is not. Whenever you learn anything it's interpreted through your metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.18336846]

>>18336751
stop living your life as if you were a monk reaching for enlightment in isolation. asking your made up god the almighty internet instead of talking to people just makes you a perverted bugman, be gone

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.18336876]

>>18336650
>what is this 'philosophy' thing? I've been lurking this god forbidden place for long enough to get a grasp about what you schizos are talking about but I can't make sense out of it.

Philosophy, broadly speaking, is about the study and contemplation of the relationship of man to nature, whether this is the question of “how do I live a good life?” Or “what is the first principles of nature?” Or “what is the underlying relationship of mathematics to myself.” To even “what is the implications of this specific aspect of current culture.” Different Philosophers care about different things, but fundamentally it’s about using your reason to approach and formulate logically the nature of things, whether this be in an absolute systematic way or a decentralized and relativistic way or an analytic way.


>idealism

The Belief that fundamentally, the ontological structure of reality, what being was originally, is derived/still is an aspect of a mind, of divine ideas and forms, of a world of pure concepts which either emanated or morphed somehow into our current world, yet still is not truly separated ultimately.

> phenomenology

The study of phenomena, which is to say, experience, and in specific the methods and reasoning for doing this which really stem out of Husserl and Heidegger (but have older parallels in the works of older philosophers and theologians, such as Hegel) about the raw analysis of phenomena without adding anything else to it. Example hegel tries to produce a model of reality which has no suppositions other than that there is being and that there is time/change, Husserl tries to make no statements on what being is beyond perception and just focuses on what he can perceive about experience itself. Etc.

>transcendental

Beyond/prior to the perception of man.

>what the FUCK do any of these things mean?

Depends on each specific one.

>what's it used for?

Depends, some are just for living a good life, others, Knowledge for its own ends, stuff like Husserl actually have some usage in AI and neuro/neuropsychological stuff due to how well they understood the mind.

>I've resolved to get to the bottom of this, I can't stand you banana-gulping-monkeys talking about that made up nonsense.


You don’t have to if you don’t want to, there’s nothing forcing you to, if you’re having a bad time.

[Anonymous No.18336951]

>>18336876
this whole thing sounds serious, definitely close to boring and too intricated, so tell me: was there any way in which philosophy tried to end itself?
I understand, parting from what you say, that people construct over the base of available knlowledge they have at hand. was there any "philosopher" or moment in time where they admitted that knowledge was insufficient or something?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.18336973]

>>18336951
From the beginning there’s been apophaticism and Socrates (the teacher of Plato, considered the father of all western philosophy.) his major thing is the belief that humans do not have knowledge and wisdom, in fact, the division in Ancient Greece between the philosopher and the sage, is the philosopher does not have knowledge but seeks for it, whereas the sage has attained it.


>definitely close to boring

Can be! But it isn’t designed for aesthetical pleasure, you’re much better off reading poetry or the like if your desire is aesthetic pleasure.

>and too intricated,

Depends, some are profoundly and beautifully complex, some are scientific, some are very simplistic and can be mastered in a day.

>so tell me: was there any way in which philosophy tried to end itself?

Other than the above, I can speak of many attempts and turning points, Socrates denying the possibility of any true knowledge other than knowing your own ignorance, the pyrrhonian skepticism which applied the dagger of doubt to everything, until nothing remained whatsoever, not even being, the language turning points of Wittgenstein, the apophatic mystics and aphorisms of countless men in both the west and east, laruelle’s opposition to philosophy as being fundamentally based in a commitment of dividing man from the world and producing, through reason, a hollow copy mentally, etc.

>I understand, parting from what you say, that people construct over the base of available knlowledge they have at hand. was there any "philosopher" or moment in time where they admitted that knowledge was insufficient or something?

I mean, most of them, example idealism because of kant believed in a noumena, which is to say, that outside and prior to phenomena there is things which we cannot speak of, nor conceptualize and they’re simply impossible to really define in any real sense, Hegel spearheaded the removal of the noumena because, if we cannot speak or conceptualize it, practically it has no reality to us in experience. Similarly this is the argument of the phenomenologists and why they concern themselves with phenomena and not being itself.

But yeah, you’ll find endless shouting of the incapacity to gain true and total knowledge and still the value of striving for wisdom and partial knowledge.

But again, there’s no like, gun to your head. If you do not desire to study these things, you need not.

[Anonymous No.18337076]

>>18336650
4chan is just littered with /pol/tards now isn't it. Sigh.

[Anonymous No.18337102]

>>18336973
idk if all of that is for me, but I'm always amazed by the sheer amount of information people who know about philosophy bring into every conversation
how do you do it? is there any method to help you get a more solid grasp of all these interpretations of what philosophy is or ought to be doing?
I think it's from there that my curiosity on the subject spours: how could I start to build a solid foundation for my own thoughts, how can I help myself learn more deeply?

[Anonymous No.18337122]

>>18337076
I wouldn't know I just browse here and /mlp/. also it sounds like you can sure spot brain dead mongoloids, animals of the same kind are prone to interacting with each other.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.18337187]

>>18337102
It’s just a question of sitting down and studying, along with contemplation. Your best bet is unironically to begin with the Greeks, which I know, sounds cliche but the reason is simply that all of the major western philosophical positions? Their seed forms, their most primitive first conceptualizations can be found in Ancient Greece, it is also the basis of Much of the debates and questions due to them being originators of so much. The basics of reading Plato, the stoics, Aristotle, and so forth, but here’s the thing.

You should study what you are attracted to, what you think is truth or closest to the truth. Bonevac (a professor ) has an okay introduction to the history of philosophy and much literature shills particular philosophers. It’s still probably best to read Plato, Aristotle and also learn about pyrrhonian skepticism just as a foundation of how to reason, how to divide with skepticism and so forth. But again, you don’t HAVE to. While YouTube is terrible for this kind of junk, it’s fine if you watch the lectures posted by professors as introductory materials.

But of course, don’t forget just to sit with yourself and contemplate who you are, what the world is and so forth, that is the real foundation everyone needs.