/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10989869]

Why is "important" philosophy all nonsense? Hegel says the perception of a red object leads to cultural spirit through some nonsensical unfalsifiable theological waterslide. Heidegger makes up words to say "death" and "being" has a different character from death and being so you can't criticize him without using his made-up words. Kant says "unity" and "multiplicity" are one of the dozen foundations of human perception but who fucking cares? He's just doing math with long paragraphs about nothing and he literally doesn't say anything anybody could be affected by.

Shouldn't philosophy be about "What is human existence?" and "What's the best way to live?" and "How do we know perception is real?"

Instead it's all privileged idiots inventing "systems" that are incompatible with each other and don't say anything about anything. It's just "systems". Why does philosophy post-1800 suck ass? They haven't proven a single thing and haven't developed a working method of inquiring about anything. It's all rich old dudes babbling obviously unusable gibberish at each other. What the fuck is the whole industry supposed to be? Why is academic philosophy the only industry that produces absolutely no meaningful advances from one year to the next? What the fuck are those people doing?

[Anonymous No.10989878]

>>10989869
they were entering the event horizon of modernity. sophistry without recourse.

the best philosophy is practical. likewise the best sort of knowledge is the one gained through practical philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10989890]

>>>/sci/

[Anonymous No.10990099]

>>10989869
well chosen image

>"How do we know perception is real?"
Isn't reality typically taken to be that which is not dependent on perception/what stays when you look away/what's not a mirage? I wouldn't call perception "real." I think what you want to ask is if it correlates with reality or if there is one.

Philosophy of language is pretty fun, especially when you look at subjects like implication in dialogue, vagueness, etc.

>>10989890
underrated post

[Anonymous No.10990478]

>>10989869
You summed up a lot of my barriers into "real" philosophy- my roommate's deep into that stuff and talks about riveting philosophical conundrums like "How can we integrate Philosopher A's Concept X into the framework of Hegelian thought, considering Philosopher B's Concept Y was based on post-Kantian synthesis of Philosopher C's Concept Z and Philosopher B's own concept F, assuming Philosopher D's definition of "thought" reflects a non-Hegelian approach to Philosopher E's definition of "self"
It gets to a point where it seems like everything is just strings of meaningless shit with absolutely no bearing on reality.
His response will be "But Anon, what does reality REALLY mean? What does it really mean to "mean" something, assuming Philosopher G's second system of defining "reality" in a post-metaKantian synthesis of Philosopher F's redefinition of "self"?" and it feels like my brain is liquefying because of how meaningless it all is.

Maybe I'm just a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10990510]

It isn't. That's not all Hegel says. That's not all Heidegger says. That's not all Kant says.

It often is, including the philosophers you have mentioned by name.

Philosophy does set out a working method, based on past philosophy, which also proves things. "Use" is a philosophical concept.

[Anonymous No.10990526]

>>10990478
maybe if you knew what he was talking about it wouldn't be meaningless

[Anonymous No.10990548]

>>10989869
>it's all privileged idiots inventing "systems" that are incompatible with each other and don't say anything about anything
I went to a "philosophy discussion club" to support my friend (he was running for president so I went to vote for him) and the topic was animal rights. I thought it could be an interesting conversation, but it immediately descended into people throwing ACKCHYUALLY back and forth over the definition of "being", because apparently everyone's favorite philosopher defined it differently, and there was no "right answer", meaning the conversation couldn't even continue.
It just seems like endless hair-splitting over things that aren't even grounded to begin with.

[Anonymous No.10990559]

>>10989869
Do none of you fucking nigger read analyitic philosophy.

Reading naming and necessity and philisophical investigations and ignore anything pre 1950

[Anonymous No.10990564]

>>10990526
I don't claim to understand the nuances but I genuinely have tried to learn, and get the basic ideas and concepts- my problem is that while it all makes sense, it just ends up feeling like "uh, okay..?" because none of it has any bearing on things that are grounded in reality in any way. Anyone can think up a logically cohesive system of claims and assumptions, but they won't mean anything if they're only based on endless chains of "nuh-uh, my system's the right one"

[Anonymous No.10990581]

>>10990559
analytic philosophy is garbage and is exactly emblematic of this meaningless hair-splitting the OP is accusing the field of. come on dude.

>>10990564
give me 3 examples of philosophical concepts that make you go "uh, okay...?" or shit, just 1

[Anonymous No.10990587]

>>10990581
whole point is theyre not system building, theyre very small claims and very small points made in small papers. Good analytic philosophy moves slowly and make little progress, exactly how it should be

[Anonymous No.10990595]

>>10990587
analytic philosophy is concerned with nothing I give a fuck about. give me one (1), literally ONE, analytic philosopher who has novel and interesting things to say about any of these topics: the good, suffering, evil, death, God, being, the self, desire. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong but none of you have ever taken me up on the challenge.

[Anonymous No.10990603]

>>10990595
Alvin Plantinga

Saul Kripke

Nozick

Alvin Plantinga again

[Anonymous No.10990611]

>>10990603
that's fair, I've actually heard Nozick has some pretty interesting views on the nature of life I've been always meaning to check out. Okay anon, you got me. Fair's fair.

[Anonymous No.10990617]

>>10990611
I will agree a lot of analytic philosophy is a real mess of hair splitting, but theres some good stuff. Plantinga is a really incredible philosopher, and Nozick's explinations and libertarian writings are all greats. You got lots of good stuff ahead

[Anonymous No.10990626]

Literally Kierkegaard has you beat by several hundred years.

[Anonymous No.10990627]

>>10989869
read Aristotle, MacIntyre, and Anscombe

then you realize that the "important" enlightenment philosophies were all a waste of time

[Anonymous No.10990630]

>>10990626
>dude God's will lmao
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.10990632]

>>10990548
>It just seems like endless hair-splitting over things that aren't even grounded to begin with
Philosophy is a pedantic discipline. It's also a truly enormous subject. Say you have a bunch of people who hold two sides on a position. Both sides are diametrically opposed to each other. Both sides also have really good arguments for and against the positions. Now imagine after 500 years of these two schools going at it some philosopher comes up with an innovation that shows that the question doesn't even make sense.
Now there are people for and against this position all the while the original two groups carry on because the other disagreement hasn't been settled. This isn't because philosophers are stupid. It's because the field is so mindbogglingly huge. If you get some philosophers together who come from completely different systems there will be a lot of fucking around because the reason those two opposed positions exist is because their is strong reason for both to be there.
And because they all do philosophy they are aware of a wide range of arguments for or against their position but since no one is going to come up with the crucial piece of the puzzle in a seminar everything is left unsettled. The only way for this not to happen in these kinds of gatherings is if the issue at hand implicitly or explicitly assumes a number of things. Saying was Alexander the great a good man is different from saying would Aristotle say that Alexander the great was a good man for example.

>>10990564
>but they won't mean anything if they're only based on endless chains of "nuh-uh, my system's the right one"
Which is why people try to ground them, and to do that you have to do the very thing you are criticising them for. Also it usually is nowhere near as bad as you are making it out to be, it's only that you lack the prerequisite knowledge to properly engage with the discussion so that everything seems so much more complicated than it is.

>because none of it has any bearing on things that are grounded in reality in any way
You are saying this like it has to. Some scientist doesn't discover some extremely minute bit of information about some molecule in an animal that no one has heard of think to himself "This is going to spice up my sex life". You are ascribing a purpose to something which is often not aiming to do that.

Philosophy isn't just sitting down and thinking about stuff for 40 minutes once and awhile. It's an extremely rigorous discipline that requires a lot of knowledge of the subject. You don't except some lay person to enter into some really obscure problem in pure mathematics and be able to follow the argument. It is absolutely the same with philosophy. That's why people say X's understanding of Y, because it's a shorthand that lets people involved to understand each-other better.

[Anonymous No.10990635]

>>10990630
t. an actual retard

[Anonymous No.10990654]

>>10990635
I know you are, but what am I?

[Anonymous No.10990696]

>expecting philosophy to be "falsifiable"
Joke's on you for thinking philosophy needs to be anything akin to the empirical sciences.

Western philosophy is a tradition of textual commentary going back to the ancient Greeks, a tradition concerned with rational discourse about the human condition which grounds the whole logos of western civilization. You might have heard a definition that says philosophy happens anytime somebody asks a general question - this definition is meaningless, even if it's technically true. One can ask a question in a million different contexts, but what we are concerned with are questions adressed in the specific tradition of graeco-christian rationality that is the treasury of our ancestors.

The writings of Plato remain relevant because they are not used to give you ready-made answers derived from some kind of scientific method, they instead familiarise you with the dialectical process which engages these eternal questions. "What is justice?" - can anyone give you the definitive answer to this inquiry? No, and even if they could it wouldn't do you any good, because you haven't engaged with the debate, haven't examined your interlocutors and tried to derive a coherent definition understandable to common opinion. For Socrates, who didn't have much of a tradition to examine, his interlocutors were educated Greeks, but for us there is a huge debate stretching two a half thousand years, from the writings of the presocratics to contemporary philosophy.

Heidegger, talking about Aristotle's Physics, said: "This book determines the warp and woof of the whole of Western thinking, even at that place where it, as modern thinking, appears to think at odds with ancient thinking. But opposition is invariably comprised of a decisive, and often even perilous, dependence." This is precisely right, and gives you the answer why every educated person needs to engage with western philosophy. Any form of science we do is a house built on greek foundations, and it's plainly unwise to ignore the perilous dependence.

[Anonymous No.10990777]

Ontology is a big part. Basically, if you want to make decisions that you feel are effective and correct, you need a good idea of what the situation is, in as much useful detail as possible. You create a model.
That model is a map that helps you get to what you want.
You can take that map and go lots of places.
If your map is inappropriate, you won't get where you are going.
Now, there's a lot of maps, with greater or lesser relevance to where you are trying to get, and how specific or general a destination must be.
You won't be able to navigate Hong Kong with a Map that only has Continents on it.
You won't have any luck getting to America from Hong Kong if all you have is a map of China.

Further, there are things besides Ontology that matter too.
To keep with the metaphor, I can't bake a cake if I have a Road Atlas instead of a Cook Book.

[Anonymous No.10990810]

Part of the issue is that it's extremely difficult to have your criticisms of these philosophers taken seriously. Their works are defended in many ways, which often have little to do with their actual arguments.

Your background reading is challenged. You'd agree with X, if only you had read these 5 books. Oh, you still don't agree? Why? Yeah, read these 5 books now. Repeat until you wise up to the game and stop playing.

Then it's your credentials. What, you don't have a philosophy degree? Lmao! It shows. Look, why don't you go take a college class. It will clear everything up. A layman couldn't possibly understand, while someone educated in another field will surely have misinterpreted everything. If you try to show your knowledge by restating the philosopher's arguments, they will tell you that it's an "oversimplification" and refuse to elaborate on exactly why, preventing you from progressing.

If you manage to secure a live debate, be prepared to have your opponent begin citing unheard of works which they claim supply a brilliant argument (which they don't have time to go into) which destroys yours. Nothing comes of the debate.

Then you get into the magical realm where you may submit a criticism, but your effort is undermined in one of two ways: either your criticism has been kept brief, in which case they will wilfully misinterpret it or exploit an ambiguity in bad faith to dismiss you. Or you have written such a long text in order to present your views with exactitude that they will dismiss it because it's "too long" and they "can't be bothered" (tee-hee!)

Oh, and the entire time you are arguing your points, expect to have an increasingly large number of the philosopher's disciples arguing independently with everything you say. So for every reply you make, another half a dozen arguments respond. You didn't have time to reply to somebody? You're obviously a troll or intellectually dishonest and we should just ban or ignore you.

There is no winning with academic philosophy. For your own sanity, just give up on it now and read only what you find interesting or useful to you.

[Anonymous No.10990825]

>>10989869
SEEEEYMOOOOUR

[Anonymous No.10990892]

I have noticed that when a lot of people read too much philosophy they disappear up their own ass and lose the ability to communicate with normal human beings.

[Anonymous No.10990977]

>>10989869
This is honestly a fantastic post and I love it. Philosophy used to serve man, at some point it lost its way and became about nonsense

[Anonymous No.10990987]

>>10989869
but that's the fucking point, you are supposed to make up so many shit about the world that there is no reason for you to go out and explore it

[Anonymous No.10991088]

>>10989869
You now know how Ayn Rand felt when she famously said "I found myself in profound disagreement with all existing philosophies.

[Anonymous No.10991218]

>>10989869
Well, the important groundwork (that actually helps you) was already done by the romans and the greeks.
The problem is this:
They (Sokrates, Plato, Seneca, Aurel...) they gave us more than enough for living a good life. So modern philosophers cant achieve much new in that regard.
And the other part of anique philosophy was the understanding of the world, which now science provides. (Holy shit, even in Sokrates time they already suspected the world to be round, made of "Atomos" and the sun to be a giant glowing ball made of magma. Stuff we could only prove thousand years later)

So what could modern philosophers do? They relegated themselves to think about abstrakt thoughts and what if questions about reality. The other thing was that they tried to one up each other by formulating everything in so complicated terms that even their peers would have problems to understand to prove their "superior" intelligence.
Which stands in stark contrast to the greeks and romans who tried to put it into such terms that everyone could understand it.

tl;dr. Modern ph. are wanks, old stuff is good and helpfull.

[Anonymous No.10991255]

>>10990548
I found the same thing with abortion. There was an essay collection and everyone began their system by defining what a person is in a different way that seemed to me to be coming from their prior convictions. So it was clear there was no debate when everyone is operating under a different framework, and then building models and rationalizations to solidify their convictions. The most riveting essay - though admittedly I cannot remember the contents - involved justifying infanticide and how, if we can justify that, then abortion was totally permissible.

[Anonymous No.10991265]

>>10989869
>important
It's not important anymore really, no one cares. I know this will trigger a lot of pseuds here but philosophy is becoming more and more irrelevant and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

[Anonymous No.10991266]

>>10991218
>mentions Plato but not Aristotle
Aristotle is the far greater benefactor of civilization. Plato and his mysticism I'd say was net loss once you've shmmed everything up.

[Anonymous No.10991270]

>>10990654
OOOOOO SNAP

[Anonymous No.10991272]

>>10990595
>>10990603
Also Parfit for some great discussions on the self. Reasons and Persons is a masterpiece

[Anonymous No.10991281]

>>10990603
>Alvin Plantinga
mediocre boring apologist, I can't imagine anyone reading his stuff and enjoying it

[Anonymous No.10991288]

>>10989869
>Instead it's all priviledge idiots inventing "systems" that are incompatible with each other and don't sya anything about anything.

[Anonymous No.10991299]

>>10990777
Or I can figure out how to bake a cake on my own.

[Anonymous No.10991313]

>>10991266
Arguably, Plato influenced medieval and early modern Europeans more.

[Anonymous No.10991318]

>>10991266
>mentions Plato but not Aristotle

I just put some big names out there as examples. Aristotle is great.

[Anonymous No.10991321]

>>10991299
If you can figure out life better than any philosopher in history who put pen to paper then good for you

[Anonymous No.10991325]

>all the cucks ITT stuttering through utilitarian justifications of philosophy when prompted
lmoa philosophy is important not because "it helps you make the right choice" or because "it can have a practical effect on the world." Philosophy is important because it is NOT utilitarian in nature and thus lies WAY beyond the grasp of utilitarian apes like OP and thus raises a handful among us from the near-bestial states of existence, where the dumbed-down, half-educated-by-the-public-system, opiniated and shrill, entertainment-fed dumb fucking wildebeest like OP do dwell for this meaningless and soon-ending, ever-reproducing organic phenomenom they call their "life". They are hands and a digestive tract; and they hate all that is higher than the digestive tract.

[Anonymous No.10991418]

>>10991325
this. It is not the most necessary subject, but the best

[Anonymous No.10991440]

>>10989869
>Shouldn't philosophy be about "What is human existence?" and "What's the best way to live?" and "How do we know perception is real?"
I recommend that you actually read Heidegger instead of shitposting second hand opinions.

[Anonymous No.10991458]

>>10991325
*fades into irrelevance*

[Anonymous No.10991468]

>>10991325
Stomach is the core of being.

[Anonymous No.10991750]

>>10989869
OP read Guenon

[Anonymous No.10991772]

>>10989878
>the best philosophy is practical

[Anonymous No.10992036]

>>10991288
why did somebody take this picture

[Anonymous No.10992055]

>>10989869
Philosophy is 99% about understanding the questions and why they're important. 99% of the responses to such difficult questions fail.

[Anonymous No.10992060]

The problem with philosophy is that the field selects for people who think it's useful.

People like me, who try it and see it for the pointless fart-sniffing waste of time it is and then leave to go and do real and practical things to fix actual problems aren't represented in philosophy because we're not there.

Thus you only ever hear philosophical arguments that are predicated on the assumption that philosophy is valuable.

And it's not.

There is an unbroken chain from the voter to the party to the politician to the public service to the policy department to the parliament to the police, and at no point do philosophers figure into this equation. They have no influence on policy and they have no influence on public thought. They just sit in a corner twiddling their thumbs while the world moves on around them.

>but what about famous philosopher who taught the world about liberty
Merely codifying the zeitgeist of the time, and nothing more. Nothing has ever happened or not happened because of a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.10992062]

>>10989869
>>10990099
Most people don't understand the questions though, and I question whether you guys did either.

[Anonymous No.10992064]

They masturbate within unfalsifiable systems. That's it. And they mainly point to the veneer of academia as a claim of worth. Most people are conformists that will never disagree with "it's academia so it must be intellectually worthwhile"

[Anonymous No.10992070]

>>10989869
philosophy is completely useless, it's something that happens to certain minds as a kind of failure, an obsession with self-criticism and logical consistency that goes way beyond the pragmatic uses of these faculties.

it's like somebody going through a maze, meeting a split in the path, and then spending 10 years thinking about which way to go, ending up making irrelevant conjectures about the color of the sky above

[Anonymous No.10992111]

>When the sentiments being expressed itt are 1:1 what Ayn Rand posited all her career but /lit/ will mindlessly hate her anyway
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad

[Anonymous No.10992115]

>>10992060

Codifying a zeitgeist is a uniquely philosophical undertaking. If such a thing does not happen, the times cannot self-criticize, and a human (or society) which does does not self-criticize is very vulnerable towards turning evil.

[Anonymous No.10992129]

>>10992115
Your problem is assuming that philosophers fill the role of a societal conscience.

They don't.

Firstly they don't have enough influence, and secondly they follow the same trends as the rest of society and just justify what is already happening anyway even if they did have influence.

Point me to the philosopher who stopped the invasion of Iraq in 2003. You can't. Okay then, so point me to the philosopher responsible for the invasion then. You still can't. What proved to be one of the most significant decisions in the region with consequences still ongoing a decade later and it was made with zero philosophical input.

[Anonymous No.10992134]

>>10989869

>unfalsifiable

Still posting shitty Popperian views I see.

>They haven't proven a single thing

Read §42-44 in Being and Time.

[Anonymous No.10992136]

>>10992134
>I know the name of a guy associated with the concept, therefore the concept is wrong
worst type of poster

[Anonymous No.10992142]

>>10990478
You realize all diciplines are like that at the top, right? You’d feel like as much of a brainlet looking at economic equations or mathematical vectors. If you dont put the years of effort it takes to reach a certain point of sophistication within the subject matter, you don’t get to speculate on whether it makes sense or not.

[Anonymous No.10992155]

>>10990603
>Nozick
i can smell the grad profs cum on ur breath faggot
>>10990696
plato had a tradition pseud
>>10991458
oh no rich peoples 115 iq failesons wont get to teach intro to metaphysics anymore how will programmers learn log-oh wait. lol’ing at you, i would never study for a living
>>10992060
>selection is alive
dropped
>>10992115
we are evil

[Anonymous No.10992174]

>>10992136
>unfalsifiable
>concept

[Anonymous No.10992223]

>>10992136

>>10992136

Popper explicitly decides not to engage the question of how our understanding of evidence is pre-structured (see "conjectures and refutations" & "conjectural knowledge") in any depth, which is also why I recommended Heidegger, something you'd realize if you'd taken a moment to think.

Reading §42-44 and The Origin of the Work of Art, and understanding the significance of truth as aletheia, is going to completely eliminate the kind of shitty thinking OP is doing. If Heidegger is too much, go for Gadamer instead. Same point, less depth. This will also allow you to understand that the fruit of progression in philosophy is the birth of other fields of study - logic, sociology, computer science, anthropology, history, law, to just name a few. Believing that this is somehow finished and philosophy isn't going to open up any new fields is frankly embarrassing. It has for the past 2500 years.

In fact, OP's is a shitty take on Popper even on Popper's own premises, since he realized the value of philosophy despite it not living up to his (highly criticizable) view of what constituted science.

>>10992060

>Nothing has ever happened or not happened because of a philosopher.

George Boole, philosopher and logician, invented the logic needed for you to spout your shitty and uninformed opinions on the internet. I guess that's something.

[Anonymous No.10992234]

>>10992223
>George Boole, philosopher and logician
Yeah, I'm sure it was the philosopher part and not the logician part that enabled that.

[Anonymous No.10992281]

>>10989869
Prove? What could anyone possibly prove? Life objectively is meaningless. It is man that makes meaning.

[Anonymous No.10992288]

>>10992234
Logic is a branch of philosophy

[Anonymous No.10992291]

>>10992288
>"everything's philosophy!"
The last redoubt of the philosopher-at-large.

[Anonymous No.10992535]

>>10992223
>Believing that this is somehow finished and philosophy isn't going to open up any new fields is frankly embarrassing. It has for the past 2500 years.
Philosophy hasn't opened up "new fields" in well over a century. And don't give me that "math and science are philosophy too" bullshit. Philosophy departments haven't done a single thing that's affected anything outside of philosophy departments since the 1800s.

[Anonymous No.10992536]

>>10991325
based

[Anonymous No.10992578]

>>10992060
see >>10991325

>>10992129
see >>10991325

[Anonymous No.10992579]

>>10991325
>2018... I am... forgotten

[Anonymous No.10992591]

>>10991325
T H I S
H
I
S

The only purpose of philosophy should be to serve as a philistine filter.

[Anonymous No.10992594]

>>10990099
Shit answer desu
By your logic consciousness is not real since it by definition depends on and is defined by a unique perception yet it is real beyond a shadow of a doubt to any conscious being.

[Anonymous No.10992607]

>>10989869
Congratulations anon, you've just realized that philosophy is ego inflating gibberish for neurotic introverts too aware of their social ineptness but oblivious to their own narcissism.

[Anonymous No.10992618]

>>10989869
>unfalsifiable

All right, I admit it. You made me smirk.

[Anonymous No.10992630]

>>10992607
>le ebin armchair psychologizing man

stop

[Anonymous No.10992644]

>>10992155
found the chapo donor

[Anonymous No.10992655]

>>10992535
Logic is one of the main branches of philosophy and has been for thousands of years. This isn't even philosophy 101 at this point. Knowing what the major branches of philosophy is literally the first thing anyone would ever teach you about it.

>>10992535
>And don't give me that "math and science are philosophy too" bullshit. Philosophy departments haven't done a single thing that's affected anything outside of philosophy departments since the 1800s.
>What are the advances in linguistics, neuroscience, psychology, critical theory, political theory, and for it being chief element of inspiration for the creation of quantum physics

>Philosophy hasn't opened up "new fields" in well over a century.
Well just over a century, it gave us psychology.

>And don't give me that "math and science are philosophy too" bullshit
Mathematics is literally applied logic. The two disciplines have had an extremely close bond for their entire history, have always influenced each other and still do.

[Anonymous No.10992667]

>>10992607
The wrong philosophies are. Everyone opperates by a philosohphy's premises and opperants whether they choose to cognizant of it or not.
>It is the fundamentals of philosophy (particularly, of ethics) that an anti-conceptual person dreads above all else. To understand and to apply them requires a long conceptual chain, which he has made his mind incapable of holding beyond the first, rudimentary links. If his professed beliefs—i.e., the rules and slogans of his group—are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders. The word “outsiders,” to him, means the whole wide world beyond the confines of his village or town or gang—the world of all those people who do not live by his “rules.” He does not know why he feels that outsiders are a deadly threat to him and why they fill him with helpless terror. The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them requires that he rise above his “rules” to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it.
>"Protection from outsiders” is the benefit he seeks in clinging to his group. What the group demands in return is obedience to its rules, which he is eager to obey: those rules are his protection—from the dreaded realm of abstract thought.
Now wait for /lit/ to lose it's mind once it realizes what philosopher I have quoted.

[Anonymous No.10992680]

>>10992667
>Ayn Rand
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.10992695]

>>10992680
There it is.

[Anonymous No.10992702]

>>10992695
>I'm gonna something really stupid and warn them that they'll point out how fucking stupid it is! haha that'll show 'em!

[Anonymous No.10992736]

>>10992702
>im gna smth rly s2pid

[Anonymous No.10992864]

>>10992291
>nearly all the famous logicians throughout history just happened to also be philosophers by coincidence

[Anonymous No.10992911]

>>10992644
I’ve been making fun of chapo people since they started up their podcast and went out of my way to highlight how funny soc dems and dem socs giving money to bougie mossad and state dept connected bugs was you fucking /pol/ nigger STEM ape

[Anonymous No.10992935]

Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.

There is nothing in the world bigger than the tip of an autumn hair, and Mount T'ai is tiny. No one has lived longer than a dead child, and P'eng-tsu died young. Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me.

We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be!

[Anonymous No.10992950]

Cloud Chief was traveling east and had passed the branches of the Fu-yao when he suddenly came upon Big Concealment.10 Big Concealment at the moment was amusing himself by slapping his thighs and hopping around like a sparrow. When Cloud Chief saw this, he stopped in bewilderment, stood dead still in his tracks, and said, "Old gentleman, who are you? What is this you're doing?"

Big Concealment, without interrupting his thigh-slapping and sparrow-hopping, replied to Cloud Chief, "Amusing myself."

"I would like to ask a question," said Cloud Chief.

"Oh dear!" said Big Concealment, for the first time raising his head and looking at Cloud Chief.

"The breath of heaven is out of harmony, the breath of earth tangles and snarls," said Cloud Chief. "The six breaths do not blend properly," the four seasons do not stay in order. Now I would like to harmonize the essences of the six breaths in order to bring nourishment to all living creatures. How should I go about it?"

Big Concealment, still thigh-slapping and sparrow-hopping, shook his head. "I have no idea! I have no idea!"

So Cloud Chief got no answer. Three years later he was again traveling east and, as he passed the fields of Sung, happened upon Big Concealment once more. Cloud Chief, overjoyed, dashed forward and presented himself, saying, "Heavenly Master, have you forgotten me? Have you forgotten me?" Then he bowed his head twice and begged for some instruction from Big Concealment.

[Anonymous No.10992956]

Big Concealment said, "Aimless wandering does not know what it seeks; demented drifting does not know where it goes. A wanderer, idle, unbound, I view the sights of Undeception. What more do I know?"

Cloud Chief said, "I too consider myself a demented drifter, but the people follow me wherever I go and I have no choice but to think of them. It is for their sake now that I beg one word of instruction!"

Big Concealment said, "If you confuse the constant strands of Heaven and violate the true form of things, then Dark Heaven will reach no fulfillment. Instead, the beasts will scatter from their herds, the birds will cry all night, disaster will come to the grass and trees, misfortune will reach even to the insects. Ah, this is the fault of men who `govern'!"

"Then what should I do?" said Cloud Chief.

"Ah," said Big Concealment, "you are too far gone! Up, up, stir yourself and be off!"

Cloud Chief said, "Heavenly Master, it has been hard indeed for me to meet with you - I beg one word of instruction!"

"Well, then - mind-nourishment!" said Big Concealment. "You have only to rest in inaction and things will transform themselves. Smash your form and body, spit out hearing and eyesight, forget you are a thing among other things, and you may join in great unity with the deep and boundless. Undo the mind, slough off spirit, be blank and soulless, and the ten thousand things one by one will return to the root - return to the root and not know why. Dark and undifferentiated chaos - to the end of life none will depart from it. But if you try to know it, you have already departed from it. Do not ask what its name is, do not try to observe its form. Things will live naturally and of themselves."

Cloud Chief said, "The Heavenly Master has favored me with this Virtue, instructed me in this Silence. All my life I have been looking for it, and now at last I have it!" He bowed his head twice, stood up, took his leave, and went away.

[Anonymous No.10993081]

>>10989869
It sounds like you're interpreting their works in an anachronistic manner. The philosophical questions that these individuals were attempting to answer were questions that the greatest intellectuals still struggled with. There wasn't a surplus of past philosophers or contemporary authors to guide them, they were alone and they WERE the guides. At this point, a lot of it might seem trivial or obvious, but that's only because Western civilization has already cultivated their teachings.

[Anonymous No.10993213]

>>10992702
Stupid frogposter

[Anonymous No.10993391]

>>10992535

There's really no reason to put new fields in quotation marks if you aren't going to engage the point critically, which you're welcome to do. It comes off as faggotry the way you do it, as smug and failed condescension that is much too transparent in it's lack of any thought behind it.

Philosophical logic opened up computer science within the last 50 years. The fact that you don't argue against the point that it has been doing it for 2500 years, but whine about it not doing anything for the last century, apart from being factually incorrect, shows your complete lack of historical understanding. It takes time. But it works, which is why humanity keeps doing it. And brilliant and curious people will keep doing it, in spite of your impatience, ineptitude and misplaced belligerence.

[Anonymous No.10993399]

>>10993391
goddamn btfo

[Anonymous No.10993989]

>>10993391
This philosophy is the base of everything. Literally the first and primary realm of cognition.
>When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing.

[Anonymous No.10994050]

Try Kierkegaard. He had the same reaction to German Idealism as you; rebelled against then and wrote a practical and humanist philosophy.

[Anonymous No.10994053]

>>10992060
I think they've had more influence than artists at least.

[Anonymous No.10994068]

>>10993989
>This philosophy
*This. Philosophy

[Anonymous No.10994120]

>>10993391
Can you explain how philosophy within the last 50 years opened up computer science?
Because to me it seems like the work was done entirely by mathematicians and engineers.

[Anonymous No.10994134]

>>10994120
Those guys only know how to make shit happen functionally. Philosophical thought informs us on how and why we utilize the technology we have. Letting autists direct technology leads to things like Facebook(which is bad).

[Anonymous No.10994148]

>>10994134
We're talking about the field of philosophy in the modern day.

[Anonymous No.10994168]

>>10994148
Yes. It *could* do that very well nowadays if given a chance. Technocrats are wrong. Theocrats are wrong. Democrats are wrong. Society should be run by the wise and the deepest of thinkers.

[Anonymous No.10994201]

>>10992667
Randroid's really are trapped in an interesting conundrum of having nothing but contempt for others and yet constantly craving their attention

[Anonymous No.10994211]

>>10994168
Yet it doesn't

[Anonymous No.10994214]

>>10993391
>Philosophical logic opened up computer science within the last 50 years.
It didn't, unless you apply the retarded progenitor argument and assign every achievement of applied science to philosophy or some kindergarten tier reduction to logic. The "practical" contributions of philosophy in the last half-century are mostly in some fairly esotheric pure math topics like type theories, semantic analysis and few cross-fields of lingustics. It's only really becoming more relevant now with cognitive and neuroscience coming forward.

t. mathematician

[Anonymous No.10994253]

>>10994211
And that is a problem, i understand.

[Anonymous No.10994528]

>>10994201
Not contempt for "others" just disdainforplebs.jpg

[Anonymous No.10994763]

>>10994134
>Philosophical thought informs us on how and why we utilize the technology we have.
Informs whom, exactly? What academic philosophical paper from the last 50 years informs me why I use Google Maps and a refrigerator?

[Anonymous No.10994897]

>>10989869
brainlet post but well chosen image

[Anonymous No.10994963]

>>10994763
You're just a pleb and a consumer. I'm talking about those who design (or fund, rather) these projects. They are the ones who benefit most.

[Anonymous No.10995018]

im too brainlet for philosophy. i wish this board was just for fiction. all you phil posters take life too seriously.

[Anonymous No.10995025]

>>10991325

[Anonymous No.10995163]

>>10992155
nozick is actually so good,

[Anonymous No.10995169]

>>10989869
>Why is academic philosophy the only industry that produces absolutely no meaningful advances from one year to the next?

what you really meant with this sentence was "why is academic philosophy not benefiting the economy in any substantial way"

[Anonymous No.10995207]

>>10992155
this BINCH is CORN COBBED amirite? which one of you CHUDS is a FAIL SON hahaha lol right? socialism works

[Anonymous No.10995227]

>>10992535
LMAO
Marx & Engels' philosophy rocked the world and is still. And that was in the 1840s.

[Anonymous No.10995255]

>>10989869
OP is right, why I mostly read the classics and some philosophy IK i won't be bullshit... Part of the problem is academia is only excerpts, which is bullshit, and most of it is interpreted in a useless non-applicable way

[Anonymous No.10995289]

>>10989869
Just embrace your brainlet status anon. Not everyone can appreciate philosophy, just acknowledge that it has value beyond your comprehension.

[Anonymous No.10995305]

>>10991772
Every time I hear the term 'practical philosophy', I want to throttle the morons marketing the garbage to brainlets. If you read 'real' philosophy, it will change your behavior and outlook on life 10x more than any watered down garbage on a bestseller list.

[Anonymous No.10995396]

>>10989869
>durr heidegger is pointless
>philosophy should be about "What is human existence?" and "What's the best way to live?" and "How do we know perception is real?"
everyone ITT is stupid for falling for this bush league b8

[Anonymous No.10995887]

>>10991325
so much this

[Anonymous No.10995894]

>>10992060
>>10994053
leave and never come back

[Anonymous No.10995895]

>>10995894
We Will Survive this Together.

[Anonymous No.10995898]

>>10992155
>oh no rich peoples 115 iq failesons wont get to teach intro to metaphysics anymore how will programmers learn log-oh wait. lol’ing at you, i would never study for a living
what does this even mean? lmao

[Anonymous No.10995906]

>>10995895
>>10995895
If you can't forgive me, you will never forgive yourself (because we will live forever in misery).

[Anonymous No.10995909]

>>10995906
Or We can Have the Kingdom of God (an Authentic Life).

[Anonymous No.10995911]

>>10995909
Earth has always been Home, and We may reach the Stars One day.

[Anonymous No.10995914]

>>10995894
>t. useless eater.

[Anonymous No.10995965]

>>10989869
The problem with philosophy is that idiots who study it suddenly start feelig superior and lose touch with reality or the ability to communicate like a human being. They'll endlessly debate semantics and question what you mean by "meaning". There was a great philosopher in my country that said "The most idiotic of all fools is the one touched by philosophy."

[Anonymous No.10995976]

>>10992036
To document the existence of 'la abominacion.'

[Anonymous No.10995989]

>>10989869
Debating the value of philosophy is doing philosophy. Next.

[Anonymous No.10995992]

>>10990559
>ignore anything pre 1950
this is the philosophy advice you get on /lit/

[Anonymous No.10995996]

>>10992142
At the top of mathematics it's not like that. The personality gets taken out of it. There is no inherent contradiction between "Euclidean" conceptions of geometry and other versions; everything is neatly reduced into it's logical components and this makes it very easy to place one system within another. So Euclidean Geometry is just a single version of a more general Modern Geometry.

[Anonymous No.10996025]

>>10989869
Because whatever limited successes they came up with were immediately co-opted by the supporters of our humanist, rationalist, quasi-liberal status quo and pummeled into "effective" use where today someone calling a picture of Africa on an black heritage website racist can be traced back to Kant and earlier.

The UN, human rights, the division of labour, separation of powers, hell even modern fashion and music choices have all been heavily influenced by our Enlightenment forebears. The problem is that our lives have become so comfortable that your average citizen is now philosophically brain-dead and the true applications of this style of philosophy have become questionable and since they're more or less what we have to go with we're basically up shit creek without a paddle.

[Anonymous No.10996198]

>>10995305
practical philosophy doesn't mean "not deep". At least not if you consider Sokrates or Mark Aurel as "not deep" or "watered down garbage on a bestseller list".

[Anonymous No.10996210]

>>10992578
>it's valuable because it's useless
ok

>>10992864
>famous logicians
>famous
>logicians

>>10994053
True.

>>10995894
>my arguments are so good that they can't survive opposition

[Anonymous No.10996247]

>>10989869
Philosophy was written by rich people who didnt have to go to work.

Just read science.

[Anonymous No.10996248]

>>10989869
I unironically think the same thing. Nietzsche is the only good thing

[Anonymous No.10996298]

>>10989869
Read "On the origin of species" and go from there.

[Anonymous No.10996665]

>>10993391
If you study computer science all you have is basic first-order logic+discrete math, without any links to philosophy. Formalised logic was invented by mathematicians, not by philosophers

[Anonymous No.10996683]

>>10992594
>By your logic consciousness is not real
It means experience is not real, and no, it isn't. I're mixing up the words "real" and "exist" because you haven't read hard phil

[Anonymous No.10996689]

>>10996683
>I're
filter?
the second "you" came out fine

[Anonymous No.10996692]

>>10996665
imagine thinking this

[Anonymous No.10996722]

>>10996692
it is tho, logic used in compsci has nothing to do with philosophy, and philosophy has no bearing of field of compsci

[Anonymous No.10996724]

>>10989869
i just realized im too old to be posting here and that this place cycles out the self aware post-graduate anons who also realize posting insipid nonsense with 18 year old know-nothing midwits is a waste of their time on this earth.

[Anonymous No.10996749]

>>10992111
Checked

[Anonymous No.10996753]

>>10995996
>At the top of mathematics it's not like that. The personality gets taken out of it.
not even remotely true. where did you get the idea that professional higher level mathematics is removed from the "personality" of mathematicians (or whoever)

[Anonymous No.10996775]

>>10995996
>At the top of mathematics it's not like that. The personality gets taken out of it

Wew, I suggest that you read "The Living Theorem" from the French mathematician Cédric Villani (Fields 2010), so you might reconsider that.

[Anonymous No.10997893]

>>10996722
Read Aristotle and get back to me

[Anonymous No.10997937]

>grade-a moron muh epin sciencefags trying to argue the primacy of mathematics itt
All of mathematics is a conceptual abstraction. That's straight philosophic in nature.
Are you under the assinine assumption that the mathmatical abstracts are existents? Even counting numbers are not existents. There is only on peice of math and one number in all of mathematics that is a literal existent and that is the number 1. All other mathmatics is an abstraction. 0, 2, complex opperations, all of it.

[Anonymous No.10997941]

>Indeed, some of the problems commonly engaging the attention of philosophical thought appear to be deprived, not only of all importance, but of any meaning as well; a host of problems arise resting solely upon some ambiguity or upon a confusion of points of view, problems that only exist in fact because they are badly expressed, and that normally should not arise at all. In most cases therefore, it would in itself be sufficient to set these problems forth correctly in order to cause them to disappear, were it not that philosophy has an interest in keeping them alive, since it thrives largely upon ambiguities

>It may be remarked incidentally that the contentions of philosophers are often much more justifiable when they are arguing against other philosophers than when they pass on to expound their own views, and as each one generally sees fairly clearly the defects of the others, they more or less destroy one another mutually

[Anonymous No.10998044]

>>10997937
"Thanks for coming out, take 'er easy."

[Anonymous No.10998056]

>>10996198
socrates and king stoicfag are the pinnacle of middlebrow

[Anonymous No.10998118]

>>10998044
Mind spoonfeeding me the meaning of this reference? I have no inkling what you meant by this post.

[Anonymous No.10998122]

>>10996724
See you tommorow anon.

[Anonymous No.10998123]

>>10998118
"Oh my, look at the time. Well, have a nice evening!"

[Anonymous No.10998131]

>>10998123
Wat

[Anonymous No.10998139]

>>10998131
"Gee, you've really got a point, there. Welp, gotta go! So long, anon."

[Anonymous No.10998219]

>>10998139
>I can't figure out a good response
K? It happens.

[Anonymous No.10998233]

>>10998219
Let's be clear and honest: you've posted something which does not allow anything like constructive reply. You've made sense, but you've also denied any approach, insofar as constructive dialogue might be made.

There isn't any point in interacting with you. Invariably, someone speaking with you would just grow uncomfortable and make an excuse before leaving you alone.

Have you noticed that noone else has replied? Well, it's not for no reason. You've dwelled upon what seems perfect, only to find that that it's antisocial.

I'm sure you're only gratified by a lack of countering opinions, but it's more evident of your failing.

[Anonymous No.10998242]

>>10998233
>Have you noticed no one else replied
I just been watching this thread to see if you had any valid arguments I was quite easily let down.

[Anonymous No.10998249]

>>10998242
I'm sure you've been "not let down" by your interactions with people in your life.

Which is to say, you're a waste of time, and I'm certain that people you interact with are left with that impression.

[Anonymous No.10998256]

>>10998249
You seem hurt, is everything okay Anon?

[Anonymous No.10998261]

>>10998256
You seem like you're trolling, is everything okay Anon?

[Anonymous No.10998273]

>>10994963
no one with the money to fund big tech projects cares about philosophy lol

[Anonymous No.10998294]

>>10998233
Guy you replied to here. You can merely redirect to an avenue of discussion in a way that addresses the point auxiliarily (is that a word?) ya know.
I'm perfectly fine with getting no (You)s after making a soft-irrefutable point anon. The (You) farming maymay is one of the biggest absurdities on this site.

[Anonymous No.10998299]

>>10998249
He wasn't me >>10998219 skipper btw.

[Anonymous No.10998308]

>>10997893
which works? I did read ethics and politics already

[Anonymous No.10998310]

>>10998308
Organon anon. You never should have read anything but Organon of Aristotle first.

[Anonymous No.10998354]

>>10990478
Your roommate isn’t smart.

[Anonymous No.10998442]

>>10989869
Then read better philosophers, Schopnehauer, Nietzsche, Kikergard, Wittgenstein, Russel and Derida are all good options. Each one is much more intresting than Heidegger and Hegel.
Kant is special and I think hard to understand if you are not super into german grammar but has intresting things to say.

[Anonymous No.10998462]

>>10997937
>he doesn't understand Church encoding of numbers or Peano arithmetic
what a moran

[Anonymous No.10998642]

>>10998462
>>10998462
Am I to understand that you're implying that the axiomatic Peano notions are NOT also conceptual abstractions? Peano doesn't even hold up to Godel's theorem besides.

[Anonymous No.10998688]

>>10989869
>unfalsifiable
why philosophers care about falsifiability?

[Anonymous No.10998713]

This whole thread is a great example of how philosophers love to argue from authority and hide behind semantics any time they're in danger of actually having to defend their views or have a discussion.

[Anonymous No.10998756]

>>10998713
>a thread on 4chan undoes a serious academic field

[Anonymous No.10998764]

>>10998713
>everyone is this thread is dumb except me!!!11!one!!

[Anonymous No.10998780]

>>10998713
>my argument best y'all niggas be trippin

[Anonymous No.10998789]

>>10989869
This is why there seems to be a stark contrast between "academic philosophy" or
"How can I get published in a journal while all my friends are doing biological/genetic research papers?"
and
"Existential Philosophy"

one is about inflicting mental illness on yourself
the other is curing it
its up for you to decide what those are.

[Anonymous No.10998838]

>>10998789
>all philosophy is ethics

[Anonymous No.10998845]

>>10989869
>Shouldn't philosophy be about "What's the best way to live?"
No

[Anonymous No.10998882]

>>10998310
ok, but how aristotle organon is related to computer science?? Le sylogisms or le induction are not valid answers

[Anonymous No.10998893]

>>10998756
Literally did exactly as he said lol

[Anonymous No.10998909]

>>10998893
In that post he was generalizing all arguments in philosophy based on a thread on 4chan. He says this is an example of how philosophers take a position of authority when faced with something they can't debate but he himself doesn't give an example or comparison to that ironically giving no actual argument. It's probably bait though

[Anonymous No.10998939]

>>10998893
>thinking that means anything as to the truth value of my statement

[Anonymous No.10999046]

>>10998838
you saying it isn't?

all this distillate of all philosophy is ethics.
i.e. with the amount of information I know, what is the proper action?

[Anonymous No.10999169]

>>10989869
>"How do we know perception is real?"
Literally one of the most pointless questions ever asked, which you would know if you read Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.10999182]

They're pseuds first, their ideas which can be covered in a long essay of 12-60 pages has to be spread out to over 400, otherwise they and the other pseuds won't read them as they can't wave their intellectual dick with just an essay.

[Anonymous No.10999271]

>>10992060
>Nothing has ever happened or not happened because of a philosopher

>What is science
>What are computers
>What are human rights
>What is property
>Why does the current political system is like that
>Why does the current economic system is like that

[Anonymous No.10999278]

>>10992129
>What proved to be one of the most significant decisions in the region with consequences still ongoing a decade later and it was made with zero philosophical input

>Where does the modern and contemporary world came from

[Anonymous No.10999279]

>>10999271
Also the URSS

[Anonymous No.10999293]

When did you realize that philosophy became meaningless as soon as democracy became the standard? In democracy nobody gives a shit about philosophers and they have far less impact on policy than they did under monarchs.

[Anonymous No.10999296]

>>10992291
>>10992234
>What is logic and why does it exist
>Who is Aristotle

I know this arguments wouldn't change your mind, but this article is a funny read, i think.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/

[Anonymous No.10999302]

>>10996247
Science back then was honestly much of the same.

[Anonymous No.10999303]

>>10999293
Most lawyers have philosophy or english/rhetoric degrees. And those people write and draft the laws.

[Anonymous No.10999306]

>>10999293
it's the other way around brainlet

[Anonymous No.10999308]

>>10999293
Our entire political system is based on philosophical ideas

[Anonymous No.10999329]

>>10999308
Exactly, ideas that were formulated before the implenetation

[Anonymous No.10999340]

I enrolled in philosophy and it is so much bs
I really don't get whats so important about a bunch of french fags treating phenomenology as some sort of second-coming-of-jesus or analytics disceting words as if they were frogs instead of reading them
Ancient philosophy is actually interesting but no one cares about it aside from 80 years old schoolars
Should I switch majors to english?

[Anonymous No.10999342]

>>10992060
>philosophers absolutely do not impact politics at all in western Liberal Democracies predicated upon complex ideas about rights which just developed in a vacuum and def didn't have to be thought of
Imagine being so dumb that you can't understand how philosophy consistently defines culture, and then patting yourself on the back for thinking your ignorance btfo of a millennia long intellectual tradition. Imagine being so ignorant of philosophy that you think you've found some vital weakness in the tradition "it's like not le practical" and, because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, don't realize that literally every philosopher worth mentioning for the past 500 years has addressed this specific claim.

[Anonymous No.10999368]

>>10989869
>Heidegger makes up words to say "death" and "being" has a different character from death and being so you can't criticize him without using his made-up words.

historically this has been an issue in science as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Dismantling_phlogiston_theory

>Shouldn't philosophy be about "What is human existence?" and "What's the best way to live?" and "How do we know perception is real?"

Yes and it is. But isn't it possible that metaphysical theories on reality, spirit, perception etc inform all the aforementioned questions?

[Anonymous No.10999374]

>>10999368
anon again, to be clear, lavoisier and other scientists had issues talking and translating about phenomena because their conceptual, and thus, vernacular paradigms differed from each other.

[Anonymous No.10999392]

>>10990559
>philisophical
>can't even spell philosophical correctly

yeah, definitely take this guy's advice.

[Anonymous No.10999395]

>>10998354
this lol, i've run into too many philosophy undergrads who think they know shit about how the world works because their professor made them read an excerpt from Kant and handheld them through Hegelian dialectic.

I don't entirely agree with OP because the 19th century actually has one of the best reactions against systemic philosophy but the field attracts an inordinate number of autists, usually autists who suck at numbers but are good at hair splitting yet miss the point. They collect knowledge like pokemon cards and never really get to the point of application so they are just giant sacks of inert, consumed information that will passively argue about whether X philosopher stood for Y or Z until the world finds mercy from them.

[Anonymous No.10999412]

>>10990696
this post gave me an erection

[Anonymous No.10999418]

>>10990696
Greek dialecticts can't be carried out in the written form, brainlet. Philo-sophia is not sophia.

[Anonymous No.10999504]

>>10997937
This. Well put anon. Retard brainlets who don't understand the nature of philosophy get off my /lit/

>Primacy of mathematics
Now I have the name I lacked for that stupidity.
>tfw you had always known of the concept but could never figure out what to call it
>tfw some anon just nails it
Love this feel. Like a mini-epiphany.

[Anonymous No.10999539]

>>10999504
Have you ever posted on /sci/ anon? I should not have been your introduction to that phrase, any metamathematical thread would have brought it up.

[Anonymous No.10999557]

>>10999539
nah I mainboard /tg/ and /g/ with only occasional forays to /pol/ /lit/ /int/ and /a/. I lurked /sci/ once or twice

[Anonymous No.10999700]

>>10999557
/sci/ it up then. /g/ and /lit/ but not /sci/ is actually strange anon.

[Anonymous No.10999745]

>>10991325
do i need to study years of philosophy to write an ad hominem attack with this many words?

[Anonymous No.10999830]

>>10999340
Pls respond

[Anonymous No.10999837]

>>10999830
wtf? youre telling me your school, which seems contientally focused, does not offer a course on the ancients? Or other classes you might find interesting? How many phil classes have you taken?

[Anonymous No.10999912]

>>10999830
Read the greeks, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, then icycalm. Congrats, you dodged all the analytic bullshit. Drop out or change your major.

[Anonymous No.10999919]

>>10996775
>French

dropped.

[Anonymous No.10999920]

>>10998056
Good opinion. Please name some philosophers you do not consider "middlebrow".

[Anonymous No.10999946]

>>10998056
Being that guy who only reads socrates and kingstoicfag and then stops would make (You) middlebrow, but that doesn't mean the authors themselves are.

[Anonymous No.10999951]

>>10999837
Thats not the problem. The problem is that the more I read philosophy and the more I get into it, the more valueless it becomes.
I'm still a freshman so all my courses are of introductory nature, so maybe thats the problem, but what I have seen this far doesnt motivate me at all.
I know this sounds dumb but the current state of philosophy as "dead" really weights on me.
There was this one text by Sartre about the concept of intencionallity in Husserl that really pissed me off. What a bunch of crap. It was just flowery, distasteful and empty prose. I had read some Husserl before that and it was much more focused and insightful, Sartre was pure posture.
It all leads to nothing, baseless arguments after baseless arguments ad infinitum. Why think? Why think in a world that seems to have all figured out about not giving a fuck? What the hell does doing philosophy mean at this point?
If philosophy is this empty, what could I expect from anything else?
You get out of the classroom and everyone just wants to listen to boy pablo and smoke weed.
The only people who get to grad school are the really clever ones who got obssesed in one particular theme or author, just to leave the existence of themselves and their work inside academia.
Is all just self-destructing pattern recognition.

[Anonymous No.10999962]

>>10999951
read giorgio colli he says similiar things on the state of academics philosophy

[Anonymous No.10999965]

philosophy doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.10999973]

>>10999965
Big if true

[Anonymous No.10999984]

>>10999962
Why would I want to read that? What would I get from it?

[Anonymous No.10999992]

>>10999951
I am of the opinion that pic related is more true than anyone can know. I'm right at the cusp of the third and highest tier. I can see the horizon.

You sound like a whiny, inexperienced nihilist, man. If anything I think you should study MORE. You self-admittedly like Husserl. You're going to get philosophers you like and don't like. Maybe the material you're learning now isn't for you, but it certainly does not encompass all of philosophy. Maybe double major or minor in philosophy only if you're so worried about it being worthless.

>Why think?
Massive guffawing kek

Also get acquainted with Jordan Peterson, it sounds like you could use his advice.

[Anonymous No.10999995]

>>10999992
>>10999951
Sorry, I meant this pic.

[Anonymous No.11000001]

>10999951
Marx and future continentals already figured out that philosophy reaches its ending by scientifically studying social relations and material history, though a thorough grasp of the history of philosophy is a necessary condition to really grapple with this consequence. Philosophy doesn't exist as a separate discipline in any form past the 19th century, it is forced to interact with a wide division of empirical and humanistic studies, whose findings it can at best clarify and put in more abstract terms. Ocasionally you get a worthwhile book in epistemology, but nothing absolutely amazing like the major thinkers before the modern division of science.
Unless you live and breathe contemporary journals and articles in the anglo-american tradition, and can't get enough of them in your life, you should NOT major in philosophy. All of the literature is available online easily.

[Anonymous No.11000039]

>>10989869

Just stick to Plato and the Bible, they're all you need.

[Anonymous No.11000050]

>>10999995
>literally tfw to smart tumblr pic
please off yourself pseud

[Anonymous No.11000054]

>>10999992
I clean my room everyday

[Anonymous No.11000059]

>>11000050
Just because this pic has been overused does invalidate it you dumb fucking hipster

[Anonymous No.11000066]

>>10989869
What is "important" about STEM nonsense? Maybe a couple hundred decades ago nature was actually a threat we had to deal with, but in the modern day we're literally destroying it and fear nothing more than other human beings and our own inventions. Even on the consumer level all we do is figure out new ways to fuck things up. GMOs, for instance, are an amazing leap forward in potential, but for economic reasons we spend our money and brainpower on making sterile seeds because god forbid too much food gets grown. It's the same with how household devices become gradually more fragile. Oh, but STEM gives us space travel: the new frontier! For what? Ol' Musky's car commercial? New maps for Call of Duty: Real Life edition? Space colonies to drop on Australia? The vast majority of our problems nowadays are human problems that won't be solved through invention.

[Anonymous No.11000070]

>>11000059
woops *does not. dumb fucking hipster.

[Anonymous No.11000090]

>>11000059
you literally use tumblr pictures to express yourself, while writing things like "I can see the horizon" and "you sound like a whiny, inexperienced nihilist, man" and "Also get acquainted with Jordan Peterson"

I'd take a break from the internet and reflect on that for a moment if I were you.

[Anonymous No.11000157]

>>11000090
wtf does any of that have to do with anything? First of all, I got that picture from 4chan. Second of all "I can see the horizon" is a literal pointer to the horizon in the fucking picture you moron. And he does sound like a whiny nihilist.

Like I said, you're a dumb fucking bitter, narcissistic hipster. In fact, you're probably a better candidate for JBP than the other guy. I'd take a break from the internet and reflect on that for a moment if I were you.

[Anonymous No.11000213]

>>11000066
>Implying STEM isn't as much about the study of humans as anything else.

[Anonymous No.11000241]

>>11000213
Not on the so-called "practical" side, no. I'm all for science when it's pursuing knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but if that's what we're justifying it on then it's got no more or less a leg to stand on than philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11000449]

>>10999046
>i.e. with the amount of information I know, what is the proper action?
That's not true, or if it is it is true of every form of human inquiry. But if you told a mathematician he's an ethicist he would tell you to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11000466]

>>10999046
>with the amount of information I know, what is the proper action?
Even this alone isn't an exclusively ethical question. I think the word you're looking for is "lifestyle," in which case yes, most people would probably agree with you and say that philosophy is, on some level, the search for the best life you can life.

[Anonymous No.11000497]

>>11000066
>stem isn’t important says the man who would die if deprived of his modern conveniences for a month

[Anonymous No.11000509]

>>11000497
I didn't say stem wasn't important, I said further progress in it isn't. Next time try getting past the second line before replying.

[Anonymous No.11000645]

>>10990696
>"What is justice?" - can anyone give you the definitive answer to this inquiry?
yeah, justice is fairness

[Anonymous No.11000658]

>>10990777
>You won't be able to navigate Hong Kong with a Map that only has Continents on it.
>You won't have any luck getting to America from Hong Kong if all you have is a map of China.
the hole in this is that if you have detailed maps of the whole world you can get to anywhere from anywhere, and if you have a good indexing system it won't even take you that long
why can't there be something like that for philosophy?

[Anonymous No.11000668]

>>10989878
stfu sophists were good, plato fucked up

[Anonymous No.11000670]

>>10992111
I'm going to take you from sad to angry by repeating what Randall Munroe said: her assertions are sound enough but the conclusion she draws from those assertions is absurd

[Anonymous No.11000685]

>>10994053
holy shit how can one person be this hilariously wrong

[Anonymous No.11000688]

>>11000000

[Anonymous No.11000715]

>>11000658
Imagine if there were different ways in drawing maps which achieved different results and there was no way to test outside of reason which models were correct. You can't combine the different methods of map making together to form a larger map because they are contradictory so you some people spend their time creating arguments for and against certain models other people do all their work within a map system that they just axiomatically assume to be true to allow them to continue that map style. Now also imagine that Even within a system people argue over the effectiveness of the various tools and methods in use, and you aren't trying to map earth but an earth like planet the size of Jupiter while it is constantly subject to enormous earthquakes and asteroid hits changing what is there to be mapped. And of course some people have strong arguments for why mapping the planet is impossible in the first place.
If it is possible to have your map equivalent for philosophy (and some would argue you can't) then it must be said that project would be ten thousand times harder.

[Anonymous No.11000736]

>>11000066
yeah I mean we've already cured all the disea-- oh wait
well at least we'll always have enough materials and power to live
oh, right
>The vast majority of our problems nowadays are human problems that won't be solved through invention.
bullshit, the vast majority of our problems are the same as ever-- diseases and disorders, abuse and neglect, carelessness, aging, accidents, lack of knowledge and understanding, lack of contentment for a whole host of reasons
STEM can't help with all of them but it can take out some of the sting, same as philosophy and religion and any other discipline of the mind
>>11000509
people have literally been saying that for hundreds of years, and they've consistently been wrong

[Anonymous No.11000738]

>>11000658
>>expecting philosophy to be "falsifiable"
>Joke's on you for thinking philosophy needs to be anything akin to the empirical sciences.
>Western philosophy is a tradition of textual commentary going back to the ancient Greeks, a tradition concerned with rational discourse about the human condition which grounds the whole logos of western civilization. You might have heard a definition that says philosophy happens anytime somebody asks a general question - this definition is meaningless, even if it's technically true. One can ask a question in a million different contexts, but what we are concerned with are questions adressed in the specific tradition of graeco-christian rationality that is the treasury of our ancestors.
>The writings of Plato remain relevant because they are not used to give you ready-made answers derived from some kind of scientific method, they instead familiarise you with the dialectical process which engages these eternal questions. "What is justice?" - can anyone give you the definitive answer to this inquiry? No, and even if they could it wouldn't do you any good, because you haven't engaged with the debate, haven't examined your interlocutors and tried to derive a coherent definition understandable to common opinion. For Socrates, who didn't have much of a tradition to examine, his interlocutors were educated Greeks, but for us there is a huge debate stretching two a half thousand years, from the writings of the presocratics to contemporary philosophy.
>Heidegger, talking about Aristotle's Physics, said: "This book determines the warp and woof of the whole of Western thinking, even at that place where it, as modern thinking, appears to think at odds with ancient thinking. But opposition is invariably comprised of a decisive, and often even perilous, dependence." This is precisely right, and gives you the answer why every educated person needs to engage with western philosophy. Any form of science we do is a house built on greek foundations, and it's plainly unwise to ignore the perilous dependence.
not really, a perfectly detailed map that in no way distorts the original would have to be the original itself.
A map is by default a distortion

[Anonymous No.11000760]

>>11000715
well that just brings it back around to question of why it matters
if you're not mapping the Earth, not even desolate and forgotten part of it, then what good is your map in the first place?
if you can never have a map that is correct or complete, let alone both, then why are you mapping whatever it is anyway?
I'm not saying it has to be vital, I'm saying it should have some demonstrable connection to reality, even a trivial one

[Anonymous No.11000768]

>>11000738
globes exist
>globes are smaller than the Earth
yeah but you literally can't beat a globe for accuracy of shape, size, and proportion without, as you said, just looking at the Earth itself, and the whole point is to have something more convenient

[Anonymous No.11000811]

>>11000760
>if you're not mapping the Earth, not even desolate and forgotten part of it, then what good is your map in the first place?
Here you are taking the map analogy too far and the comparison breaks down. If we were to correct it we would have to create a scenario where no one can go anywhere without a map of some kind and that therefore a group of people dedicated to map making is vital because it is the basis of all forms of travel.

>well that just brings it back around to question of why it matters
Ignoring the map analogy and going back to philosophy the reason is because literally every single form of human inquiry that could possible exist necessitates a philosophical position on a range of issues to actually function. Pic related is what everything is like without philosophy. Most forms of science don't need philosophy anymore because sufficient grounding was done in philosophy that it can form a relativity unchanging set of axioms on which science can operate but that is only true because sufficient work was done in philosophy.

>I'm saying it should have some demonstrable connection to reality
Which is what most of it tries to do but it's so complicated with so many contradictory approaches and models that you have to work in heavy abstractions a lot of the time. If you want however there are an endless amount of papers that assume a large number of axioms allowing them to tackle concrete real world problems.

[Anonymous No.11000879]

>>10999912
What should I expect from majoring in english?

[Anonymous No.11001553]

>>11000736
>diseases
Yeah let's make yet another pill that treats symptoms so that we can stay marketable instead of seriously working towards curing disease. Human problems.

>well at least we'll always have enough materials and power to live
We've had the technology to do this for decades but people still have other resources they've invested in so we blow up middle eastern countries instead. Human problems.

[Anonymous No.11001560]

>>11001553
>We've had the technology to do this for decades

Millennia.

[Anonymous No.11001566]

>>10999340
>or analytics disceting words as if they were frogs instead of reading them
listen to more undergraduates and you'll understand why analytic gatekeeping is important

[Anonymous No.11001671]

A practice (philosophy) based partially on mental masturbation becomes fully made up of mental masturbation, that's how it degenerates into nonsense. Philosophy is the neutered cousin of religion, that was just it becoming fully mystical and masturbatory because human beings are attracted to the mystic and the masturbatory. I say it is neutered because there is no "judgement" and "hellfire" imperative for behavior.

How many great philosophers have there been since human beings started philosophizing anyway? 10? 15? How many total human beings have there been? It's not likely that there will be a philosopher worth a fuck in every generation, or even every 5 generations.

[Anonymous No.11001700]

>>11001671
>philosophy is mental masturbation
>religion isn't
ohoho

[Anonymous No.11001716]

>>10989869
The last useful philosophers were the stoics

[Anonymous No.11001750]

>>11001700
I never meant to imply that, though the fact that like 90% of people in the world can grasp religion enough to adopt it as their core value system while those same 90% give you a fluoride stare when you mention "Nietzche" or "Spinoza" is pretty indicative of how much less utilitarian philosophy is compared to religion on a broad scale. Theology is just as un-utilitarian as philosophy, but religion alone isn't.

[Anonymous No.11001772]

>>11001671
>How many great philosophers have there been since human beings started philosophizing anyway? 10? 15?
If you wanted to by using such a singular use of the word great could apply that to anything.

[Anonymous No.11001781]

>>11001750
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.11001788]

>>11001772
I meant ones that thought new thoughts and were good enough to be remembered. Big names, I guess. Not to say all the "big names" are amazing though. The test of time alone doesn't really prove anything anymore since people are literate now, thus stupid people can perpetuate stupid ideas. This is probably a contributing factor to OP's complaint, too.

[Anonymous No.11001790]

>>10999271
None of it was truly built by philosophers.

[Anonymous No.11001802]

>>11001788
You could say the same of scientists
>>9669387/sci/

[Anonymous No.11001805]

>>11000685
>ugh i can't even

[Anonymous No.11001806]

>>11001802
my mistake
>>>/sci/9669387

[Anonymous No.11001827]

>>11001802
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about "big names" as in normies being able to name them, I'm talking about big names in the realm of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11001828]

>>11001788
>meant ones that thought new thoughts and were good enough to be remembered
But you can still say the same thing about almost anything. Most people can name bugger all composers, painters, or mathematicians. This is just being selective against philosophers.

>I meant ones that thought new thoughts
Most philosophers that aren't engaged in only scholarship make new ideas. Again this sounds like just making an arbitrarily high definition of what new means solely to pick on philosophy. If I wanted I could say there were only a couple of composers who ever advanced music ideas.

[Anonymous No.11001842]

>>11001827
Then there are a hell of a lot more then 10-15 big names if we are talking from the realm of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11001853]

>>10990810
Most sane post.

[Anonymous No.11001877]

>>11001842
I was just estimating based on my tiny knowledge. I was trying to make the point that there aren't many compared to the general population, so if there aren't any good modern ones it only makes sense. Do you think that all the popular modern philosophers' work will survive for the next 100, 200, 300 years? If humanity is around at that time anyway.

[Anonymous No.11001893]

>>11001828
I wasn't trying to pick on philosophy, I was trying to explain OP's problem, in that maybe Hegel isn't a "good" philosopher in the sense that someone like Plato was because "good" philosophers are rare. Maybe Hegel wasn't picked up because he was "good" but for other reasons. I haven't even read Hegel or Kant or any modern writers yet, I was just speculating on the problem.

[Anonymous No.11001905]

>>11001877
You could literally say the exact same thing about every other academic subject. You are just singling out philosophy.

>I was trying to make the point that there aren't many compared to the general population
Just like every academic subject.

>Do you think that all the popular modern philosophers' work will survive for the next 100, 200, 300 years?
No. And if you asked me that question a hundred years ago it would have been the same, just as if you asked me 200 years ago, or a thousand, or two thousand. Just like every academic subject.

>I was just estimating based on my tiny knowledge
So you admit you don't know very much about it but you are still bold enough to claim that it's mental masturbation and neutered religion?

[Anonymous No.11001914]

>>10991325
holy shit just go OD on a tank of ether if you're so dissatisfied with the nature of your fucking existence you nihilistic empty fucking shell

[Anonymous No.11001922]

>>11001893
I'm getting very confused. There are two people I seem to be replying to in this chain and it's impossible to tell which posts belong to which person. If you aren't picking on philosophy I'm guessing you aren't the one calling it mental masturbation and neutered religion. What is your position exactly?

[Anonymous No.11001926]

>>11001827
>there are far more than 10-15 well known scientists and anyone who doesn't know of them is uneducated
>there are only 10-15 well known philosophers because I only know around 10-15 philosophers
>stop saying I'm not well read

[Anonymous No.11001929]

>>11001905
It doesn't take a philosophy degree for me to come to that conclusion. Just because it's partially mental masturbation or neutered religion doesn't mean it's bad or that I don't like it. I like the subject, you can tell that because I'm discussing it right now. And yes, it's like every academic subject, I never said it wasn't. What the fuck point are you trying to make here? You've refuted nothing.

[Anonymous No.11001935]

>>11001922
I'm the same person, sorry. I didn't think to double reply.
>>11001929
This is also mine. I've been replying to you two seperately.

[Anonymous No.11001971]

>>11001929
>You've refuted nothing
Only that everything you have said can be said about every other subject which makes it meaningless.

>A practice (philosophy) based partially on mental masturbation becomes fully made up of mental masturbation
The only evidence you have given to back this up is your claims about how there aren't many great philosophers and how in a few hundred years we won't care about most of the ones alive today. Unless you believe that all academia is meaningless and doesn't achieve anything you are in fact singling out philosophy. That's why I keep going on at this point. This is your only argument to support your claim.

[Anonymous No.11002021]

>>11001971
>the only evidence you have given is ---
Have you missed the part where I've said "partially"? I call it that because it's specialized and not grossly utilitarian like clothes making or something. And of course it's specialized, everything that's academic is specialized. That doesn't mean it's worthless. I should have just said specialized to begin with, you guys got triggered as shit. That exactly is the nature of my claim, and it's self-evident. Academia is not meaningless, therefore philosophy is not meaningless. Again, I was just saying what I thought about what OP said.
>Only that everything you have said can be said about every other subject which makes it meaningless.
Ok.

>>11001926
>there are far more than 10-15 well-known scientists and anybody that doesn't know of them is a normal person because the names and works of every scientist that exists are not pieces of knowledge that are necessary in order to live a normal life
>estimation, like i already fucking said
>when did i say anything at all like that? never

[Anonymous No.11002176]

>>10989869
See kids, this is why we read Schopenhauer

>writes about subjects that are of interest to everybody, such as the nature of motivation, romantic love, the hidden wellsprings of behavior
>writes better than just about anybody, rare for a philosopher
>has a unique appreciation for Buddhist and Hindu thought, is the first western philosopher to take it seriously
> doesn't believe in god or other brainlet concepts such as optimism
>Epoch-defining Freudianism is basically just an intellectual plagiarism of his ideas
> is the physical embodiment of the "brainiac wojack meme, with his brain literally bulging from his skull (pic related)

[Anonymous No.11002520]

>>11001553
>Yeah let's make yet another pill that treats symptoms so that we can stay marketable instead of seriously working towards curing disease.
there are people seriously working on curing diseases
>>well at least we'll always have enough materials and power to live
>We've had the technology to do this for decades
if we want to live, live healthily, and not let a huge portion of the population die before doing so, we need a lot of the technology we have now
plastics for example, they're used in all kinds of things and most of them can't be made without petroleum and there's a finite supply of petroleum in the world, so we need to find some other way to create these plastics or other plastics or other materials that do the same jobs

[Anonymous No.11002528]

>>11001805
>I can't even formulate an argument
lol

[Anonymous No.11002568]

>>10989869
>Wittgenstein is nonsense
>analytic philosophy is nonsense
>truth functions are nonsense
go neck yourself tbqh famalam

[Anonymous No.11003236]

>>11000668
>when you can't deny the charge of sophistry so you just start saying that the sophists were right
wew

[Anonymous No.11003332]

The only reason I can think of why someone would rather spend their time arguing about the perceptions of colors to doing science is because they're bad at math.

[Anonymous No.11003370]

>>11003332
even then there's always biology

[Anonymous No.11003758]

>>11003332
>Someone would rather reason about fundamental metaphysical issues in the hope that humanity, or something greater might use this insight to develop whole new fields of knowledge, the understanding of which might be taken advantage of

>Nah man, they should just 'do science' instead

[Anonymous No.11004068]

>>10989878
That's called math

[Anonymous No.11005292]

>>10990810
/thread. There is really nothing to add.

[Anonymous No.11005485]

>>10989869
lebensphilosophie is what are looking for OP

[Anonymous No.11005557]

>>10990632
>>It just seems like endless hair-splitting over things that aren't even grounded to begin with
>Philosophy is a pedantic discipline

No anon, you see, the person trying to *ground* things is actually the real philosopher. Which is most often the layman.

[Anonymous No.11005588]

>>10999745
>>10991468
>>10991458
these people understand that philosophy is a discipline that annihilates its own purpose. A leopard stalking prey in the jungle is a better philosopher than 95% of people writing about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11005919]

>>11003758
if you care about new fields of knowledge or useful understanding you should study science rather than worthless metaphysical speculation

[Anonymous No.11007105]

>>10999342
>philosophy consistently defines culture
it doesn't though, at all

[Anonymous No.11007128]

>>11000066
>The vast majority of our problems nowadays are human problems that won't be solved through invention.
They might or might not be solved through invention. They definitely won't be solved by academic philosophy, though. Unless you can seriously name any problem academic philosophy has solved in the last 70 years (there isn't a single one).

[Anonymous No.11007216]

>>10990810
Saved

[Anonymous No.11007344]

>>10992288
It's literally mathematics. The only ground you have to stand on is the fact that back in the days, everything was called philosophy. Next you might as well say that calculus is just applied philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11008470]

>>11007344
Yes, everything you said is actually the case. It would really be a stretch to say that the philosophical inclinations of Aristotle and Leibniz were irrelevant to their approaches to logic and mathematics, and that philosophy, how ever you defined it, was in no way responsible for guiding their intuitions.

>>11005588
>philosophy is a discipline that annihilates its own purpose

This is really an astute observation. The greatest fruit of philosophy is when it ceases to be called philosophy after the fact, when it becomes grounded enough to shoot off other disciplines and, among other things, transform into science. Naturally what remains are the problems that, due to their difficulty, stay unsolved and float freely in the air.

>>11005919
Of course they should study science as it has come to be, it would be silly to remain a 'pure' philosopher, which is a strange and curiosity retarding concept, but that is no reason to simply accept science as it is and not subject it to inquiry. The idea that speculation on how consciousness apprehends colors should simply be dropped, as if phenomenology could never again give birth to new science through it, is just naive, especially at this point. Frame the silliness of the 'academic' philosopher all you want, but if you do not see what philosophy in its fullness and liveliness is capable of, please refrain from talking down those who can.

[Anonymous No.11008493]

>>11002176
>is the physical embodiment of the "brainiac wojack meme, with his brain literally bulging from his skull (pic related)

this is perfect

wonder if he ever wanted to just go full tetsuo and start ripping up streets with sheer force of will

[Anonymous No.11008504]

>>11008493
>>11002176
Schopenhauer has a naturalness that is astonishing in a modern thinker, where hypocrisy comes first before anything else. He shows off the shocking, sometimes disgusting sides of his temperament. He has no self-control except in regards to style. On every good occasion he sends the reader to Hell, he ill-treats him; in his speech the personal pathos is always lurking. Reading his sanguine prose, the cultivated European discovers that the philosopher is not always a cold fish, a boring pedant. He has a scorbutic, aggressive, sullen and resentful temperament. He's stingy and not just in regards to money. His eagle eye managed to discern, underneath the appearances, the plot of life: that spectacle he wants to remove from others, he only speaks of it to pretend that everyone should recognize it as his exclusive domain. Vulgar will coupled with an higher intellect: this is expressed in his philosophy. He waited for something more from life, the booty of a marauder, the unbridled fulfillment of a tyrant, something he had to give up too soon. He was frustrated, but not for the banal impotence of a bookish man. As a boy, as a young man he hoped and waited a long time for Goethe; in return he had an icy, regal sign of consent, of encouragement: he hid disappointment. His comfort came more from the myth of literature than from an overflowing, self-sufficient interiority: thus he theorized the isolation of genius, the exclusive possession of truth, and more ridiculously the glory of posterity, almost for a metaphysical justice. He was a prisoner of these concepts. What is most forgivable to Schopenhauer is his childish side (while he would like to be seen as cynical, especially towards women). Certain polemical accents, or even shrill cries, when the anger almost seems to take his breath away, but makes his pen more agile, really look similar to a child's tantrums. His senile vanity, on the other hand, blissfully drinks all the silly praises, the exaltations from his first disciples, regardless of the value of those who pronounce them.

[Anonymous No.11009001]

Abstraction is theoretically endless, and justice and morality is based on abstraction. So you end up falling down a rabbit hole, I discovered.

You set a bar: "Stealing is wrong. This is how we deal with it." And then you discover that this law doesn't apply to every situation, because of extenuating circumstances, and internal machinations of the perpetrator. So you set the bar- SEVERAL bars -down a bit further. Past your starting point. "Okay, NOW we have all the necessary laws for true justice." And then you discover even more fucking abstractions under those.

It's like the Greek riddle of the atom, only, unlike physical objects, abstractions HAVE no end. That's why philosophy clashes, fails, perplexes, out-dates, and invalidates itself at every turn. And that, I think is the true philosophy; There IS no single answer. Even saying that there is no single answer, fails itself, in some unseen way.

[Anonymous No.11009023]

>>11008470
>as if phenomenology could never again give birth to new science
we already have neuroscience and if you care about color perception you should be doing that instead

[Anonymous No.11009595]

>>11009023
It's people like you who are responsible for the 'Sam Harrises' of the world.

[Anonymous No.11011452]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11011479]

>>10990559
STFU retard
Analytic philsophy literally ended after the rediscovery of 18th century American pragmatists, notably CS. Peirce

[Anonymous No.11011496]

>>10992288
Logic is a special branch of semiotics actually

[Anonymous No.11011579]

>>10989869
All philosophy is the stuff of buildings and scaffoldings.

[Anonymous No.11011933]

OP here. Yeah, this thread basically confirms the original post beautifully. 300 replies of arguing and jibberish and failure.

Philosophy has done nothing useful outside of the invention of boolean logic (and 99% of academic philosophy has nothing to do with logic anymore).

There hasn't been a single contribution from academic philosophy to the general world in at least 70 years. There's nothing about it that matters in any way. Shut it down.

[Anonymous No.11012036]

>>11000054
underrated post

[Anonymous No.11012363]

>>11011933
Try
>>10991088
>>10992111

[Anonymous No.11012376]

>>10989869
>pic related
>nonsense
(You).

/thread

[Anonymous No.11012555]

>>10992142
>You realize all diciplines are like that at the top, right?
It's not. I am at the top of my micro discipline, in a technical field. Nothing of the sort happens.