/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11043553]

>leave being wrong about absolutely everything to me

[Anonymous No.11043559]

what philosopher represents the POLAR OPPOSITE of this man's philosophy? asking for a friend

[Anonymous No.11043565]

>>11043553
Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations

[Anonymous No.11043568]

>>11043559
and Jesus

[Anonymous No.11043573]

>>11043565
Whoops, meant to answer this
>>11043559

[Anonymous No.11043588]

>>11043559
Hamann.
Heidegger and Wittgenstein have the conclusions, but they still follow the cartesian method.

[Anonymous No.11043604]

>>11043568
>Jesus
How could Jesus' philosophy be a polar opposite to Descartes' when Descartes was himself a devout Catholic? The end of Descartes' philosophy was just a more roundabout way of getting to Christianity.
>>11043588
Wittgenstein specifically says in the Philosophical Investigations that any attempt at paying attention to an inner arena of being is nonsense. This goes directly against Descartes and rejects anything that could resemble Cartesian dualism or the problems that flow from it.

[Anonymous No.11043637]

>>11043559
Gautama Buddha, Nagarjuna, and a hundred or so other Buddhist and Hindu philosophers.
Descartes argued self was real and the world was the product of a perfect, undeceiving, and infinite God.
The "opposite" is arguing self isn't real and the world is the product of an out of balance, illusory, and impermanent co-dependent origination.

[Anonymous No.11043649]

>>11043559
G. Buddha

[The Red Barron No.11043666]

Hasn't he said some good stuff before?

[Anonymous No.11043783]

>>11043666
No.

[Anonymous No.11043909]

>>11043559
Hume

[Anonymous No.11043976]

>>11043559
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11044000]

Why do people feel the need to shit on a colossal genius like Descartes? Does it make you feel better about yourself?

[Anonymous No.11044016]

>>11044000
Undergrad cancer is the answer

[Anonymous No.11044026]

>>11044000
butthurt scholasticists probably

[Anonymous No.11044044]

>>11044000
It's not just people on 4chan shitting on him. He was wrong about everything and to even bring him up in a philosophical paper today nine times out of ten means you're trying to explain why your own position isn't falling for the same terminal pitfalls his did.

[Anonymous No.11044103]

>>11044044
If the point you make about Descartes is that he's wrong about everything, I feel like you're missing the greater point. His accomplishments still make him worthy of admiration.

[Anonymous No.11044123]

>>11043553
actually true btw. decartes is a moron that cant even see his own train of thought through to its logical conclusion

[Anonymous No.11044261]

>>11043553
Name one (1) thing Descartes got wrong.

[Anonymous No.11044572]

>>11044261
1. How not to look like a stupid bitch

[Anonymous No.11044585]

>>11044572

[Anonymous No.11044591]

>>11044572
wut, the only thing he got right was looking swag as fuck. other than that he pretty much killed philosophy, that god damn french faggot

[Anonymous No.11044597]

>>11044044
>literally creates the scientific method
>wrong about everything
topkek

[Anonymous No.11044604]

>>11044261
dualism
extension
automatons
catholicism
facial hair

[Anonymous No.11044612]

>>11044597
That would be Galileo

[Anonymous No.11044622]

>>11044604
Can I get a quick rundown on how any of those (especially facial hair) are wrong?

[Anonymous No.11044633]

>>11044612
>Galileo was a rationalist
WRONG

[Anonymous No.11044716]

>>11043553
Analytic Geometry

[Anonymous No.11045533]

>>11043553
Even if he was wrong, he is a far more influential thinker than you will ever be

[Anonymous No.11045545]

>>11043559
Lacan

[Anonymous No.11045550]

>>11044622

>Can I get a quick rundown on why dualism is wrong?

Yes, enroll in the first Intro to Philosophy class at your university.

[Anonymous No.11045552]

>>11045550
That doesn't sound like a quick rundown.

[Anonymous No.11045555]

>>11045533
all the pics of me and my works that you guys spam on here would say otherwise

[Anonymous No.11045580]

>>11045552

Never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.11045586]

>>11043588

t. guy who doesn't understand heidegger or wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.11045596]

>>11043553
wrong pic op. think you meant to post this one instead.

[Anonymous No.11045605]

>being wrong about absolutely everything
>Cartesian coordinate system
>wrong

You aren't a scholar, OP. You are a pseud.

[Anonymous No.11045635]

>>11045596
Yeah I agree there is no unconscious mind.

[Anonymous No.11045641]

>>11045580
Is this post supposed to explain why dualism is wrong?

[Anonymous No.11045655]

>>11045641

No

[Anonymous No.11045821]

>>11044622
>>11045641

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>Meditate on yourself as motionless awareness, free from any dualism, giving up the mistaken idea that you are just a derivative consciousness or anything external or internal. 1.13
>You have long been trapped in the snare of identification with the body. Sever it with the knife of knowledge that “I am awareness,” and be happy, my son. 1.14
>You are really unbound and actionless, self-illuminating and spotless already. The cause of your bondage is that you are still resorting to stilling the mind. 1.15
>Knowledge, what is to be known, and the knower — these three do not exist in reality. I am the spotless reality in which they appear because of ignorance. 2.15
>Truly dualism is the root of suffering. There is no other remedy for it than the realisation that all this that we see is unreal, and that I am the one stainless reality, consisting of consciousness. 2.16
>I am pure awareness though through ignorance I have imagined myself to have additional attributes. By continually reflecting like this, my dwelling place is in the Unimagined. 2.17

[Anonymous No.11045857]

>>11044622
If mind and body are separate substances with no like properties how would they ever interact with one another?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#MinBodHisDua

[Anonymous No.11045861]

What was Hegels argument against "cogito ergo sum"

[Anonymous No.11045869]

>>11045861
Why do you assume he would argue against that?
>Descartes begins, just as Fichte did later on, with the ‘I’ as indubitably certain; I know that something is presented in me. By this Philosophy is at one stroke transplanted to quite another field and to quite another standpoint, namely to the sphere of subjectivity. Presuppositions in religion are given up; proof alone is sought for, and not the absolute content which disappears before abstract infinite subjectivity. There is in Descartes likewise a seething desire to speak from strong feeling, from the ordinary sensuous point of view, just as Bruno and so many others, each in his own fashion, express as individualities their particular conceptions of the world. To consider the content in itself is not the first matter; for I can abstract from all my conceptions, but not from the ‘I.’ We think this and that, and hence it is — is to give the common would-be-wise argument of those incapable of grasping the matter in point; that a determinate content exists is exactly what we are forced to doubt — there is nothing absolutely fixed. Thought is the entirely universal, but not merely because I can abstract, but because ‘I’ is thus simple, self-identical. Thought consequently comes first; the next determination arrived at, in direct connection with it, is the determination of Being. The ‘I think’ directly involves my Being; this, says Descartes, is the absolute basis of all Philosophy. (5) The determination of Being is in my ‘I’; this connection is itself the first matter. Thought as Being and Being as thought — that is my certainty, ‘I’; in the celebrated Cogito, ergo sum we thus have Thought and Being inseparably bound together.

[Anonymous No.11045876]

>>11045857
Didn't Descartes think they interacted through the pineal gland?

[Anonymous No.11045907]

>>11045876
It was supposed to be the seat of the soul or something idk how it actually played into the interaction though. Maybe it was supposed to be like a cockpit.

[Anonymous No.11045919]

>>11045907
Strange. I wonder why the pineal gland has had so much focus in history especially focus from Christianity. Where did this association of pineal gland and soul or spirituality or religion come from?

[Anonymous No.11046696]

>>11043559
THE VIRGIN VOLTAIRE
THE CHAD PASCAL

[Anonymous No.11046725]

>>11043553
Cogito ergo sum was pretty slick but he kind of went off the rails and ate his own shit when he tried to move beyond it. He never really tied that to perception of the outside world without going into a hole-riddled hacked together mess of feces.

[Anonymous No.11046735]

>>11046725
The scientific method and the math shit was pretty boss tho

[Anonymous No.11046749]

>>11044716
fermat did it better also desargues' projective geometry was better than descartes' ugly coordinate dependent shit. modern mathematics and physics has mostly gotten rid of cartesian ugliness.

[Anonymous No.11046754]

>>11043604
Descartes was a dualist, Christianity is not dualist.
>>11044000
>dude you cant know the body lmao because im a decrepit nobody lmao
Read Merleau-Ponty and Descartes is refuted.

[Anonymous No.11046756]

>>11045919
Platonists. Types that have no place in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11046759]

>>11045641
My body is aware of itself and my body is in the world and the world is in me.

[Anonymous No.11046766]

>>11046754

And yet Descartes was a Christian? Christianity is not a philosophy it doesn't deal directly with dualism you absolute nonce.

[Anonymous No.11046776]

>>11043588
>Heidegger and Wittgenstein have the conclusions, but they still follow the cartesian method.
Heidegger is a Nietzschean. In fact, you can find almost everything in Heidegger in Nietzsche. Nietzsche is still too radical for today's *nglos. Nietzsche is in process thought, Nietzsche is in phenomenology, Nietzsche is in philosophy of body and philosophy of mind. The people who for example just compare him to Stirner are so unlucky that they have not read past the most surface level reading of Nietzsche. And that's just his thought, oh goodness his literary method is more complex than any before him yet is totally primordial. Go back 1000 years and the people of Turtle Island will tell you the exact same thing.
Husserl still subscribed to Descartes in a way, if you mean that.
>>11046766
>christianity is not a philosophy
Found the atheist!

[Anonymous No.11046777]

>>11046735
Science is absolute irredeemable trash, and his mathematics are even worse. Descartes and the like are a blight.

[Anonymous No.11046783]

>>11046776

Okay fine Christianity is a philosophy. It still doesn't deal with dualism. Happy?

[Anonymous No.11046787]

>>11046776
>Heidegger is a Nietzschean. In fact, you can find almost everything in Heidegger in Nietzsche. Nietzsche is still too radical for today's *nglos. Nietzsche is in process thought, Nietzsche is in phenomenology, Nietzsche is in philosophy of body and philosophy of mind. The people who for example just compare him to Stirner are so unlucky that they have not read past the most surface level reading of Nietzsche. And that's just his thought, oh goodness his literary method is more complex than any before him yet is totally primordial. Go back 1000 years and the people of Turtle Island will tell you the exact same thing.
tfw the pasta is fresh

[Anonymous No.11046791]

Lol how fuckin dumb was this guy I mean just look at this shit

[Anonymous No.11046800]

>>11046791
>check em

[Anonymous No.11046935]

Today Descartes is remembered mainly for his philosophical reflections, but he was primarily a working scientist and presumably thought of himself that way, as his contemporaries did. His great achievement, he believed, was to have firmly established the mechanical philosophy, to have shown that the world is indeed a machine, that the phenomena of nature could be accounted for in mechanical terms in the sense of the science of the day. But he discovered phenomena that appeared to escape the reach of mechanical science. Primary among them, for Descartes, was the creative aspect of language use, a capacity unique to humans that cannot be duplicated by machines and does not exist among animals, which in fact were a variety of machines, in his conception.

As a serious and honest scientist, Descartes therefore invoked a new principle to accommodate these non-mechanical phenomena, a kind of creative principle. In the substance philosophy of the day, this was a new substance, res cogitans, which stood alongside of res extensa. This dichotomy constitutes the mind-body theory in its scientific version. Then followed further tasks: to explain how the two substances interact and to devise experimental tests to determine whether some other creature has a mind like ours. These tasks were undertaken by Descartes and his followers, notably Géraud de Cordemoy; and in the domain of language, by the logician-grammarians of Port Royal and the tradition of rational and philosophical grammar that succeeded them, not strictly Cartesian but influenced by Cartesian ideas.

All of this is normal science, and like much normal science, it was soon shown to be incorrect. Newton demonstrated that one of the two substances does not exist: res extensa. The properties of matter, Newton showed, escape the bounds of the mechanical philosophy. To account for them it is necessary to resort to interaction without contact. Not surprisingly, Newton was condemned by the great physicists of the day for invoking the despised occult properties of the neo-scholastics. Newton largely agreed. He regarded action at a distance, in his words, as “so great an Absurdity, that I believe no Man who has in philosophical matters a competent Faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Newton however argued that these ideas, though absurd, were not “occult” in the traditional despised sense. Nevertheless, by invoking this absurdity, we concede that we do not understand the phenomena of the material world. To quote one standard scholarly source, “By `understand’ Newton still meant what his critics meant: `understand in mechanical terms of contact action’.”