[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 69 KB, 640x608, 4dd0438a8912c79cddc16e58fcb906f0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13276071 No.13276071 [Reply] [Original]

Any recommendations about how we acquire information or perceive the world around us? I'm starting from zero here.

>> No.13276072

>>13276071
hume

>> No.13276078

>>13276071
Introduction to communication theory textbook

>> No.13276088

Heidegger

>> No.13276096

>>13276071
mein kampf

>> No.13276099

>>13276071
LMAO

>> No.13276100

>>13276071

fichte

>> No.13276110

>>13276071
Episteme, foucault

>> No.13276114

>>13276071
For books I always say start w Plato's republic then do a general history of philosophy then find a particular and switch between general and particular.

Philosophy is basically divided into "feels vs reals". Plato is reals, if you like him then you'll find about half of the philosophers that you'll like. It's like politics but it goes deeper into it, it stems from our prefrontal cortex vs 5 senses.
Learning through 5 senses is empiricism. If your 5 senses are the primarily correct way to get info then you must accept other ppl's 5 senses even tho they inevitably conflict. So empiricism leads to subjectivity although not all empiricists are subjectivists. You'll find rationalists, opposite of empiricism, who accept subjectivity, especially during enlightenment. Necessarily the senses can only perceive material things and reason can understand immaterial things (like justice, the perfect government etc).

>> No.13276127

>>13276071
You should read about 4 causes as well. Plato talks about this in his parable of the cave about 2 of the causes (guess which is which). Aristotle develops the other 2 causes. Besides ontology (subjectivity vs objectivity) and epistemology (rationalism vs empiricism) knowing the type of object you are talking about (4 causes) is the most important.

>> No.13276148

>>13276071
The Phenomenology of Perception

case closed.

>> No.13276154

>>13276071
I and Thou, Martin Buber

>> No.13276229

>>13276114
>idealism = 'reals'
doubtface.jpg

Also, subjectivity is nothing more than the necessarily different perspectives of observers that are objectively different. It's not some great fucking mystery, nor does it contradict an objective reality.

>> No.13276232

>>13276071
Critique of Pure Reason, full send

>> No.13276396

>>13276229
Plato's idealism is a recognition of changing matter (heraclitus) and pure objective immaterial (out of time) being as Parmenides came up with. It's a reconciliation that ppl didn't think was possible (and thus sophists). Prior to Plato and Aristotle, the power duo was Heraclitus and Parmenides.
This being said, German idealism also concerned itself with the two particularly following the huge debate between enlightenment continental rationalists and (mostly) British empiricists. The empiricists won two major victories (calculus and newton's physics). It was impossible to ignore them even if you disagreed w them entirely, so Kant went to work on it. This being said he still placed reason as necessitating objective aesthetics and ethics.

Plato held the world of forms to be superior to the world of matter or change. He hierarchized his forms as well. Socrates was a heavy rationalist, my favorite quote from him is that he wanted to speak about the nature of the universe in simple language. This is the goal of rationalism, unity over particulars. Empiricists, like Aristotle, focused on continual dividing down of concepts.
Kant explains the structure well with analytic/ synthetic and a priori/ a posteriori divides.

>> No.13276410

>>13276229
It doesn't have to contradict but you have ppl who deny objective anything, and go into extreme skepticism, or nihilism even. They deny objective math or logic and say we should focus on feels over reals. Again this plays out in politics (in any ideology really) and in philosophy. To see extreme subjectivity you can read Heraclitus, Berkeley, Hume etc

>> No.13276477

>>13276410
Agreed, which is why I bristle when 'subjectivity' is spoken of as something more significant than an artifact of observing agents being objectively different. It's getting carried away with abstraction at best, delibereately disingenuous at worst.

>>13276396
I suppose I just found it odd that you didn't first associate empircisim with 'reals'. I don't see how any kind of idealism can be a sensible investigation of ontology. I see where you're coming from though, upon consideration of that historical context.