[ 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: 366 KB, 1125x970, 850fu5tatv631.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13650560 No.13650560 [Reply] [Original]

Why do you read philosophy /lit/?

>> No.13650573

>i broke it down into its most basic form, therefore its stupid!
not an argument

>> No.13650576

>>13650560
You just know this guy owns a cock cage

>> No.13650581

>>13650560
"I read philosophy but have never understood a word of it" the post

>> No.13651079

>>13650581
Even Will Durant said that the field of philosophy devotes too much attention to epistemology.

>> No.13651237

>>13651079
And why should I give a fuck what Durant thinks?

>> No.13651406

>>13651237
The point is that even intelligent people can find that the focus on epistemology is a bit much

>> No.13651424

>>13651237
>I post about philosophy with disregard to Durant
Haven’t finished the first course yet, kiddo?

>> No.13651493

>haha i make comics!

>> No.13651503

>>13650560
I don't think that's a healthy or useful way to measure your own self worth.

I read philosophy because it's interesting and is helping me formulate the doctrine of a world-dominating cult, but unironically.

>> No.13651526

>>13651503
How's it coming so far?

>> No.13651546

>>13651526
Not bad. I have the general framework down pat. I'm going to explore it through some small creative works and probably once it's more concrete I'll write a dialogue between an initiate and a friend.

It's kind of a reconciliation of poetic naturalism with Max Tegmark's mathematical universe ontology and panpsychism, Epicurean ethics and an Aristotelian "god is thought" arche.

>> No.13651562

>>13651546
I'd like to stay updated on the developments. What's the appeal in creating a cult for you?

>> No.13651568
File: 229 KB, 1440x1249, gogodio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13651568

>>13650560
>Why do you read philosophy /lit/?
>from philo- "loving" + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;"

And with regards to that pic: ignorance is bliss.

>> No.13651571
File: 98 KB, 646x640, 1561791758516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13651571

>>13650560
>Why do you read philosophy /lit/?
To figure out whether it's worth it or not.

As Aristotle-sensei said, as soon as we ask the question, "Should we philosophize?" regharless of the answer we are already philosophizing. There is just no way around philosophy: we all live by certain philosophical assumptions about the world, whether we want to admit it or not.

>> No.13651573

>>13651562
Cult is probably a goofy word to pick. I have concerns about environmentalism and population growth. So many of our problems are caused by fossil fuels and plastics, burning away so we can watch our nightly stories, or use our smart phones which are causing a plethora of social issues, but nobody acknowledges that they're simply meeting a market demand. So to "stop" climate change and microplastics and all of that, it's a massive cultural shift that's needed. A shift to not *wanting* any of that stuff. Not striving to afford a Gucci wardrobe, and so on. A shift to that materialsm and commercialism and consumerism being a faux pas, or embarrassing. That will require a worldview change, which can come through user-generated micro-media since mass-media won't try to harm itself.

>> No.13651578

>>13651568
Forgive my ignorance, but why is it bad to say that man is a featherless biped?

>> No.13651581

>>13651578
Because it includes plucked chickens in it's definition. "Behold! A man!" - Diogenes

>> No.13651589

>>13651573
Sounds like a worthy endeavor, best of luck.

>> No.13651590
File: 64 KB, 600x744, The-scaleless-phenotype-Gross-appearance-of-a-sc-sc-chicken-The-majority-of-feathers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13651590

>>13651578
BEHOLD, A MAN

>> No.13651591

>>13651589
Thanks mate.

>> No.13651592

>>13651581
>>13651578
also after diogenes pulled that little plucked chicken stunt, plato added "with broad flat nails" to the definition

>> No.13651593

>>13651581
>>13651590
Saying that man is a featherless biped does not imply that all featherless bipeds are human. "Man is a DNA based life form." Does that mean I'm saying that all DNA based life forms are human beings? No.

>> No.13651598

>>13650560
>a form of therapy

What these people need is relief from their sick lifestyles and ingrained traumas, not to read philosophical works and pretend that they are better people for it. How much better would the world be if people stopped abusing themselves?

>> No.13651603

>>13651593
Technically correct, but if you're talking in terms of subsets then you can do better than "featherless biped" anyway. It's just a cheeki ancient meme.

>> No.13651604

>>13651593
get off my board plato

>> No.13651606

>>13650560
Understand my place in the cosmos

It's long, grueling and not available for everyone, and many pitfalls exist, but it was worth it.

>> No.13651631

>>13651546
>rocks have feelings too

>> No.13651640
File: 1.17 MB, 844x1200, jahy anakin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13651640

>>13651593
You're retarded. The Platonic Academy was offering that as a definition of man, not just a random description. A definition is always understood to work in both directions: if one states "a man is a featherless biped" it is also implied that "a featherless biped is a man". The same kind of omission happens in mathematics, where the definition "an isosceles triangle is a triangle with two congruent sides" tacitly implies that "a triangle with two congruent sides is isosceles".

>> No.13651653

>>13651631
The short response to that is that if you classify consciousness as what information feels like to be processed (read Tegmark) then rocks don't "have feelings" because in the framework of poetic naturalism that's a meaningless thing to say. Rocks don't have dopamine, serotonin, memories, neurons, etc. They undergo entropy though, and therefore by unifying that definition of consciousness with panpsychism (or: gradient consciousness if you like) then rocks are simply not separate from that panpsychic consciousness, although would not be particularly active parts of it.

>> No.13651673

>>13650560
I don't know which is worse

the idiots who mock philosophy because they don't understand it

the idiots who mock philosophy because they think they understand it

>> No.13651694

>>13651653
what's the real difference between this all permeating minimal consciousness that is effectively the same as no consciousness and no consciousness?
>consciousness as what information feels like to be processed
doesn't explain what "feels like" is and consciousness is not just information processing.
>read Tegmark
pass

>> No.13651700

>>13651694
>no consciousness
I'm not arguing for a state of non-being nor its delineation with being in regards to consciousness.

Tegmark does all the explaining over his entire book Our Mathematical Universe so I'm going to delegate to him for now. I'm sorry you won't check it out.

>> No.13651701

>>13651640
>The same kind of omission happens in mathematics
Then what's the point of the "if and only if" connective?

>> No.13653161

>>13650560
didn't existential comics admit all his philosophy knowledge comes from wikipedia?
if not, it probably does cause his unfunny comics reflect that