How do I get this fat fuck out of my life?

[Anonymous No.14435538]

This fat fucker has ruined my life. Everything I thought I knew is destroyed. Even Kant had to concede to him, but not while making some bullshit about "appearances" to act as an escape route for made-up German Idealism. Philosophy still hasn't recovered; it's went into hiding in phenomenology, semiotics, postsructuralism and other bullshit. This man has single handedly given me an epistemic crisis. How do I recover?

[Anonymous No.14435572]

Move on to Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. It's not that epistemology is dead, it's just a lot less grandiose than people want it to be.

[Anonymous No.14435580]

>>14435572
I don't know, anon. Husserl actually seems very grandiose.

[Anonymous No.14435590]

>>14435538
>How do I recover?
Just accept it and move on to other topics.

[Anonymous No.14435601]

>>14435590
You don't understand it, do you? Without proper epistemology there are NO "other topics".

[Anonymous No.14435629]

>>14435601
>Without proper epistemology there are NO "other topics".
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.14435634]

>>14435580
Husserl said that Hume was the first person to practice phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.14435678]

>>14435538
>Even Kant had to concede to him, but not while making some bullshit about "appearances" to act as an escape route for made-up German Idealism.
What? Can you substantiate your objections to Kant's responses to Hume?

[Anonymous No.14436842]

>>14435678
Not OP. My objection to Kant lies mostly on his use of the Thomist definition of truth as the accordance of objects and thoughts about them, put together with his acceptance of the idea that one can never know things-in-themselves, which leads me to conclude that one can never say anything true, except assuming hypothetical scenarios implying a set of fixed premises.

[Anonymous No.14436853]

>>14435538
You read the Greeks, Aquinas and stop reading philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14436865]

>>14436853
>finishing reading philosophy with Aquinas instead of Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.14436950]

>>14435538
Assuming this isn't a beautiful shitpost, just shrug it off. Just because you can't come to absolute moral or epistemological truths doesn't mean you can't have credence in a belief. Induction isn't totally sound, but it still works most of the time. Check out Bayesian epistemology. If you're concerned about moral truth, just act morally according to your own beliefs. It's likely that those aren't radically different from most others. Just because morality can't be objective doesn't mean we can't make strong claims about what is most moral in any given instant.

Tl;dr: if you're in undergrad and just read Hume, he can't hurt you if you just ignore him.

[Anonymous No.14436956]

>>14435538
Read up on the classical Greek Skeptic school and realize that epistemic collapse is the path to ataraxia.

[Anonymous No.14436967]

>>14435601
You clearly haven’t read Wittgenstein or Richard Rorty. Read Philosophical Investigations then read Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

[Anonymous No.14436975]

>>14436967
>Rorty
The only truly reprehensible Pragmatist.

[Anonymous No.14437043]

Ayn Rand debunked this irrational mystic. Existence exist, and that's the rational basis of causality.

[Anonymous No.14437083]

>>14435538
Why would you listen to a fat person, someone who evidently is fucking up their own life?

[Anonymous No.14437439]

>>14436950
This is what I mean. There is no refutation, the only way to get around what he's saying is to ignore him. He's objectively correct. Metaphysics has been btfo. Whatever I read now, there will always be the underlying feeling that it's all false.

[Anonymous No.14437452]

>>14435538
You realize that Hume himself didn't realize the extent to which he'd assfucked philosophy and you read Shestov

[Anonymous No.14437597]

READ.
DAMASCIUS AND WHITEHEAD.
HUME WAS MENTALLY HANDICAPPED.

[Anonymous No.14437725]

>>14437043
your statement is as true as your meme

[Anonymous No.14438263]

>>14437439
try following Kant into Schopenhauer Nietzsche and then eventually Deleuze. Metaphysics has been btfo but that underlying feeling of yours that "it's all false" seems tinged with a negativity that doesn't have to be there. Hume annihilates naive metaphysics but that does not necessarily annihilate the value of metaphysics (evidenced by its persistence) and the endeavors it took on before Hume and Kant. Your notion of a "loss of metaphysics" implicates values creeping behind your back.

[Anonymous No.14438325]

>>14438263
You don't go to Deleuze after Nietzsche. You go to Jung and realize why Nietzsche was wrong and Schop was right.

[Anonymous No.14438381]

>>14435538
>Philosophy still hasn't recovered
And it won't. He just solved philosophy, simple as.

[Anonymous No.14438388]

>>14437043
>ayn rand
>Existence exist
>that's the rational basis of causality.

[Anonymous No.14438561]

>>14438325
or you could read all of them

[Anonymous No.14438608]

>>14438561
Or you listen to the wise:
>One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind. In order to read what is good one must make it a condition never to read what is bad; for life is short, and both time and strength limited.

[Anonymous No.14438638]

>>14436967
both massive copes

[Anonymous No.14438703]

>>14438608
not sure why you wouldn't want to explore opposition to Schopenhauer if you are a Schop fan

[Anonymous No.14438784]

>>14438703
To clarify, I'm talking about Deleuze, not Nietzsche. Whatever we could say about Nietzsche, we can't deny that he was a genuine philosopher and therefore should be studied carefully. The same can't be said of the French sophists with their fangs and anuses.

[Anonymous No.14438857]

what did hume actually do honestly

[Anonymous No.14438872]

>>14438857
Took empiricism to its logical conclusions

[Anonymous No.14438909]

>>14436842
>Not OP. My objection to Kant lies mostly on his use of the Thomist definition of truth as the accordance of objects and thoughts about them, put together with his acceptance of the idea that one can never know things-in-themselves, which leads me to conclude that one can never say anything true
This is certainly false, we can absolutely formulate true judgements about our judgement, both a priori (every body is extended in space) and a posteriori (dealt with by theoretical and experimental physics). Also phaenomena are not mere illusions, saying true things about them does not imply pure subjectivism. The necessary correlation between phaenomena and noumena is proven in the Refutation of Idealism (from the first Critique)

>Except assuming hypothetical scenarios implying a set of fixed premises
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.14438917]

>>14438872
which was what? i dont understand how he solved philosphy

[Anonymous No.14438951]

>>14438917
he didn't he just pointed out that you can't take naive metaphysical assumptions and call them grounds for Truth

[Anonymous No.14438955]

>>14438917
he didn't solve philosophy, he btfoed it

[Anonymous No.14439052]

>>14438917
He didn't solve philosophy. He said that there is no totally sound argument for induction (or for objective morality). Because we need induction for a huge part of our epistemology, this poses a problem, and may even mean that all we can know are definitions and their logical derivatives. This appears to be a hard problem for philosophy, and there are a lot of philosphers that have tried to solve it and failed, Kant making the best attempt to date. However, a lot of philosphers have also just said "ok" and moved on, accepting that induction is necessary even if it's flawed. This is what OP needs to do if he wants to function.

[Anonymous No.14439073]

>>14435538
Here's what to do:
Stop reading philosophy.
Read literature.
Learn skills that are actually useful rather than waste your brain worrying about such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.14439078]

>>14437083
very true, it's not a safe bet

[Anonymous No.14439104]

>>14438263
Came to post this. Buy into Deleuze’s “secret link.” Embrace Hume.

[Anonymous No.14439116]

>>14438325
What a fucking life-denying faggot we have here. Jesus christ. >>14438608
Thinking this is insightful is a sure sign of weakness and terror.

[Anonymous No.14439300]

>>14439073
>NOOOOO YOU HAVE TO TAKE EVERYTHING FOR GRANTED!

[Anonymous No.14439343]

>>14435538
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/Philosophy_is_Bullshit.html

[Anonymous No.14439382]

>>14438608
How do you know if a book is good or bad if you don't read it? Also, even when you know it's bad you can gain insight from why it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.14439391]

>>14435538
Essential Peirce

[Anonymous No.14439473]

>>14439382
You skim it, read about it elsewhere, see what the people you trust (dead authors as well as living mentors) think about it, then make your judgement. Reading a book is not like listening to 5 minutes of music or watching a few hours of films. It's a huge investment of time and mental energy that should not be taken lightly.

[Anonymous No.14441266]

>>14438784
Deleuze is ten times the philosopher that Ni*tzsche ever was. Funny you would talk about sophistry without correctly attributing it to the biggest of them all.

[Anonymous No.14441276]

>>14439052
>Kant
>attempt
lmao have sex, incel.

[Anonymous No.14442878]

lol

[Anonymous No.14443100]

>>14439052
>>14439343

>To be more explicit and precise (although I do love a nice, pithy, sound-bite) he proved rationally,mathematically that most of the questions asked by philosophers from the very beginning simply couldn't be answered, if by an ``answer'' you meant that you wanted something that could be proven using the methodologies of logic, mathematics, and pure reason. If you like, he deduced that our knowledge of reality is based on two things:

>Our empirical experience of existence, as of right now, the act of perceiving itself (in the present tense only).
>Axioms, from which we could derive and conclude whatever we like about the reality presumed to underlie our ongoing instantaneous consciousness depending on what axioms we choose9.6.

>Hume alas didn't emphasize the latter point in precisely these terms, but remember, he lived about 100 years before the discovery that axioms of even something as fundamental as geometry could in fact be varied to produce new geometries. He therefore relied on the prevailing language of his time and reasoned amazingly consistently that aside from what we are experiencing right now we can prove damn-all nothing from reason alone.

>As we have taken such pains to assert, axioms are not self-evident truths, they are fundamentally unprovable assumptions. That is, personal opinions. That is, hot air, moonshine, speech out of your nether regions, bullshit. We know what we are experiencing right now and every thing else is inferred.

This is retarded. He declares everything other than perception as useless, God only knows why, then demands that you change his mind, all the while proudly maintaining that he won't. How do Anglos breathe and walk at the same time? Not even Hitchens is this dim. Here:

I declare all perception other than sight useless. Nothing is more dangerous to the ocular than the fancy of the epidermic.