Philosophy

[Anonymous No.16785855]

Where do I start?

[Anonymous No.16785880]

>Logic
>Does logic exist?

[Anonymous No.16785902]

>>16785880
>logic doesn't exist
>therefore my logic to get to logic doesn't exist, doesn't exist
>if this is the case, logic exists
>therefore logic doesn't exist
>repeat

I tell you, its difficult thinking beyond wiki pages

[Anonymous No.16786046]

>>16785902
kek

[Anonymous No.16786124]

>>16785902
if logic doesn't exist, that doesn't mean that logic doesn't exist since logic doesn't exist. But logic doesn't exist, so logic exists, but logic doesn't exist, so logic doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16786143]

>>16786124
But if logic doesn't exist, how did you get to the conclusion that it doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.16786169]

>>16786143
I didn't, because logic doesn't exist, blehhh. What are conclusions?

[Anonymous No.16786184]

>>16786169
also what is a because? And what is this question aiming at?

[Anonymous No.16786222]

>>16786184
Are you having a stroke or something?

[Anonymous No.16786323]

>>16785855
You have a foundation (I use existence, idealists use existence of themselves) and the metaphysics interprets the foundation. Ontology is next then epistemology. Logic springs from ontology and from that you get math/linguistics/etc then pic rel helps

[Anonymous No.16786629]

I just got away from spending more than half of my day in a factory and now my brain is all rotten. I haven't read anything at all in ages.
Please recommend me something to be an easier or more friendly introduction to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16786690]

>>16786629
Right side of history by Ben Shapiro https://b-ok.lat/book/3712519/7a27a8
Sophie's World https://b-ok.lat/book/3503473/1414ce
Cave and the light is easily digestible. Chapters are about 15 pages and it's not technical. Just read a chapter before work. https://b-ok.lat/book/2284141/a0cc33

Unsurprisingly, Plato's works are extremely easy to digest. It's literally a dialogue. The early dialogues have a bit more focus on the socratic method and would be more interesting. You would definitely want to read before work though and try to engage in the dialogue. The best part of a socratic dialogue is it's universally-addressable. https://b-ok.lat/book/2074666/631f38

[Anonymous No.16786723]

>>16786323
How do you start with metaphysics and then get to epistemology? I always thought it needed to be the other way around, as you have to establish the possibility of personal knowledge before you can start to figure out what the world is.

[Anonymous No.16786765]

>>16786723
To establish personal knowledge you have to take the ontological assumption of a person, this implies a metaphysics in this structuring. Even more to assume a person you must assume existence. There's not a perfect logic or quantified mereology yet so just see what is a more universally applicable framework or metaphysics then apply it universally.
You really want to define truth yourself and obv the greeks is the most metaphysically diverse area with varying definitions of truths. Mine is from parmenides in a predicational monism.
Just experiment, see what works for you, try to apply it universally and certainly debate the significance of your metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.16787153]

>>16786323
learn how to chart bro

[Anonymous No.16787156]

>>16785855
Start by reading my blog posts about time dragons

[Anonymous No.16787178]

>>16785855
https://www.kongregate.com/games/chiefwakamakamu/socrates-jones-pro-philosopher/

[Anonymous No.16787184]

>>16787153
Got it from wiki I'd put ethics off to the side of ontology. Yours looks cleaner

[Anonymous No.16789125]

>>16785855
start with the trial and death of socrates. metaphysics and logic can be started by themselves but avoid epistemology and language untill later

[Anonymous No.16789420]

>>16785855
>Top left requires precise interpretation of what "knowing" and "anything" mean. There are somethings that can't be tested etc but if you guess correctly does that mean you still know that thing?
>Does anything exist
Yes and you can't prove otherwise.
>Logic
Rose by any other name
>Words having meaning
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16789471]

>>16789420
>>Does anything exist
>Yes and you can't prove otherwise.
Severely underrated

[Anonymous No.16789489]

>>16785855
Take the rationalismpill

https://www.readthesequences.com/

[Anonymous No.16789498]

>>16789489

[Anonymous No.16789545]

>>16786690
lmao shapiro as first rec. jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.16789656]

>>16789420
But if words have meaning, wouldn't you know what "knowing" and "anything" meant?
I'm also pretty sure that there are lots of philosophers who doubt the existence of material things

[Anonymous No.16789788]

>>16789656
>But if words have meaning, wouldn't you know what "knowing" and "anything" meant?
Are you being obtuse or just forgot that words can have different meanings based on context and can also have multiple meanings?
>I'm also pretty sure that there are lots of philosophers who doubt the existence of material things
Since when has doubt been evidence?

[Anonymous No.16789799]

>>16785855

[Anonymous No.16789810]

>>16789788
Let us say you define the words, wouldn't you have to define the definition? And how can any word have meaning if you have to define the definitions definition etc...
If one word has multiple meanings, how can you be sure you've got the right one? If everyone has a different definition, can there be any certainty?
>when has doubt been evidence
If you don't practice doubt as a philosopher, you're not one, you have to start with doubt and build on principals, if you dont doubt anything then theres nothing to question

[Anonymous No.16789811]

>>16786222
What's a having?

[Anonymous No.16789820]

>>16789811
Okay you're obviously trying to be satirical but you're just proving my point, if you disagree just tell me why, but you probably won't so it doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.16789853]

>>16789810
>If everyone has a different definition, can there be any certainty?
Yes it's called a dictionary.

>If you don't practice doubt as a philosopher, you're not one, you have to start with doubt and build on principals, if you dont doubt anything then theres nothing to question
Existence doesn't stop because you want to think hard about it.

Stop trying to make things more difficult than they are just because you have a great ability to formulate your thoughts.

[Anonymous No.16789919]

>>16789853
But how do you define the definitions in the dictionary? And what about the changes of language, can you be sure any one word has the same meaning?

>If you put a bullet through your head, I wonder how much the outside world exists
All jokes aside, if you only accept empirical evidence for truth, then firstly you're not actually finding truth just proximities, and secondly you're a scientist who can't be bothered to do the tests

I can't have a rational debate with you if I have to instead get out the measuring cylinders and microscopes, if thats your idea of a philosophical debate then your beliefs can be summed up like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9r_pZL4boE
At the end of the day, if you dont accept rational thought can lead to truth, then you're not in the pursuit of truth

[Anonymous No.16789967]

>>16789919
Don't kid yourself about going for measuring cylinders and microscopes. You'd spend half your time asking whether you can even reach for them before you put them in use and the rest of the time thinking about using them just like how you've wasted both our time in this thread without getting anywhere

[Anonymous No.16789994]

>>16789967
Imagine going into a thread called "philosophy" and not even being a philosopher, I think you're on the wrong website, you can rave about science on reddit

I was trying to be civil but I'm confused why you're even here, so I guess this is the last time I reply back to you? Its okay to like science man, just dont say that its philosophy...