ANTIPHILOSOPHY

[Anonymous No.18956158]

Any suggestions on books that argue against philosophical reasoning/thinking in general? Preferably a pre-modernist approach; I'm thinking a "pro-mythical mentality" kind of literature.

[Anonymous No.18956160]

>>18956158
Might Is Right

[Anonymous No.18956161]

Nietzsche, obviously. That's why Platonists and Christians on here say he's a poet rather than a philosopher as an insult to him.

[Anonymous No.18956169]

OP here: I forgot to add that Jung has some good insights on mythical mentality, which is why I began to think about the negation of philosophy in the first place.

[Anonymous No.18956170]

>>18956158
>>18956161
Bullshit, Nietzsche was never against philosophy or thinking. Philosophy is good for you stupid coombrains because you can't think. After studying it for a maximum of five years, however, you should stop reading philosophy entirely and dedicate yourself to fiction (beautiful prose only) and poetry.

[Anonymous No.18956181]

>>18956158
Anti-philosophy is also philosophy. There is no escape :)

[Anonymous No.18956194]

>>18956170
Nietzsche was against philosophy as it was understood and engaged with since Plato's time. He revered pre-Socratic philosophy which he considered to be a different and more innocent thing.

[Anonymous No.18956219]

What do you mean? Ancient philosophy was expressed in terms of the culture of the time, which was mythical, and can be thought of as a refinement of its explanations of the world through thinking about these terms, empiricism, and thinking about thinking. Philosophy as a tradition developed its own terms, no longer needing the more hamfisted general culture ones except when treading new ground.

Instead you should argue against intellectualism. That's much easier by simply observing that it can lead anywhere, including to extremely destructive and delusional actions and beliefs, and never offers real answers. The easiest way to disarm it is with philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18956246]

>>18956158
>argue against philosophical thought
>argue
That’s philosophy anon

[Anonymous No.18956251]

incoherence of philosophy

[Anonymous No.18956260]

>>18956219
I am not against philosophy myself, it just occured to me that in ancient times people only "thought", and they were okay with it. Mythical explanations were explanations anyway. I can't really explain what I think or what I would think about the topic if I thought about it enough in my own language, all the more in english.

>Instead you should argue against intellectualism
Interesting. Can you expand a bit more on that?

>>18956246
I was expecting this comment. Yep.

[Anonymous No.18956266]

>>18956170
>After studying it for a maximum of five years, however, you should stop reading philosophy entirely and dedicate yourself to fiction (beautiful prose only) and poetry.
Its the other way around.

[Anonymous No.18956268]

>>18956158
Arthur Koestler must have something in this sense

[Anonymous No.18956280]

>>18956158
Did you ever wonder where all the Philosophers went? Pic related BTFO´d Philosophy so hard it basically still hasnt recovered and hopefully never will.

[Anonymous No.18956300]

Guenon, sort of.

[Anonymous No.18956314]

>>18956300
FYI, I say “sort of” because Guenon would very much be open to the sort of philosophy done by Plato, but not Descartes or Kant.

[Anonymous No.18956327]

>>18956194
So was Plato when he talked about the presocratics, and Aristotle when he talked about plato, and so on and so forth until Heidegger saying everybody's wrong but him and Parmenides - do you see a pattern, here? All philosophers have a tendency to call "not philosophy" the guys they don't agree with, and Nietzsche is famously ill-tempered when it comes to commenting on philosophy, history, or almost anything else.

[Anonymous No.18956386]

>>18956327
>do you see a pattern, here?
No, because there isn't one. Nietzsche wasn't saying "everyone is stupid but me" or "I am the real philosopher," his point is far deeper than that. In Nietzsche's (elaborately explained) view, Plato ruined philosophy (or really, Socrates did by corrupting the nobler Plato) by making it primarily about "logic" and "the good" (in another sense, kosher), and everyone since his time has been a Platonist. The popular notion of philosophy is Platonist and Nietzsche was the first to firmly stand against it. So, Nietzsche is relevant to OP's question.

[Anonymous No.18956390]

>>18956268
I'll look him up, thanks anon.

>>18956300
>>18956314
I know what you mean, and I kind of feel the same; I have read the presocratics, Plato and most of Aristotle. Then I read some stuff from the medievals, really enjoyed Augustine (his soliloquies felt so sincere), Aquinas was way beyond me though. Then I tried to read Kant, Hegel, and here onwards everything feels absolutely the same to me. I really have no interest in modern philosophy. There's something about Plato, for example, that makes me think of him not as a philosopher, but as something else.
But then again, I am ignorant af and I'm open to hear what you anons have to say.

[Anonymous No.18956398]

>>18956266
Philosophy is when you become autistic over word meaning, which is literally the first step you take in becoming aware of what a language is. What you want with philosophy is create hyper-precise codes that correspond to states of things by focusing on the supposed meaning of the elements of the code (words). From this comes the prolipheration of philosophical vocabularies, up until german modern philosophy: at that point philosophical vocabulary become so complex that every German philosopher from Kant onwards is basically inventing its own vocabulary, which is why Wittgenstein then goes full autistic saying that, basically, there are no philosophical problems and philosophers just can't talk like normal people.
Thus you should go back look how normal people talk like, and you will see that communincation through language does not focus solely on meaning and logical structure, but also on rhythmic structure, sound, tone, etc. - all aspects that philosophers don't take into account, which are the reason why beautiful sentences often "sound true". Poets and novelists exploit these aspects of linguistic communication to create sandboxes (novels, poems) in which any content can be communicated with a far higher level of correspondence to reality than a clean, well made reasoning ever could. Medieval philosophers were unsatisfied with their proofs of the existence of god not because they were unsound, but because they were ugly: Dante didn't bother proving anything, and his god reads as "more real" than any demonstration in the most intelligent philosophers. Why? Because experience of all kind, including the experience of god, is first of all aesthetic, and "understanding" or "explaining" it (reality), in any way requires a total correspondence between reality and its representation, i.e. a most accurate simulation of reality reproducing its aesthetic features, i.e. either art or a mystical experience of union with everything of a neoplatonic art of which the creation and fruition of art is next closest thing in the western world.

If you are sad, pages and pages of deduction and reasoning, for as right as they may be, may not change how you feel. A single verse of poetry can. This is why Plato, who is the best among all philosophers in the west, wrote philosophy in a literary form.

[Anonymous No.18956409]

>>18956386
>So, Nietzsche is relevant to OP's question.

OP here, recommend me something, I'm willing to give him a try after what you said. All I've read was some excerpts from thus spoke zarathustra when I was a we live in a society teenager.

[Anonymous No.18956413]

>>18956390
>But then again, I am ignorant af and I'm open to hear what you anons have to say.
Guenon often referred to what passed for modern philosophy as philosophy, but his position could best be summarized by saying what passes for modern philosophy is not actually philosophy. It’s a matter of terminological distinction that he’s not consistent about. The thing you might find in Plato, Plotinus is something he would be open to. Someone mentioned Nietzsche. There’s some truth to that, as there is for Heidegger. Whether they really stepped outside the bounds of modern philosophy, the sort that I’m talking about here is debatable, but so is the idea that these two went even further than Guenon in their pre-modernness. Generally, what would be considered philosophy (his views, not necessarily mine) in the West would probably start with Plato/Pythagoras and end with Scholastics/Aquinas. For Nietzsche and Heidegger, everything since Socrates and Plato has gone wrong.

[Anonymous No.18956432]

>>18956386
>Plato was stupid
>all philosophers but me are platonists
>all philosophers but me are stupid

[Anonymous No.18956493]

>>18956409
Aside from Zarathustra then, Twilight of the Idols is really the book you want to read.

>>18956432
>straw man
>straw man
>straw man
Keep it up, you're doing great.

[Anonymous No.18956494]

>>18956398
>Plato, who is the best among all philosophers in the west
The worst thinker of Greece.

[Anonymous No.18956500]

>>18956413
By the way, both Guenon and Heidegger had thought that philosophy, as we know it either way, was ending. So regardless of their disagreement over what is and isn’t philosophy, they both thought it was basically over (at least for a time). Thus, Guenon or Heidegger would be the ultimate, or perhaps penultimate, philosopher of this civilization and world epoch.

[Anonymous No.18956524]

Shit threat all around.

[Anonymous No.18956526]

>>18956494
>t. Nietzsche reader in his teens who has never read a page of Plato

[Anonymous No.18956527]

>>18956493
>Aside from Zarathustra then, Twilight of the Idols is really the book you want to read.
you're telling him to start at Zarathustra?
How do I know you're a pseud?

[Anonymous No.18956532]

>>18956432
based syllogism poster

[Anonymous No.18956533]

>>18956158
This is what you're looking for

[Anonymous No.18956539]

>>18956527
OP doesn't want technical philosophy so Zarathustra is a fine book to read for what he's looking for, but I recommended Twilight of the Idols anyway, not Zarathustra.

[Anonymous No.18956579]

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

[Anonymous No.18956586]

>>18956158
Too deny the significance of philosophy is itself a philosophical stance. So, in that regard, such a stance boils down to one's definition of the terms, i.e. semantics. Which can still be constructive to some extent. If you want to escape the ratiocination of all post-greek philosophy you'd have to look to myth/religion. If you want something more structured that criticizes the structure itself maybe look to hermeneutics or the study of pre-writing societies; Dumzeil & Derrida. To be honest, I'm struggling to think of pre-modernist recommendations that are not folk tales/myths.

Maybe Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy.
The core of your thesis seems to me to be the identification of the Moral Good/Perfect with Reason itself. Then specifically, Nietzsche or any others following in the Cynic tradition seem a decent recommendation.

[Anonymous No.18956608]

>>18956526
*in his mid 20s who has never read a page of Plato

[Anonymous No.18956645]

>>18956586
>To be honest, I'm struggling to think of pre-modernist recommendations that are not folk tales/myths.

Which is basically all that I've been reading lately. I've mentioned Jung in the thread also.

>>18956493
I'll read it soon. Thanks, anon.

[Anonymous No.18956771]

>>18956432
kek

[Anonymous No.18956781]

Hamann
Bataille

[Anonymous No.18956839]

>>18956158
protestantism

[Anonymous No.18956853]

>>18956158
Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.18957187]

bump

[Anonymous No.18957194]

>give me books that use philosophy to argue that philosophy is stupid

[Anonymous No.18957217]

>Against philosophy
Many physicists and scientists in general

[Anonymous No.18957230]

>>18957194
Philosophy contains arguments, but not all arguments contain philosophy

[Anonymous No.18957231]

>>18957194
Did I ask for books "that use philosophy"?

>>18957217
Precisely what I wanna avoid now.

[Anonymous No.18957411]

>>18956398
where can I read more about this anon?

[Anonymous No.18957422]

I genuinely do respect some of the extreme anti-intellectualism of certain Muslims.

[Anonymous No.18957433]

Has anyone here read Heidegger? His anti-philosophy-ness is obvious but how can that be reconciled with the fact that he was clearly very philosophical, used philosophical language, was totally bound up in logic, rationality, and everything else? I mean, he’s even referred to as a “philosopher’s philosopher” because he’s so philosophically rigorous and his predecessors are some of the most obvious examples of “philosophers” to ever walk the earth.

[Anonymous No.18958374]

>>18956432
You're getting the hang of it.

[Anonymous No.18958542]

>>18956158
This is a subject of metaphilosophy and therefore it belongs to philosophy. OP, I can't really tell what you're looking for. You said in a post above that Plato and Augustine speak to you on a deeper level, but that you don't get the same impression when reading Kant and Hegel. They feel monotone. How are we supposed to argue against impressions? After all this, you make a sweeping condemndation of modern philosophy without even defining or giving us a hint on what constitutes "modern philosophy".

[Anonymous No.18958585]

>>18956314
In the same vein, Brenda's Treason of the clerks kinda hits back at contemporary philosophy and intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.18958644]

>>18958585
*Benda

[Anonymous No.18958711]

>>18957433
Heidegger is more properly anti-metaphysical than anti-philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18958849]

>>18956158
Feuerbach.

>>18956161
Retard. Nietzsche was a philosopher and proudly identified himself as belonging to the same tradition as Plato.

[Anonymous No.18959015]

>>18956398
Can't believe I read all that garbage.

[Anonymous No.18959028]

Et voila

[Anonymous No.18959042]

>>18956158
The Presocratics were thinking before philosophising.

[Anonymous No.18959071]

>>18958849
>same tradition as Plato.
yet ignoring him and thinking thrasymachus was right instead

[Anonymous No.18959080]

/YJyySDaP
Join our new paganism server, all learners and believers are welcome.
Features:
-A channel where you'll find date converters and calendars for your faith
-Guides and ancient primary sources for beginners
-A channel to share pics of your sacred space
-Several roles for every brand of polytheist faith and philosophical school
-Theology, literature, history and philosophy channels
-A politically neutral community without idpol shit, progressives and ethnonationalist LARPers are banned on sight
Abrahamic believers and atheists may also join, but they have to agree not to proselytize or disparage the faith of the members of the community

[Anonymous No.18959117]

>>18956158
YOU DENSE FUCK

>>18956181
1st
>>18956246
2nd
>>18956260
3rd
>>18956266
yes
>>18956398
tldr

[Anonymous No.18959155]

>>18956398
Beautiful.

You are almost right:

War against the real world is the ultimate goal and satisfaction. Enjoying fiction is a corruption of this knowledge, just as believingmanking extinct so nobody can challenge you is a retard's take on world domination.

[Anonymous No.18959210]

>>18956158
>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[Anonymous No.18959320]

>>18959071
>yet ignoring him

[Anonymous No.18959389]

>>18956158
Church fathers devour the heathen Greek. Try Hippolytus.

[Anonymous No.18959524]

>>18956398
But well written philosophy reads better than any fictional literature ever could.

[Anonymous No.18959562]

>>18956158
Are you into mysticism, OP? I'm reading pic related and Fox engages in some serious axe grinding against Descartes and his way of knowing, including ideas of empiricism and skepticism. Fox argues, through the quotations of famous mystics and through his meditations on those quotations, for engaging in the world in a more mythical mentality, as you call it. Also Joseph Campbell is good for sort of an empirical look at pre-empirical/non-empirical thought.

[Anonymous No.18959567]

>>18956158
>Nobody mentions Stirner or Zen
What is wrong with this board

[Anonymous No.18959657]

>>18958849
>and proudly identified himself as belonging to the same tradition as Plato.
He called philosophers from Plato onward basically a bunch of decadents.

[Anonymous No.18959793]

Marx

[Anonymous No.18959837]

>>18956390
Schopenhauer is the successor to Plato. Hegel was a Heraclitean like Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.18959905]

>>18957230
>>18957231
All argumentation is philosophy since logic is a branch of philosophy. Sorry I don't make the rules.

[Anonymous No.18959987]

>>18956194
That's not true, Nietzsche's critiques of Socrates and Plato are always carefully qualified. Hell, in BGE, the only two passages about Dionysus imply that Nietzsche is akin to Plato. Plus quite a few of his ideas are inspired by the dialogues Sophist and Statesman.

>>18956158
Probably al-Ghazali, who wrote The Incoherence of the Philosophers.

[Anonymous No.18960134]

>>18956158
Maybe Diogenes

[Anonymous No.18960262]

>>18959987
Being against Plato and philosophy he inspired =/= not being part of the lineage or offering proper philosophical critique.

[Anonymous No.18960491]

Not really "against philosophy", but this one argues against the modern conception of philosophy, that knowledge must be "grounded" on something. He basically finishes the book saying that philosophy should be just talking and shit

[Anonymous No.18960551]

>>18957422
only non-meme answer.

[Anonymous No.18960561]

Fucking retards OP is a butthurt dimwit who wants to "feel" his way through with no reason or logic. Saged.

[Anonymous No.18960577]

>language = philosophy
Why are philosofaggots so retarded? Not everything is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18960578]

>>18956158
>"pro-mythical mentality"
So Plato? You realize how much he uses mythology in his philosophy right?

[Anonymous No.18960587]

>>18959987
>i
The more Plato you read the more you notice the similarities between them. Plato even has a similar fixation with psychology that Nietzsche does. He even creates a proto-theory of the will which is really similar to what Nietzsche eventually came up with (only with an explicit hierarchical ordering of superiority).

[Anonymous No.18960718]

>>18956158
Read Paul’s letters. He realized what a waste of time philosophizing is, and how it leads to error.

Colossians 2:8
>See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

1 Timothy 6:20
>O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,”

1 Corinthians 2:13
>And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

[Anonymous No.18960753]

>>18956398
Good post. The transcendent feeling I experienced when Socrates talks to Phaedo about cutting his hair could never by achieved through consecutive statements of fact. Even the simple fact that the dialogue is named Phaedo when he seems to be an insignificant character shows how this interaction is the key of the entire dialogue.

[Anonymous No.18960757]

>>18956158
Just consider most of the philosphers past 1800 were writing things to get tenure at a university so they could be a full time welfare leech. Soon as you realize that then suddenly dasein and spirt are just empty gestures to fool university hiring boards.

[Anonymous No.18960774]

>>18956160
Based Violencechad

[Anonymous No.18960778]

>>18960757
what about Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.18961085]

>>18959524
All well written philosophy is either poetry (Parmenides, Heraclitus) or fiction (Plato, Nietzsche's Zarathustra, etc.)

[Anonymous No.18961086]

>>18956158
Start looking into eastern philosophy. BTFO's west's 'logic' and rationality

[Anonymous No.18961163]

>>18956251
This.

[Anonymous No.18961237]

>>18956398
based and gundampilled

[Anonymous No.18961353]

>>18961086
All I've read is the Gita and Dhammapada; where should I go from there?

>>18961085
I reread the Parmenides poem yesterday, right before I went to bed. He sort of captures the feeling of why I made this thread in the first place - perhaps I should go back to the presocratics? - I also thought of Ecclesiastes as related to the thread.

>>18960718

Also 1 Corinthians 1, 20
>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Great post, anon. Thanks for reminding me of St. Paul!

>>18960578
I mentioned Plato earlier somewhere in the thread exactly because of that.

>>18959562
I'll look it up, thanks anon.

>>18959389
Nice recommendation, thank you, anon.

>>18958542
>I can't really tell what you're looking for

Neither do I, which is why I made this thread. Thank you for your answer.

[Anonymous No.18961390]

>>18961085
You'd love Indian and Chinese philosophy then, because it's all like that. Even the Indian legal codes are done in poetic meter.

[Anonymous No.18961427]

>>18961390
It's been a while I've been thinking about checking some eastern philosophy out. Where should I start, anon?

[Anonymous No.18961447]

all ancient 'philosophy' is anti-philosophical by the current degenerated standard.
discursive reason was just the 1st step, the most crude method, below rites/divine inspiration

now it's the only thing that has remained

[Anonymous No.18961513]

of course, Marquis De Sade

[Anonymous No.18961865]

>>18956158
>reality is complex and there are many different views and types of reasoning for reality and meaning
>PLEASE GIVE ME A BOOK THAT WILL STOP MAKING ME THINK ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS
very gay, OP.

[Anonymous No.18961892]

>>18961865
>thinking any of this shit matters or that reality can ever be understood ultimately
Very cringe. You waste your life on meaningless pilpul. Know that you know nothing. Live

[Anonymous No.18962044]

>>18961865
I don't quite get what you wanted from this post. Thanks for the bump though.

[Anonymous No.18962091]

>>18956158
Books that argue against thinking are akin to food leading to hunger and water leading to thirst.
I'll take two McBurgers and extra Soda for your spiritual obesity.

[Anonymous No.18962125]

>>18962091
Other anons understood what I was asking for and already recommended me what I should read on the topic. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

[Anonymous No.18962318]

>>18961086
>Start looking into eastern philosophy. BTFO's west's 'logic' and rationality
If you mean pajeets and Chinese, certainly not.
If you mean Russians, maybe.

[Anonymous No.18962363]

>>18956280
u are retarded

[Anonymous No.18962372]

>>18956398
>Philosophy is when you become autistic over word meaning
?

[Anonymous No.18962394]

>>18962318
Anon, Shestov is a Jew.

[Anonymous No.18962399]

>reading philosophy instead of esoteric ramblings by an italian
low-key not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.18962427]

Just incredulously hand-wave anything away by calling it incoherent, then ctrl+c ctrl+v the implication sign followed by " Whereofover one can't speak one must shut up"

[Anonymous No.18962983]

>>18956160
/thread

[Anonymous No.18963122]

>>18956158
Any thread on /pol/ will do

[Anonymous No.18963129]

>>18956181
t.

[Anonymous No.18963576]

>>18961353
>Neither do I, which is why I made this thread.

I'm not sure I understand. Did you want to have a discussion about the utility of philosophy?

[Anonymous No.18963597]

>>18963576
Not at all. All I wanted was some book recommendations that "argued" against philosophical reasoning, and to read some opinions on the matter.

[Anonymous No.18963652]

>>18960577
>Not everything is philosophy.
that's a philosophical statement

[Anonymous No.18963667]

>>18963597
Anon, I hope you understand that to argue in that manner is indeed philosophy, because it deals with a metaphilosophical question. What the anons previously had to say about the Christian tradition (those two anons who recommended St. Paul and St. Hippolytus) does not really constitute a sweeping condemnation of philosophical reasoning, but largely a warning against the pernicious doctrines of the Stoics and the Epicureans. Although if you're still keen on reading a book that shows why we should suspend our beliefs about the world, I recommend the *Outlines of Pyrrhonism* by Sextus Empiricus. Even then, that book is commonly studied in philosophy circles.

[Anonymous No.18963677]

>>18963129
This isn’t a meme because you say it is, son.

The “t.” Is. Not your mushrooms

[Anonymous No.18963706]

>>18956158
Though any kind of "anti-philosophy" is a philosophy in and of itself so the concept is self defeating.

[Anonymous No.18963772]

Plato banished poets from the polis. the same attitude made Socrates dead.
'anti-philosophical' tradition is Faith and Poetry.
philosophers of faith: Hamann, Herder, Jacobi.
>I'm thinking a "pro-mythical mentality" kind of literature.

[Anonymous No.18963797]

>>18963667
>I hope you understand that to argue in that manner is indeed philosophy

I do, I'm more than aware of that at this point.

>What the anons previously had to say (...) does not really constitute a sweeping condemnation of philosophical reasoning

I didn't expect a "sweeping condemnation" from the very beginning - I didn't expect much from the thread, actually, and was fortunate to get some interesting answers back. If anyone, let's say, had recommended me Pope's "An Essay on Man: Epistle II" (which is vaguely related to the topic) I would've been satisfied already. I wasn't asking for anything too elaborate. I'll look up your recommendation, though; thank you for the time you took to respond to this thread, and thank you for being decent.

>>18963706
Yep. That's been mentioned a couple of time throughout the thread.

[Anonymous No.18963816]

>>18963797
times*

>>18963772
>Hamann

A friend of mine has some of work of his, I'll give it a look. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.18963822]

How quick to anger the philosopher is as soon as you question his endevours! Truly I say to you no man is further from ataraxia (tranquility) than the man that spends his time thinking in circles.

[Anonymous No.18963837]

>>18963822
Everyone thinks in circles

[Anonymous No.18963919]

>>18963816
>I'll give it a look.
you could also download 'Lit Schizo Ramblings' pdf to witness an attempt of overcoming of philosophy by means of inspired shitposting. I understand that original Hamann's writings were in the similar stream: obscurely idiosyncratic, cryptic, with some big jej for those sharing the context. and that context was primarily of faith and Mystery, not of philosophy of that time.
Hamann criticized Kant for wanting to dress philosophy in the purple dress, i.e. universalize it. to remove particularities/the difference. which are the light.

[Anonymous No.18963953]

>>18956398
Would GK Chesterton be an example of this? He seems to approach philosophy and theology from a literary form

[Anonymous No.18964023]

>>18956194
>Nietzsche was against philosophy
you should read nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18964147]

>>18961085
>>18959524
I liked Pansees. It could definitely be considered a work of poetry.

[Anonymous No.18964151]

>>18964023
>read nietzsche
you sould read nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.18964282]

>>18964151
>you sould read nietzsche.
you sould read nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.18964301]

>>18964023
>as it was understood and engaged with since Plato's time
You should read posts you reply to

[Anonymous No.18964311]

>>18964301
no

[Anonymous No.18964542]

Lift like Zyzz
He destroyed metaphysics because he sexy as hell.
He'll be remembered forever while losers like Plato and Nietzsche are already forgotten.

[Anonymous No.18965162]

>>18956158
I'm not really anti philosophy but it does seem like the ultimate goal of philosophy is to reject it. What's the point of thinking for its own sake? Surely the point is to think to be able to stop thinking.

[Anonymous No.18965245]

>>18956160
>>18960774
>>18962983
They're not wrong

[Anonymous No.18966122]

>>18956398
This is limited thinking and has imperfect conclusion even though logical lead up is correct.

Point is, you need understanding and respect of both to be truly wise and fulfilled and understand poetry and sophisticated rambling at the same time and appreciate beauty in both and grow from both.

[Anonymous No.18966718]

>>18956158
I recommend the read

[Anonymous No.18966738]

>>18956280
Karl Popper is a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.18967980]

bump

[Anonymous No.18968422]

>>18966718
I've read a few passages in the past; I don't think it's directly related to the topic and it's not exactly what I was looking for. I thank you for the recommendation though.

[Anonymous No.18968427]

>>18956160
fpbp

>>18956158
Homer. However, I should warn you OP, you'd be going back to pre-Socratic days for literally no benefit. Humans NEED philosophy if they're going to be anything but cavemen.

[Anonymous No.18968617]

>>18968427
>Humans NEED philosophy
explain

[Anonymous No.18969175]

>>18968617
If Might is Right, nobody will build you a computer to shitpost. They will be too busy raping your mom as a horde of muscled idiots with pointy sticks, and you can see to an illustrious future of being an assraped slave used for bleaching, that is washing cloths in literal urine with your bare hands.
Basically pre-philosophical societies are gangs of #YOLO idiots with sticks sticking each other to death and enslaving survivors while living in mud huts with barely even cloths. See - Celtic and Norse Europe.

[Anonymous No.18969344]

>>18969175
What exactly are you refering to when you mention "pre-philosophical societies"?

[Anonymous No.18969358]

>>18969175
This anon is correct.

Philosophy allows concepts like justice to exist, which is necessary for commerce, or even an orderly society. Without philosophy, government could not exist. You may call democracy a tyranny, but thats only because you are ignorant of real tyranny.

[Anonymous No.18969363]

>>18969344
Not that anon but I think I gave a clear example: "cavemen." This can also mean bronze age retards who understand only violence and think justice is the will of the gods. Victory goes to the stronger. Seriously, read Homer. It's full of it.

[Anonymous No.18969385]

>>18969175
They already want to do that but aren't because countries have trained militaries with assault rifles and armored vehicles. Might is still right, you're just too dumb to see who has might today.

[Anonymous No.18970243]

Come on guys, it is not that hard to think about how trade is cheaper than war and an easier way to get what you want, it's easy to talk shit about how war is cool when you're sitting your fat ass on a gaming chair

[Anonymous No.18970328]

>>18970243
Wisdom.

[Anonymous No.18970347]

>>18956158
OK, everyone else in this thread is wrong so far so here is my approach. I call it “extraordinary language philosophy” in contrast to ordinary language philosophy (OLP, XLP). The “philosophy” part is a misnomer of course.

The first step to curing philosophy is to recognize that it is indeed a specific way of thinking, no more privileged than any other, and that it amounts to a genre of literature with certain conventions and styles. There seems to be no reliable means of making people realize this fact, but here are a few pointers:

Most philosophy defenses tend to revolve around “The Philosophy Shuffle.” Critics will first say that to deny philosophy is itself philosophy. This criticism is dumb because it just expands philosophy to something trivial like “any thought whatsoever.” Philosophers don’t mean this, they have a specific DISCIPLINE.
If this criticism fails, philosophers will turn to saying philosophy is justified in terms of its pragmatic value. It is very difficult to prove that philosophy has anything other than incidental value. The final defense is to say you were only pretending to be retarded and that philosophy is somehow intrinsically valuable, or that it is akin to poetry, but i would just say that it is bad poetry then and keats or marlowe are better than the best philosophical writers.

If we recognize that philosophy IS a specific genre then we need to recognize what the features of it are and how it arises in order to free ourselves from the illusions. Here is a list of texts that are useful in this regard:

1) Cosmopolis - Stephen Toulmin. This talks about how the modern notion of philosophy emerged and the pre-enlightenment, mindset of the renaissance humanists. It fits what you are talking about with a return to earlier, more naive and mystical ways of thought.

2) Must Philosophers rely on Intuitions, by Avner Baz. It details exactly how philosophy is NOT Congruous with ordinary reasoning, and is rather a specific, degenerate genre of thought no more justifiable than any other.
3) The Outlines of Pyrrhonism - The final boss. If you properly read this text you will be free not merely of philosophy but all modes of bad thinking.

[Anonymous No.18970352]

>>18962394
Shestov was a christian retard

[Anonymous No.18970359]

>>18970347
some additional writings:
4) Philosophical perplexity by John Wisdom
5) Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology by Carnap.

[Anonymous No.18970363]

>>18956161
Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and postmodernists like D and F

[Anonymous No.18970453]

>>18970347
>>18970359

OP here. Thank you for (1) understanding what I was asking for in the first place, and (2) for the recommendations.

>This criticism is dumb because it just expands philosophy to something trivial like “any thought whatsoever.” Philosophers don’t mean this, they have a specific DISCIPLINE.

Precisely what I thought as I was reading some comments but was unable to put into words because english isn't my first language.

Both you and >>18963667 (who have been decent and thoughtful posters) recommended Outlines of Pyrrhonism; it's going to my reading list for the next month, then.

Thank you, kind stranger.

[Anonymous No.18970517]

>>18970453
Godspeed Anon.

[Anonymous No.18970583]

>>18970453
>pre-Socratics
baka

[Anonymous No.18971635]

>>18956158
I might derail OP's thread a little but which philosophers were most "practical". For instance, the Socratic method could be used to isolate exactly what a person's definition of an idea they are discussing (for good and bad). His idea of Forms doesn't really help me though.

[Anonymous No.18971644]

>>18956160
>using words to disprove the worth of words
This is why "anti-philosophy" is always just some dimwit crying about how stupid he is.

[Anonymous No.18972524]

>>18970347
Holy based. Articulated well too.

[Anonymous No.18972696]

>>18956158
The biography of any philosopher ever.

[Anonymous No.18973318]

>>18969344
Societies without philosophical inquiry or at least deep theology like Ancient Egypt to develop notions of good living and ethics that are not "just fuck and burn while you are young and healthy, then get gloriously punctured by pointy sticks". Read the Epic of Gilgamesh, the very fucking first lines of the oldest written epic in the history of mankind are a cry about Gilgamesh being Might-is-Right violent retard killing and raping his own subjects out of boredom, since nobody could best him except Enkidu specifically devised by the gods for just that reason.
Tribals without philosophical enquiry are just that, savages. Cannibalistic tattooed violent naked Celtoids that would spend their lives raiding their neighbours for heads and glory of being the current most-violent-retard of McAllobrogii. The only difference from XIX century Congoid or Papuan cannibalistic savages being skin color, and that's it. You go this side of the border and that's it, there will be screaming naking apes trying to behead you to give your skull to their unwashed womyn to rave around the village how her O'oga McBooga is The Man.
Nomadic Scythians were barely better, reportedly. Both societies valued Greek handiwork and did some of their own, some illustrious, like both Scythian and Celtic jewelry. They were still violent savages spending their lives stealing cattle and murdering strangers.
To think those people would turn into cultured and productive French and Russians after applying more introspection and less butchering randoms to appease malevolent spirits with hot blood.

Remember how the Iron Age Chinese were obsessed with finding that one right way of living AFTER they had lost their early Zhou virtue and descended into 500 years of useless and tiresome civil wars with endless lives broken and culture lost over as something as trivial as who gonna own the 15 villaged they would burn and kill anyway in warfare.
>>18969385
>They already want to do that but aren't because countries have trained militaries with assault rifles and armored vehicles.
Political virtue prevents most of society from behaving like feral niggers. Because you can observe feral niggers in vivo in Africa, where no political virtue equals animal tier living. And humans without exception are worse than animals outside of society, because the brutes had no choice at it.
I don't kill you not because I am afraid of blood vendetta from your extended family (which equates to SWAT chasing me down with assault rifles and helicopters), but because I can flourish in a society where I can buy the fucking bread not expecting to be poisoned or backstabbed by the baker, so I could teach his son some history and literature without him expecting me to molest him or sacrifice his beating heart to Cthulhu.

[Anonymous No.18974227]

>>18973318
>or at least deep theology like Ancient Egypt

You refuted yourself in the first sentence by saying that there is, in fact, a substitute to philosophy, in terms of something that can provide proper civilizational development and not just barbarism.

[Anonymous No.18974249]

>>18958711
He is something of a metaphysician himself though. That’s the confusing bit.

[Anonymous No.18974261]

>>18970347
How is this very comment not philosophical? The language is the same.

[Anonymous No.18974264]

>>18970347
By your own definition would you consider authors like Nietzsche, Cioran to be philosophers who wrote philosophy? It seems to me that they would not fit the bill.

[Anonymous No.18974272]

>>18970347
Please justify why you think Pyrrhonism is anti-philosophy. In a roundabout way, it’s almost ultimate philosophy and it fits perfectly the sort of genre you’re talking about. Just because it has a special flavor of skepticism doesn’t mean it escapes these parameters.

[Anonymous No.18974273]

>>18956158
>ctrl+f "rorty"
>no results
A few people mentioned (late) Wittgenstein, at least. Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is a very polemical tract against modern, professional philosophy. He never managed to truly escape philosophy despite his work becoming more and more inflamatory but it's a great work in the sense that it inspires a new approach to philosophical problems (the first part especially).

[Anonymous No.18974469]

>>18970347
>This criticism is dumb because it just expands philosophy to something trivial like “any thought whatsoever.”
I dont see how this is wrong. isnt it pretty much any level of analytic thought? Arent you yourself defining what philosophy is? from my knowledge, historically the term philosophy described much of any form of formalized thought, from that of material sciences, to epistomology to linguistics.

[Anonymous No.18974475]

lobotomies are sadly discontinued but I heard shock therapy works wonders, OP.

[Anonymous No.18975486]

>>18974227
>Several of the ancient Greek philosophers regarded Egypt as a place of wisdom and philosophy. Isocrates (b. 436 BCE) states in Busiris that "all men agree the Egyptians are the healthiest and most long of life among men; and then for the soul they introduced philosophy’s training…"[8] He declares that Greek writers traveled to Egypt to seek knowledge. One of them was Pythagoras of Samos who "was first to bring to the Greeks all philosophy," according to Isocrates.
>Plato states in Phaedrus that the Egyptian Thoth "invented numbers and arithmetic… and, most important of all, letters.”[9] In Plato’s Timaeus, Socrates quotes the ancient Egyptian wise men when the law-giver Solon travels to Egypt to learn: "O Solon, Solon, you Greeks are always children."[10] Aristotle attests to Egypt being the original land of wisdom, as when he states in Politics that "Egyptians are reputed to be the oldest of nations, but they have always had laws and a political system."
The difference is that even though the Greeks say they got first elements of their philosophy from Egypt, we don't have Egyptian philosophy in writing, but mostly just religious manuals. Which seems to imply it was oral and esoteric and/or expressed in a religious parlance we can't unlock, having to rely on Ancient Greek retellings in their own terms.
"Deep theology" means philosophy expressed in religious language, as opposed to a Socratic trolling or a Euclidian axiomatic tractatus. So it looks like theology, but is deeper than just magic manuals on correct prayers in the underworld.

[Anonymous No.18975533]

>>18975486
>"Deep theology" means philosophy expressed in religious language (...) So it looks like theology, but is deeper than just magic manuals on correct prayers in the underworld.

I'm sincerely asking: is that a thing? Or did you just come up with that expression? I'm really interested.

[Anonymous No.18975687]

>>18973318
>Political virtue prevents most of society from behaving like feral niggers.
>Political virtue
No, the might of governments does this. And as far as your neighbors not poisoning you goes, that comes from a combination of the might of governments + the might of your neighbors + the might of the individuals who created and enforced the ideal that possesses both of you and convinces you both that this way of living is more beneficial to each of you. Might is still right.

[Anonymous No.18975879]

>>18975533
Two points.
1)Philosophical vocabulary was not bestowed on us ready-made by the wise angels of One Good Good. It was developed from the ground up, usually starting as metaphors and analogy. The first Greek philosophers, while describing the arche, the first principle and substance of the world, would say that "the world is made of water" or "the world is made of fire" or "the world is made of air/breath", they did not mean it literally. They used analogies to express in speech how the arche, the arch-substance so to say, behaves, what are its inherent qualities.
People did not just start speaking of Substance, Existence, Modality all of a sudden. You still have to use Ancient Greek terms in philosophy, like arete, telos, psyche, ethics etc. since they are untranslatable 1-for-1 into native English words, and even then the original Hellenic terms were imbued with new meaning.
2)People speak in cyphers, especially so in societies that can get you Socrates'ed for disrupting the politics. A cypher uses the common signs, but assigns them new meaning, so what seems like an innocuous story, or a load of bullshit, ackshually contains some valid info that is hidden from plebs. You have to know the keys, to know what signifies what. If you have the keys, the texts or myths you receive gain new meanings. This is the meaning of esotericism, something hidden in plain sight from the uninitiated.
Same in the Hellenic mystery cults, an initiate of which Plato was. Exposing the keys to "plebs" from outside the cult was a death sentence, so you could either hint at some underlying meaning in your text or converse with the initiated who know the keys, what means what "truly".
But since the keys are kept in private, if they are lost/forgotten you get fucked even if you preserve the whole textual corpus.
Now, esoteric writing can have two missions - either keep the true meaning for the initiates only, or to hint at/point at the true meaning for people who could "get it" while plausibly evading authorities.

This isn't just Ancient Egyptian mumbo-jumbo, the late imperial and early soviet philosopher Losev wrote esoterically to evade very stringent censors in a society where a slight Marxist heresy got you Great Purge'd. For example his works on "Ancient Greek Aesthetics" were actually covert expositions with Hellenic ontology and worldview for those "in the know", just masquerading like some innocuous artsy-fartsy history books and lavishly peppered with Marxist lingo to soothe the censors.

[Anonymous No.18975903]

>>18975687
>No, the might of governments does this
You haven't read your Hobbes, much less Plato. "Even the mightiest man on planet Earth has to sleep eventually", then hapless and tired he gets a hundred pointy sticks up his mighty ass. Good riddance.
But then you need a collective of men to manage this beast, since you can get tired same time the mighty asshole gets tired, somebody has to keep shifts and watch your back while you sleep. What prevents those men from using your tired conditions to their own benefit? Mutual trust. What builds mutual trust? Virtue.

Virtue is the reason a band of brothers would eradicate a numerically and technically superior foe that lacks common trust, because the bruthas can trust each other, but nobody trusts a violent retard who rules by fear alone. Same reason Soviet army in 41-42 just fucking surrendered in droves, is because the common soldiers absolutely hated the officers and their Soviet overlords they had zero motivation to fight for them. Same reason Arab armies are so pitiful, since a de-facto caste society makes soldiers hate and despise their own officers so they'd rather immediately surrender to Burger army.
Meanwhile literal goat fuckers take Afghanistan from the USA and their 20 allies in, what, 20 days? The Taliban has much political virtue while Americans has jack shit.

[Anonymous No.18975983]

>>18957422
Checked and based answer

[Anonymous No.18976076]

>>18975903
>You haven't read your Hobbes, much less Plato
See my later point in that post:
>the might of the individuals who created and enforced the ideal that possesses both of you and convinces you both that this way of living is more beneficial to each of you.

You haven't refuted that might is right, because the "virtue" you're going on about is still might. It's the might of superior minds over inferior ones.

[Anonymous No.18976238]

>>18976076
This is no physical might, so your argument is invalid since "might" becomes too wide a term to use.
>the "virtue" you're going on about is still might
Case in point, Your-definition-of-Might becomes even wider than already not easily defined virtue. Bad sophistry is bad, your opinion as Thrasymachus was disproven 2400 years ago.
Since you have just conceded that Your-Might includes virtue, thus virtue is prior to any physical might or ruthlessness in establishing authority.

[Anonymous No.18976322]

>>18976238
Might is right just means that the powerful are right. Nothing you've said refutes this.

[Anonymous No.18976334]

>>18976322
Define might then. Without might=power=might tautologies ples.

[Anonymous No.18976368]

>>18976334
Power changes hands depending on the society we are talking about, so you are asking for a definition for something that changes definition according to context by definition.

[Anonymous No.18976391]

>>18976368
You have no definition then, which means you have no argument.
Neither did I ask you about power, but I did about might. Might is not power, different terms have different meanings.

[Anonymous No.18976412]

>>18976391
My definition of might is any will that the majority of other wills gravitate towards or are subject to rather than the other way around. This means that the "mighty" are not a constant across time since it depends on a relationship of wills, which are changing over time.

>Might is not power
In the phrase might is right, there is no distinction. It means the powerful are right.

[Anonymous No.18977121]

>>18956398
Eh, Ideon was better