[ 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: 1.10 MB, 1500x1035, TSE - bratrska_skola_v_ivancicich_81x61m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916489 No.1916489 [Reply] [Original]

Over the past few years I have unknowingly been manufacturing every major philosophy from the beginning of time in chronological order from scratch without ever having read anything on the subject.

My ability to retain and recollect information is impaired, but I have an unnatural capacity for intuitive understanding of multiple viewpoints on a grand scale.

Is this a marketable skill?

>> No.1916498

Everybody does, it just passes quickly and they don't know what it's called.

No, it's not marketable in the slightest. In fact, it may present you as incredibly ignorant and pretentious.

>> No.1916503

>Everyone does

That actually hadn't occurred to me.

Yes, I suppose they must.

>> No.1916511

Not marketable, really. You could maybe write a perceptive novel of ideas, but you'd have no meaningful way to talk about the ideas, as you can't retain for shit.

>> No.1916515

>>1916503
Yeah, bro, that's why people get off on reading philosophies and whatnot . . most of the time, it's not because we are suddenly being shown an idea that had never occurred to us before, but because we recognize our own ideas in the text, and those ideas, formerly vague and nebulous, have been given a definite shape.

>> No.1916517

calling bullshit

>> No.1916519

You might fare well as a lawyer or a doctor. The highly paid professions call for a high level of recall.

>> No.1916528

What was the first one you came up with? I'm sure a lot pre-Socratic philosophers would be interested to know the first "major" philosophy, as although Thales is credited as the first philosopher, it's likely there were earlier. So in short, I call bullshit.

>> No.1916534
File: 77 KB, 426x357, 1306597320242.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916534

>>1916489
> I have an unnatural capacity for intuitive understanding of multiple viewpoints on a grand scale.

>>1916503
>That actually hadn't occurred to me.

lolwut?

>> No.1916549

OP, this is normal. think about it this way: every philosophy there ever was is in one way or another embedded into our culture as a whole. we live in postmodern times (i think?) for example, therefore you get various ideas of identity or reality in every second book or movie. it all accumulated up until now and it is normal for someone with average intelligence and curiousity to deduce philosophical ideas from this accumulation which is presented to him through everyday culture.

>> No.1916553

>every major philosophy
>in chronological order
lol

>> No.1916555

>>1916511
Plus, nobody would want to publish a novel of ideas.

>> No.1916560

>>1916555
meh, all you'd need to do is get some academics to write 'a grand novel of ideas' and you'd atleast sell a few to some hipsters

>> No.1916566

>it is normal for someone with average intelligence and curiousity to deduce philosophical ideas from this accumulation which is presented to him through everyday culture.
>it is normal
No it isn't.
You can't go from watcing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 and deducing Plato's theory of forms and then hopping over to Transformers 3 and leaving with a firm grasp of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language.

>> No.1916585

>Over the past few years I have unknowingly been manufacturing every major philosophy from the beginning of time in chronological order from scratch without ever having read anything on the subject.
>i've read nothing but know everything

Congrats OP, you've made your first steps towards the realization that you're a pseudo-intellectual.

>> No.1916593

>>1916585
>you don't know anything until you've read somebody else say it
>otherwise you're a pseudo intellectual

I hope you're not this fucking stupid.

>> No.1916595

>>1916566
I don't think he meant deduce on an intellectual level, but on an intuitive level. Wittgenstein's philosophy of language might not be explicitly stated in Transformers 3, but all the cultural products that have been directly / indirectly influenced by that philosophy WILL be reflected, to an extent, in the movie.

>> No.1916624

you'd make a good leader. there's no market for good leaders.

>> No.1916628
File: 9 KB, 220x148, duckrabbit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916628

>>1916593
>you don't know anything until you've read somebody else say it
That's not what I said, moron.
>>1916595
>I don't think he meant deduce on an intellectual level, but on an intuitive level.
So really you mean a very vague understanding. It's like saying someone is a great musician because they have an "intuitive" grasp of melody and rythm, when in reality they have never bothered to study or practice music.

>but all the cultural products that have been directly / indirectly influenced by that philosophy WILL be reflected, to an extent, in the movie.

I can't wait till the day I can buy my kids their duck-rabbit toy.

>> No.1916637

>>1916624
wut, nothing he said pertains to good leadership.

>> No.1916649

>>1916628
Yeah, vague understanding is exactly what I mean. A person watching 'The Matrix' will not suddenly be able to grasp the nuances of transcendental idealism, but they WILL have a vague conception of the ideas associated with it, if only in a non-verbal and idiotic way.

>> No.1916793
File: 941 KB, 1500x1056, TSE - slavnost_svatovitova_na_rujane_81x61m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1916793

I didn't think this would get any replies after my second post.

>>1916515
It started as sort of a bored exercise, trying to consider 'understanding' in a world before language and knowledge, and went on from there. Sort of arbitrarily proposing and disproving likely sets of belief up through the ages. I didn't really realize what I was doing until I had made it up past the middle ages. I don't normally give these types of thoughts any credence because, well, I've had no reason to. I thought I was just having fun, not striving to make any particular sense, but I started comparing it to reality and realized how peculiarly accurate I was.

>>1916649
Well, I think I was a bit further than 'non-verbal and idiotic,' but yes, that's what I meant. I wasn't suggesting that I could have an in depth knowledge of quantum mechanics after thinking on it for an hour. Only that I could manufacture accurate cursory knowledge based on subjects I knew little or nothing about based on intuitive understanding. People seem to think I'm claiming to be a philosophical savant of some kind, and that simply isn't the case.

I was simply asking if having a knack for intuitive understanding would serve me well in any particular field.

>> No.1916800

>>1916793

I apologize ahead of time for the lack of proofreading.

>> No.1916886

>>1916637
well ofc he has to learn all the related stuff but it's something he has potential for.