/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19484973]

Philosophies (except skepticism) tell more about the authors than anything else.

Example:
>Schopenhauer
Grumpy old man philosophies about pessimism (who would guess)

[Anonymous No.19484988]

>>19484973
It’s impossible to completely separate an author’s personal life from their philosophy
What makes skepticism an exception?

[Anonymous No.19484992]

>>19484988
because its anti-philosophy

[Anonymous No.19484995]

>>19484992
So? It still says more about the author

[Anonymous No.19485019]

>>19484973
That's because your philosophy in determining that is existentialism.

[Anonymous No.19485059]

>>19484973
>>19484973
This take about philosopher’s thought being determined by their own natural prejudices is in Beyond Good and Evil, a work of philosophy ;).

What does that say about Nietzsche’s life? That he’s from basedasfuckville

[Anonymous No.19485073]

>>19484992
I am skeptic of this.

[Anonymous No.19485087]

>>19484973
Au contraire, I think skepticism offers by far the most clues about the person that upholds it.
(It's the Reddit bugman.)

[Anonymous No.19485132]

>>19484995
Philosophies are about bulding systems based on dogmas and skepticism is about debunking dogmas with a couple of modes

[Anonymous No.19485403]

>>19485087
skeptics are bugmen yes
I'm just point that its a tool to know yourself by your philosophy

[Anonymous No.19485414]

>>19484973
This tells me all I need to know about you OP: you're a pseud and a teenager.

[Anonymous No.19485417]

That's a fun thing about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.19486528]

>>19484973
What about Confucius? What do the things he said tell you about him?

[Anonymous No.19486601]

Traditional philosophy is an advanced form of sophistry. Socrates was wrong. On the absolute level, there (does not seem to be) an absolute. Consciousness creates subjectivity in the subject, from values to morals to interpretation of truth. Socrates took his own subjectivity and elevated it to the objective.

Cue 2000 years of ultimately circular reasoning for the alleged existence of transcendentals that always reflected the biases of the individual and their place in time. Enlightenment bludgeons these ideologies out with the measureable of the once unmeasurable, but to this day we still frame things in terms of Absolute Good vs Absolute Evil. At least Schopenhauer was a break into a more Atheistic philosophy, though his personality leads to a rejection of life instead of a healthy acceptance. Nietzsche developed his ideas, but goes too hard in the opposite directions himself.

[Anonymous No.19486619]

>>19485087
Reddit would never be skeptical about the holocaust or age of consent though. That's not true skepticism

[Anonymous No.19486661]

>>19486619
One of those is an empirical claim (an 'is') and one is an ethical one (an 'ought'), they're not in the same category.

[Anonymous No.19486662]

>>19486661
I'm skeptical in multiple dimensions you pleb

[Anonymous No.19486683]

>>19486619
Okay, but like... what if I've considered the case for and against both and concluded that they're a thing that actually happened, and a good idea, respectively? Or is it only real skepticism if I get the answer you wanted me to get?

[Anonymous No.19486703]

>>19486683
No if you considered the cases and that's what you concluded based on the evidence you found and trusted then you still applied skepticism to it. Reddit literally bans holocaust denial, that's overtly anti-skeptical, and I dont know but I'm assuming they ban aoc stuff as well.

And pretending to allow discourse but never actually considering the possibility you are wrong is not real skepticism either of course.

[Anonymous No.19486728]

>>19486703
Is there anyone who thinks (or claims to think) the Holocaust didn't happen who doesn't think it should have?

[Anonymous No.19486740]

>>19486728
I'm agnostic about whether it happened but I unequivocally think its evil. I think even relocating the Jews is completely immoral because they were almost all just civilians who had nothing to do with the specific industries Hitler was mad about.

[Anonymous No.19486749]

>>19484973
yes BUT

[Anonymous No.19486863]

>>19485087
This, I'm a skeptic mainly because I'm a spinless coward without ambition or certainty

[Anonymous No.19486868]

>>19486749
huh?

[Anonymous No.19487457]

>>19484973
ya but if you reduce your statement even more it becomes so plainly obvious and true that even saying it it seems odd

[Anonymous No.19487505]

>>19484973
yea we read Nietzsche too anon

[Anonymous No.19487530]

>>19486601
You've gone very badly astray somewhere. Philosophy is preparation for death.

[Anonymous No.19488173]

>>19485414
Or in short, a Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.19488188]

>>19484973
That's because you're a surface-level reader who's got filtered by philosophy itself. When I read Schopenhauer, I disregard the pessimistic attitude and focus on how magnificently he added to and synthesized Hinduism, Platonism, Kant, and Goethe.

[Anonymous No.19488192]

>>19487530
based

[Anonymous No.19488274]

>>19484973
Another criticism of Schopenhauer is that he wrote about the need for ascetic practice/withdrawal from the world and yet there is no evidence that he himself ever practiced this. So that is the inverse of your critique as here the philosophy tells us nothing about the man. Both critiques are reductive nonsense, attempting to achieve a lot (explain an entire philosophy) by doing little (a selective psych profile of the thinker) which is the hallmark of sloppy and sophomoric thinking. It rests on an unspoken premise of the unknowability of the objective world, or the inability of man to describe it, which I suppose is why you put skepticism in a special box. Yes, Kant's severe autism was a necessary condition for him being able to advance philosophy in the way he did, but in no way is his thinking reducible entirely to his personality. You basic bitch.

[Anonymous No.19488301]

>>19486740
>had nothing to do with
Bold claim when it comes to jews desu, no matter the industry.

[Anonymous No.19488766]

>>19488188
>>19488274