[ 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: 113 KB, 659x685, Screen shot 2011-07-26 at 11.06.08 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960464 No.1960464 [Reply] [Original]

What philosophy ideas do you subscribe to, /lit/?
I am a solipsist and a miserabilist.

>> No.1960468

I'm a somnambulist.

>> No.1960479

>>1960468
Funny.

>> No.1960493

Linkin Parkism.

Now, maybe absurdism and existencialism, though I don't know what I'm doing here.

>> No.1960504
File: 168 KB, 724x630, Screen shot 2011-07-26 at 11.22.48 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960504

>>1960493

>> No.1960510

I'm a Jedi.

>> No.1960512

>>1960464
Theological non-cognitivism but I try to keep from having my head in the clouds too much about this sort of stuff. Absurdism is also interesting me atm. Looking to get into hinduism, I like sufism a little.

>> No.1960513

my philosophy is you will never know so dont bother trying. just do what you like.

>> No.1960518
File: 14 KB, 211x202, 1303336732658.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960518

>>1960504
>>1960504

> you're religion

how

>> No.1960521

>>1960513
It's not a bad idea this. Putting labels on yourself will only restrict your thinking.

>> No.1960526

RANGAHA----THIS IS MORPHEUS, ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT YOU WITHIN THE "SOLIPSISM" THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON YOUR NATURAL SENSES.

THIS IS AN ILLUSION. SOME CALL IT SAMSARA, OTHERS CALL IT THE MATRIX.

BUT YOU HAVE A CHOICE. YOU CAN TAKE THE BLUE PILL AND ENJOY THE SENSE OF SOLIPSISM.

OR YOU CAN TAKE THE RED PILL AND DISCOVER THAT YOUR SOLIPSISM IS AN ILLUSION, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW DEEP THE RABBIT HOLE GOES, BY GOING TO IMAGE FAP DOT COM AND SEARCHING FOR LOLITA. THEN TRINITY AND I WILL COME PICK YOU UP IN OUR VAN.

>> No.1960534

>>1960521

Except his thinking fits pretty perfectly into nihilism.

>> No.1960535
File: 66 KB, 685x487, 1309016130807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960535

>>1960504
goddamnit, I was joking...

>you're religion

>> No.1960539
File: 78 KB, 210x309, ohyou.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960539

>Theological non-cognitivism

oh /lit/

>> No.1960540

>>1960526
go away capsguy
now, I would like this following line to be read in the calm, indifferent tone of a Buddhist monk as he sits on top of a mountain, meditating:
Nobody likes you.

>> No.1960553

>>1960539

What's wrong with that?

>> No.1960556

>>1960539
>>1960553
Yes, what IS wrong with that, Mr. Capote?

>> No.1960564

I'm a non-locognotogoinglocodowninacapulcoist

>> No.1960597

>>1960556
>>1960553

Nothing is wrong with it, in fact I believe it is the default position of every 'atheist'.

But as an argument for disarming theists, who don't feel the need to define their God in placable terms, it's an extremely impractical and ineffective argument.

It shouldn't be, but it is.

>> No.1960606

>>1960597

>placable

i don't think you know what that word means

>> No.1960617

>>1960597
Wouldn't apatheism be the standard position of atheists?

>> No.1960620

>>1960617
default*

>> No.1960629

>>1960606

'agreeable terms' would work there, stop thinking so concretely.

>>1960617

No, because an apatheist can still believe in God but regard the significance of his existence and negligible.

>> No.1960635

>>1960629
Kay, I get what you're sayin now

>> No.1960640

i believe in whateverism. we whateverists believe in whatever.

>> No.1960641

Hi, TS. I'm simply a part of you, projecting back to you what you subconsciously want to hear. Fair warning: you're actually pretty masochistic.

SOLIPSISM IS FUCKING RETARDED.

Anywho, I personally am a frisbeetarian. I believe that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can't get it down.

But to be serious, if I'm anything I suppose I'm an existentialist. Existentialism is more or less being viewed as irrelevant now; personally, I disagree. I think that it can't be ignored. There are metaphysical truths that every person faces simply through the act of living.

>> No.1960642

I'm a sagist

>> No.1960645

>>1960642
Why do you sage a thread that actually has meaning?
I suppose the standard answer will be "YOU HAVE A TRIPCODE SLEPSLEPSLEPSLEPSLEP"
Well, you have autism.

>> No.1960651

>>1960640
The portion of "whatever" that you believe in is defined by a term. What would be said term?

>> No.1960653

>infalsifiable

Enjoy your faith, then. Solipsism, as Russell pointed out, is nowhere near philosophy.

>> No.1960658

>>1960653
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.

p sure that it's philosophical in nature

>> No.1960659

>>1960641
>one of those truths show how irrelevant existentialism is

just joking. it's a finnicky line on where and how we should exert our mental prowess. i agree with you in that philosophy happens whether you pay attention to it or not. it governs our laws in regards to ethics, our social norms, and our quality of life in a variety of other ways. but at the same time people don't necessarily need to articulate it well to be successful or smart.

>> No.1960662

>>1960651
laziness maybe? i'm not sure.

>> No.1960669
File: 17 KB, 249x320, jesse_jackson_duke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960669

>>1960641

>SOLIPSISM IS FUCKING RETARDED.
>I'm an existentialist

>> No.1960672

Well, I thought I knew my general way of thinking and viewing the world, but I don't know any books that have described it and given it a name, so I guess I don't. Tell me what I am, /lit/.

>> No.1960680

>>1960672
Describe it to us, first.

>> No.1960699
File: 47 KB, 400x300, tumblr_lc9wcaxvdt1qbuzbx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960699

>>1960669

Nice try. Solipsism assumes.... pretty much everything in order to propagate itself. Existentialism is the branch of philosophy that DOESN'T do that.

>> No.1960708

>>1960699
>implying that it's possible to not assume factors
Prove causality. Prove...etc etc etc etc

So rationality cannot exist in any way but relatively.

>> No.1960718

my problem with solipsism is you must accept that some part of your brain is projecting this illusory universe for you if you do not wish to descend into mysticism.

If you accept this, then you must also accept that that part of your brain is a) not under your conscious control and b) is subject to the laws and principles of the natural universe.

So basically, you're just subsituting 'the universe' for 'part of your unconscious mind'.

>> No.1960720

>>1960699

that doesn't change the fact that both of them are two piles of incoherent bullshit

>> No.1960726

>>1960720
It doesn't. However, it also means that all of all philosophy is "piles of incoherent bullshit".
>>1960718
But we already know that the brain is not under conscious control. That is basically a given.

>> No.1960739

>>1960726

>It doesn't. However, it also means that all of all philosophy is "piles of incoherent bullshit".

I'm just going to ignore that this sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and assume that you mean to say that all philosophy is bullshit. I'd like to know what criteria you use to get to this judgement

>> No.1960746

>>1960718

Look up Boltzmann's Brain.

>>1960720

In what way is existentialism incoherent shit? Here's some existentialism for you: you're going to die one day. How does that fact change the way you behave?

There you go. I think people like to over-complicate existentialism in order to be able to call it out and thus appear smart.

>> No.1960753

>>1960739
Oh, hell, I thought he/you was replying to MY post; plus I misread what he/you said.

>> No.1960764

>>1960753

np

>> No.1960765

>>1960739
All philosophy is "bullshit" because none of it can be proven, supported, etc.

>> No.1960772

>>1960726
>But we already know that the brain is not under conscious control. That is basically a given.

i thought how much we can control our brain was forever debatable. there is probably too much we still don't know.

>> No.1960777

>>1960772
I meant that because free will doesn't exist, we can't control our brains.

>> No.1960778

>>1960765

how so?

>> No.1960782

>>1960778
In that, as I said:
prove x, prove y....... prove causality, prove the proof of causality without use of causality, etc

>> No.1960792

>>1960772

You guys are turning into a false dilemma - it's neither. Your brain comprises YOU; your thoughts, personality traits, memories, etc. are what make up the gray matter that it your brain. For instance, they can wire you up, ask you to pick between left or right, and they can tell you which one you'll decide on before you "consciously" make your decision.

You don't technically control your brain at all, nor is it out of control; it simply is YOU. Also, remember that there are cases of people losing large portions of their brains without any noticeable changes to their personality or behavior.

>> No.1960801

>>1960777
you sound like you're in control of exerting your thoughts to me. but whatevs, yo.

i guess i'm a soft determinist maybe? is that right? i believe that the forces at work both external and internal are infinite, or at least more finite than man will ever fully understand, and thus such an argument is forever debatable. maybe i'm a mystic. meh

>> No.1960811

>>1960782

what the hell are you supposed to prove causality for? prove causality without causality, what the fuck does that even mean?

>> No.1960816

>>1960811
Once someone has gone through all the proofs, you eventually reach the: prove the fact that this is true makes this true. Which is, essentially, prove causality. etc etc

>> No.1960844

>>1960816

see, this is the main problem I have with existentialism. When the questions you ask about the world are completely incoherent and absurd, you get answers which are completely incoherent and absurd. That doesn't make the subject you asked these questions about incoherent and absurd. For instance, how do you "go through proves"? How does that even work?


Furthermore, existentialism seems to me to be this endless feedback loop where you thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking, even though going into this loop has never been logically justified nor has it ever solved any philosophical problems.

It makes a nice literary movement, but logically, it's totally incoherent

>> No.1960845

>>1960816

I.e., he's copping out.

At some point you have to determine where falsifiability (fuck causality) begins. It's a good idea, seeing as how that whole scientific method thing (came before falsifiability, but you know what I mean) did us good. It may still be a naturalist metaphysical assumption, but it's the best thing we have to work with under the circumstances.

>> No.1960864

William is right, we should be kind to dogs.

>> No.1960887
File: 76 KB, 500x529, tumblr_DRACULA letcxx8ZYf1qe8p5xo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1960887

>> No.1960902

Theological noncognitivist. Ethical noncognitivist. Mereological nihilist. Monist. No free will.

>> No.1960916

there is just one correct philosophy, the rest is entertainment

>> No.1961071

>>1960792
Well it sure feels like I'm controlling something...what's up with that?

>> No.1961073

>>1960902
the concept of free will exists in our minds but it is determined that we believe that through our brain right?

>> No.1961079

>>1961071
You control your actions in that, as a result of an occurrence relative to you, you will do something. This something is defined by your external experiences and the laws of the universe.

>> No.1961084

>>1961073
But our brain only comes to believe it as a result of our external experiences.

>> No.1961091

i wonder why /sci/ doesn't discuss philosophy or psychology nearly as often as /lit/

>> No.1961096

>>1961091
/sci/ discusses psychology quite a bit actually, but the problem with philosophy on /sci/ is that scientists are god-awful at it, as they are focused more on "what's real". Which of course results in the relentless religious trolling.

>> No.1961109

Moral nihilist. Libertarian free will. Ethical egoist.

>> No.1961110

>>1961073
Yeah, what's your point?

>> No.1961149

Post-existentialist moderate nihilist.

>> No.1961150

>>1961149
Choke on a leprous aids infested cock, trifaggot.

>> No.1961156
File: 207 KB, 745x931, Rudolf_steiner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1961156

anthoposophist- libertarian - ethical individualist - esoteric christian - individualistic anarchist

>> No.1961157

Pretentiousism and I'm-smarter-than-everyone-else-because-I-can-name-many-different-philisophical-concepts...ism.

>> No.1961160

>>1961150
you so mad

>> No.1961163

>>1961157
I already said that one.

>> No.1961170

>>1961157
>I'm pretentious for using words
lol
I can see it now, Derrida not using language to showcase his ideas

>> No.1961174

>>1961170
You are pretentious for participating in this ostentatious circle-o'-jerk that has...how much literary significance, exactly?

>> No.1961186

Neoplatonist in the house, negroes.

>> No.1961194

>>1961174
It's not a circlejerk, it's not ostentatious. I was doing this just as a fun poll. Of course, tripFAGS like you always have to ruin it by blatantly forcing in their opinion whilst yelling LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME.

>> No.1961196

>>1961194
Literary significance? It shows me what kind of philosophical texts the people on /lit/ have read.

>> No.1961198

>>1961110
>>1961110
>>1961110
so?

>> No.1961209

I'm a stoic.

>> No.1961210

>>1961196

>Literary significance? It shows me what kind of wikipedia articles the people on /lit/ have read.

ftfy

>> No.1961212

>>1961210
Ha.

>> No.1961220 [SPOILER] 
File: 62 KB, 400x505, 1300296481324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1961220

>I am a solipsist

AKA retard

>and a miserabilist

AKA a teenager

>> No.1961234

>>1961220
>So it's like we're all on a level playing field, right?
>So what you do is you insult and mock other people
>Suddenly, you start feeling a lot better - that way you can mask your insecurities!
lol

>> No.1961235
File: 7 KB, 251x201, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1961235

>This

Take everything that will bring you a little of peace and happiness, while you can live in this hellish place. Of course, without hurting anyone. Whatever works.

>> No.1961240

I'm actually surprised nobody's said EL FUA yet.

>> No.1961241

>>1961235

>Of course, without hurting anyone.

Pansy.

>> No.1961351

bump

>> No.1961732

Hypocritical Hypocriticism-ist.

>> No.1961734

ITT: every anon wears a title and tells the other anon 'no you're not!!'.

all 4 of them...

>> No.1961740

Agnostic ignostic gnostic Catholic Discordian Sufist Hindu here.

>> No.1961743

Existential Jew.

>> No.1961747

ironist

>> No.1961894

I'm an absurdist.

>> No.1961910

>>1961734
actually,
ITT: people make endless stupid jokes for no other reason than to spite me

>> No.1962030

there goes that fag talk we talked about again.... (idiocracy) you see the problem here is all this dangerous thinking... if you people got locked in camps and stopped thinking these danger thoughts and buy more hamburgers and gap jeans the world would be a better place...

>> No.1962031 [DELETED] 

Christianity

>> No.1962039

your ruining the economy shit man I mean cable news has got what plants need its got electrolytes...

>> No.1962041

Inconsistent skepticism.

>> No.1962044

>>1961894
We would get along.

>> No.1962066

I follow a lot of Stoic ideas, which helps me not become an obsessive nutcase over pointless shit (as I did before I discovered Aurelius's meditations)

>> No.1962070

Ethical Anti-Realist, Hedonist, Millsian Utilitarian, Nihilist

Seems pretty reasonably to me

>> No.1962145

"anti-realist" so you agree with Dick Chaney we live in too much of a "reality-based" world should strive for truthiness instead of truth I guess....
:D

more of things I see here here mostly in these posts, read as: insecure teen angstapolooza grasping at relevance in a time of anomic social climate trends driven by a more fuzzy consumerism that has been rebranded so many different ways as to unrecognizable and mutated by 24 hour news cycle/ highly disconjointed information vomit mores where everything is equally valid by the "social media" revolution.... as long as it doesnt hurt the very old concept of profit motive by a few plutocrats.... selling theirs and other children's souls to a hydra-like monster of chaotic yet at its base monolithic toxic wasteland of perpetual war, perpetual ignorance, and want-on parisitic militaristic/corporatist ventures... with a constant humming of macro-adhd inducing societal distractions rendering any effort to shift the tide meaningless in the face of something that we just dont know where it will lead... a hive-mind utopia? an eventual dark age? hmmm who knows

>> No.1962162

Determinist, nihilist, existentialist and that's pretty much all I can think of off the top of my head. I don't keep a sheet of various philosophies I adhere to or agree with a bit.

Also somewhat interested in hearing the opinions of other /lit/erates on free will.

>> No.1962185

>>1962145

please translate into english please.

(i wrote please instead of plz to show i am serious.)

>> No.1962209

>>1962145
no, an anti-realist doesn't believe ethics are a solid thing based in reality

>> No.1962211

Nihilist - my philosophy is everything and nothing.

>> No.1962229

sorry I was being a little re-re with that intentionally when I saw the anti-realist thing the Dick Chaney quips about not living in a reality-based world came to mind... then I thought of Colbert and truthiness...I realize the philospohical anti-realist stance has nothing to do with that... 8D

>> No.1962251

>>1962209

It is English without paragraphs.. I guess I could boil it down to a shorter version...

Teen Angst that never matures constantly grasping for truth with the random buzzword of the day or random philosphies in a sea of Anomie created by a chaotic new media/globalized world that still is fundamentally driven by older consumerism with a new face... except societal trends darting in every direction throughout society running as fast a squirl on crack leaving no chance to get a grounding on issues before everything gets tossed in the air again are rearranged with new words or redefining of terms... I'm getting sleepy though... the other was definitely in english... just not enough periods or indents... perhaps tomorrow I will distill it in a more readable format or maybe not... lol welll see... I suppose I could unpack some of the ideas more and draw out the logic on a thread post that I see clearly in my head now that may help... sleep now ugh

>> No.1962259

>>1962251
teen angst is too vacuous for me, a buzzword itself

I think it's rather Modernism and all that came with it, not angst, that has made the cultural climate volatile

>> No.1962291

bump

>> No.1962345

bump ;_;

>> No.1962353

I'm anti-tripfag.
Which is to say I'm anti-elitist.
One should be anonymous in all they do.
Being an individual is the most highly overrated ideal in western culture.

Fuck you Rangaha and your desperation for attention.

>> No.1962361

>>1962353
>Being an individual is the most highly overrated ideal in western culture.
wow if you like communism go to some shitty 3rd world country like china they'll gladly take you

ranga is a terrible poster tho

>> No.1962438

>>1962353
Fucking this.

>> No.1962958

-“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime.”

-''I have no need to take up each thing that wants to throw its cause on us and show that it is occupied only with itself, not with us, only with its good, not with ours. Look at the rest for yourselves. Do truth, freedom, humanity, justice, desire anything else than that you grow enthusiastic and serve them?''


-''The divine is God's concern; the human, man's. My concern is neither the divine nor the human, not the true, good, just, free, etc., but solely what is mine, and it is not a general one, but is -- unique, as I am unique. Nothing is more to me than myself!''
'I' am no egoist. My philosophy is nothing; as 'I' am too.
I guess you could say my aim is to destroy all prejudices from myself, from within, on everything. See what is underneath so to speak.

>> No.1963172
File: 225 KB, 492x600, 1311367375042.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1963172

>>1962353
>Waaaa I'm sad because nobody likes me so I think I'll just be like everybody else
>implying the use of a tripcode instigates a necessity of elitism
>implying it isn't just for the purpose of definition
Did you notice the fact that this thread had NOTHING to do with me and was just a procession of conversation about other topics? Or are you as blind as I think?

P.S. I'll throw in this autism macro just to make you a little more mad.
>>1962958
But aren't the prejudices just traits of your being? So there isn't really an 'underneath' to that.

>> No.1963255

bumping just because some dipshit cried about tripfags

>> No.1963258

>>1963255
thank you friend

>> No.1963266
File: 82 KB, 439x400, 1278641165725.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1963266

>>1963255

>> No.1963268
File: 123 KB, 1600x1291, psychic_beagle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1963268

I think the only way to bring this thread to a great close is to provide materials that, in some way or another, relate books to Beagles. Anyone else up for that??

Because, in reality, whining about tripfags is related to literature just as much as Beagles with Books.

>pic related

>> No.1963273

>>1963268
It can be both. You can post your stuff, and if someone wants to post on topic, they can do that too.

>> No.1963317

>>1963172
>instigates a necessity of elitism
holy shit you tripfags sound so utterly retarded when you try to use words you don't understand.

>> No.1963691

>>1963317
>hurr durr im retarded
>oh god fuck im retarded
Can you not see where the obvious typo was?
>instigates THE necessity of elitism

>> No.1963705

>that feel when only four absurdists, including yourself, are on /lit/

>> No.1963724

>>1963705
>that feel when you are each and every poster on /lit/ simultaneously

>> No.1963742

Objectivist, or a rationalist-secular humanist, or whatever. I try to be a decent person, to achieve some fame and fortune in my life and treat others as they deserve to be treated, and hope for the fulfillment of man's wishes and dreams, and to see the day mankind goes to the stars.

>> No.1963746

>>1963724
>that feel when killing yourself causes a mass extinction event

>> No.1963748

I belong to the school of philosophy that thinks philosophy is stupid.

Most arguments in philosophy are pointless semantics and grumblings over definitions.

Philosophy never advances and never solves problems.

The world is, at its core, absurd. There are many possible systems that can fit with the data we receive, we can never really know anything for sure.

Long story short I think I'm the matrix. Not that I'm IN the matrix, but that I am the matrix and my mind is generating the external reality as I go along. Which gives me added incentive to be nice to people and to enjoy the mysteries and wonders of nature because after all they're a projection of my own thoughts.

Cant really prove it, but then what can be proven.

>> No.1963751

this thread is like the definition of trying to be something you aren't

>> No.1963756

>>1963748
>philosophy is all bullshit
>so i'm a solipisist
wtf

>> No.1963761

>>1963748
Stopped taking you seriously riiiiiiight here:

>I think I'm the matrix

>> No.1963767

>>1963761
>>1963756

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed"

Deal with it.

>> No.1963786

>>1963767
Sometimes people wish to spread human kindness and care for their fellow man. You obviously are incapable of understanding that this has occurred, and so you lash out. We want to help you, oh misguided tripfriended, and yet you refuse or sympathetic advances.

>> No.1963791

>>1963786
His belief is just as plausible as any other.

>> No.1963807

>>1963791
being a solipsist while simultaneously thinking philosophy is bullshit is pure ignorance and hypocrisy. It's not really about belief at all.

>> No.1963808

did you know that when babies are born they're solipsist because they don't know any better

that means solipsists are literally babies

>> No.1963825

>>1963808
That's a false argument. While all babies are solipsists, not all solipsists are babies. That would be like saying "all tripfags are shitty, but not all shit is tripfags."

>> No.1963828

>>1963808
Do you know that claim cannot be proven?

>> No.1963833

Cats have tails.
This animal has a tail.
This animal must be a cat.

Have you ever been to college, Fab?

>> No.1963835

You people fail at logic, science and philosophy.

sociopathic teenagers should not be allowed to read philosophy

>solipsist

haha oh wow, kill yourself

>> No.1963838

Only sociopaths are solipsists, nihilists, or moral nihilists.

deal with it

>> No.1963843

>>1960464
>Claiming to be solipsist
>Asking other people their thoughts
>Not realizing other peoples thoughts are his thoughts because hes the only person who is actually real

>> No.1963844
File: 141 KB, 800x810, AutismMacroAnalpocalypse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1963844

>>1963835
>hurr durr im retarded
>oh god fuck im retarded
>>1963838
>hurr durr im retarded
>oh god fuck im retarded

>> No.1963847

>>1963843

My thoughts exactly.

>> No.1963848

I'm a lover

>> No.1963849

>>1963843
>implying there's only one kind of solipsism

>> No.1963854

Nihilist, rational egoist. I find contradicting opinions absurd.

>> No.1963855

>>1963849

What kind are you?

>> No.1963856

>>1963849
Words should only have one meaning. If it has a different meaning then we will give it a different word.

>> No.1963858

>>1963855
Methodological

>> No.1963862

>>1963856
Hahaha oh god
Words are relative symbols
Symbols represent a relative concept
That concept is a representation of a thing-in-itself
Representations cannot be absolutely accurate
Thus, you get major inaccuracies in words

>> No.1963874

>>1963856
Even if that wasn't true, it's not just one word - it's an adjective describing the word.

>> No.1963875

The teachings of Aeque, oh and why do thieves suck so bad?

>> No.1963882

I'm in the process of both acquiring and learning to articulate my philosophical commitments. I don't feel comfortable committing to any system(s) in an unqualified way. I'm waiting until my education is both deeper and broader. The way I approach life currently employs thought that could be described as existentialist, empiricist, and hedonistic. However, as I mentioned, I consider this approach to be open to revision.

>> No.1963884

Mysticism spiritually.
Nationalism politically.

>> No.1963886

Utilitarian.

>> No.1963887

I'm a Hegelian, which puts me in a State of Absolute ass-wholeness

go suck on that one, teen angst faggies

>> No.1963890

>>1963884
are you emile zola?

>> No.1963891

>>1963882
Hedonistic in what way? Epicurean?
>>1963887
how about no

>> No.1963892

>>1963887

Good Idea, that's the Spirit

>> No.1963893

>>1963890
Let's assume...non.
Mange mes feces.

>> No.1963910

Theistic absurdist.
u mad camus?

>> No.1963919

Is there a philosophy that states philosophy is bullshit?

>> No.1963923

>>1963919
No, because that's a fallacy
Although there is something close to that for religion - ignosticism

>> No.1963925

>>1963910
lol y would camus be mad? isnt that what he advocated?

>> No.1963927

>>1963923
Maybe I'm dumb, but the concept of theological noncognitivism makes no sense to me.

>> No.1963931

Epicurean socialist

>> No.1963932

>>1963927
that god is a concept that only exists in the mind and it has no real meaning in the universe outside of the mind.

>> No.1963936

>>1963932
Couldn't you say that of ANY concept though? Hell, couldn't you say that of anything period?

>> No.1963947

>>1963936
That's exactly why Mr. Capote said it was a shitty argument against atheism, earlier in the thread.

>> No.1963962

>>1963947
Okay, just making sure I wasn't the only one who found it kind of... stupid.

solipsism makes sense, but its kind of silly, and miserabilism is fucking retarded.

Is this a troll thread?

>> No.1963970

>>1963936
Yeah, but without the word theological at the beginning, it's pretty much a specific absurdism.

>> No.1963980

>>1963962
It's a troll thread in that most people either lied or put in joke answers. I'm not really a miserabilist, I just wanted to see how people would react to it. Surprisingly, nobody but you even noticed it.

>> No.1963997

>>1963962
So what are you, then?

>> No.1964018

bump so "he" sees this

>> No.1964032

>>1963997
In a religious sense, atheist.
In a more broad sense, Existentialist I guess.

I figure since everything we experience in existence is through our own mind, our own personal perceptions, emotions, thoughts are the most important thing and that subjective reality is ultimately more important than objective reality, at least for the most part.

I wouldn't honestly say I deeply subscribe to any philosophy though.

>> No.1964058

This is an interesting thread, because it highlights the average 4chan user's tendency to evaluate life as something within oneself, rather than as related to others.

Not only is it interesting, it's totally unsurprising, considering you're all self-absorbed men unable to relate to others, as this thread demonstrates[spoilers]

>> No.1964073

>>1963932
That's not non-cognitivism.

>> No.1964088

Orwellian Huxleyism: Big Brother is here and nobody cares.

That was very clever in high school, I thought.

Religion-wise: Atheist, but I don't really care.
Other-wise: Objectivist. I hated it for a long time, but then realised how much I just couldn't give a crap about anything. I'm not really selfish, but I certainly don't care about anything too much bigger than myself. So a kind of personal objectivism, then.

>> No.1964125

I don't know no labels. But I'm pretty lazy.
And I'm a Catholic.
And a conservative.
I'm also pretty optimistic.
Oh, and I think homosexualism is a mental disorder, but I don't blame gays. Their free will dictated to them that taking liking in wordly desires is better than everlasting happiness, and I can't change their minds about this, although I'd like to, then they wouldn't be lost.
I'm also completely anti-materialistic. I can't understand, believe it or not, how people can WANT things all the time. And not things like food, water, air, clothes, home, internet connection - oh no, they want more, more every single day, and what for? When Lord calls them home, they'll leave everything behind them, unable to withstand the terrible truth that they were not truly human, as their whole existence consisted of some deteriorating trash.
As a general rule, whatever pleases your body, destroys your soul, and vice versa - so if you sit motionless for many hours, your muscles will deteriorate, but at the same time your soul... You see?
So, yeah, that was my comment. It's longer than I thought it would.

>> No.1964144
File: 12 KB, 321x268, acamus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1964144

>>1963910
>>1963705
>>1961894
Fuck yeah absurdists. Bro fist.

>> No.1964147
File: 255 KB, 500x633, camus1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1964147

>>1964144

Absurdism is staring death in the eyes and blowing cigar smoke in his face.

>> No.1964153

>>1964125
Are you saying that it's free will, or a mental disorder? There's a big difference, and you're trying to conflate the two.

>> No.1964154

>>1964088
have you ever looked into the works of hayek or mises? i used to be into objectivism until i got sick of the philosophical bullshit and the dogmatism. check out Hayek's The Fatal Conceit or Mises' Planning For Freedom for good literature on spontaneous order based on self-interest and freedom in general

>> No.1964162
File: 372 KB, 579x570, eq rf you amuse me.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1964162

Perspectivism.

Though I really hate myself sometimes for it.

>> No.1964166

Apatheist
Absurdist

I also believe existence consists of an infinity of dimensions folded upon itself.

>> No.1964168
File: 11 KB, 230x233, bataille-sm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1964168

>>1964147

absurdism doesn't even come close to grasping the true horror of death

>> No.1964172

>>1964153
Free will enables you to think of everything imaginable, but only those with mental disorder would think of actually doing bad things. Homosexualism, as a perversion and twisted version of actual reproduction, is evil, and all evil man does is sort of mental disorder. Uh, I can't word that well enough, but I think the thought that all Evil man does is some sort of sickness of mentality must've arrived in my mind after I've finished "Crime and Punishment".

>> No.1964173

>>1964172
So your argument is only a person with a mental disorder would use free will? Interesting.
Do you believe animals have free will?

>> No.1964197

>>1964173
I didn't say, and will never say, that using free will equals evil, but yes, free will is one of the reasons evil exists. But free will can also be used to do good, undoubtely.
And as for animals, it depends. I believe that ability to use free will is connected to having soul. Now, obviously, some animals clearly can't have souls, most of them, that is. But some animals clearly are more intelligent than others, and those indeed can have souls. Then they also have free will. If they have free will, they may do evil things.
Of course, from this comes question of where does soul come from? I'd say it's evolutionary - that is, during species' evolution, as it grows more and more intelligent, at some point we can say that, yes, species do have souls. But it would be hard to see this breakthrough in nature.

>> No.1964200

>>1964197
damn, my English sounds very bad here

>> No.1964208

>>1964197
So you're saying the soul doesn't come from God, but from evolution?

>> No.1964215

>>1964208
Evoultion comes from God. Laws of logic come from God. The law (?) that souls come from evolution also comes from God.
God is the ultimate Mary Sue.

>> No.1964235

Is it possible to be an absurdist and believe in God?

>> No.1964237

>>1964235
Yep.

>> No.1964273

>People actually calling themselves existentialists and or absurdists.

I'm going to go kill myself now.

All is lost in this ignorant, ignorant world.

>> No.1964275

I'm a Catholic Jungian by the way.

>> No.1964296

>>1964197
>free will
>exists
How about you read Mr Schopenhauer

>> No.1964300

>>1964296
>criticize someone
>misspell tripcode

>> No.1964308

I'm not sure but I have an RSS feed setup to tell me whenever a major tripfag makes a post. I read those. For Quotes.

>> No.1964357

>>1964308
Am I a major tripfriend?

>> No.1964359 [DELETED] 

>>1964357
you're not important enough to be a major anything

>> No.1964436

bump for more content
NOT for Quentins or Fabuli or tripfag drama

>> No.1964443

>What -ist are you, /lit/?
idiots

>> No.1964462

>>1964443
>hurr durr im retarded
>oh god fuck im retarded
I didn't ask that. I asked what philosophical ideas they subscribed to. That does not necessitate an -ist noun.

>> No.1964649

>>1963925
Coming in pretty late,
MAIS NON.
Camus was an atheist himself. He did have three central ideas about facing the Absurd though.
1) Suicide, but this is not viable because it is absurd in itself to end one's own existence.
2) (the big one here, more Kierkegaard than Camus) It is not only a solution, but a necessity to accept and have faith in some religious or transcendent force past the Absurd. Rationally there is no reason for it, but it is necessary, more commonly known as the "leap of faith." Camus, however, said that this was 'philosophical suicide', despite never completely dismissing the idea that God actually exists.
3) Camus's solution: Face the Absurd and live in spite of it, rebel! Construct a personal meaning for one to find purpose in. Kierkegaard dismissed this, saying in The Sickness Unto Death: "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!"

tl;dr No, Camus was an atheist. Kierkegaard was the one who explored theistic (Christian specifically) absurdism.

>> No.1964707

>>1964649
I've never read any Camus. Should I? Is he notably dry?

>> No.1964776

>>1964707
Not terribly dry, no. And his fiction is excellent.

>>1964649
My understanding was that Camus was more of an apatheist, he didn't really care about the existence of God.

>> No.1964815

>>1964776
What should I try out first? I don't want to start out in the middle of his ideas.

>> No.1964819

>>1964815
I started with The Rebel, but the Myth of Sisyphus has his most complete exploration of the absurd.

>> No.1964829

>>1964819
Is The Stranger worthwhile?

>> No.1964835

>>1964776
>My understanding was that Camus was more of an apatheist, he didn't really care about the existence of God.

Yeah. I'd say Camus wasn't concerned with whatever happened after death. His main focus was on the here and now, and how it could be made better for all--theists and atheists alike. Because, even if you believe in God and such a thing as afterlife, you still have this current life to muddle through. Why? What for? What's the point?

Atheism is neither a theist nor an atheist philosophy; it's a human one.

>> No.1964947

>>1964776
>>1964835
I stand gratefully corrected. I have a confession to make: I haven't read Camus yet, but absurdism connects with me even more than existentialism. I'm hoping to get to the Myth or some other Camus work before the summer ends. That said, I greatly enjoyed The Sickness unto Death.

>> No.1964949

>>1964835
Holy tardfarms. The bump made me realize my mistake.

>Absurdism is neither a theist nor an atheist philosophy; it's a human one.

FTFM

>> No.1964953

>>1964949
>>1964947
haha, okay.
but seeing as people missed my question, I'll ask again: Is The Stranger worth reading?

>> No.1964962

>>1964953

Yes. Just don't go into it expecting anything, just read it.

>> No.1965110

>>1964953
Yes, definitely worth reading. Get the Matthew Ward translation if you can.

>> No.1965125

>>1960464
>Solipsist
>Asking other for their opinions

No John, you are the demons.

>> No.1966128

>>1965125
>not reading the thread
>giving opinions
How about you try again later

>> No.1966137

i have been reading badiou's "being and event" while some phenomenology (ricoeur's "l'histoire, le memoir, l'oubli") and really enjoyed certain parts (the stuff on levinas and foucault, as well as traces) in "writing and difference". so whatever that makes me. especially the badiou.

>> No.1966150

>>1966137
I've never heard of Badiou 'till now; researching his work now, it sounds intriguing. Where would you recommend I begin?

>> No.1966172

>>1966150
to be honest, i'm only 3/4s through "being and event" i hadn't heard of him either, but it really answers a lot of problems i had with derrida's infinities, current critiques of marxism, jewish (levinas) perceptions of god (as the excess or void), and I feel that his "count as one" can be looked not just from the point of ontology, but also that of perception itself (if you believe in the phenomenological "memory is memory of something", hence a lacanian "encore" in instantiating a self in the empty subject. I had no background in badiou before reading this, so i guess that's [being and event] my recommendation. Some of the chapters on plato read like typical philosophical silly wordplay (at least in my translation- he doesn't seem like the most salient writer), but the actual content is always interesting.

>> No.1966177

>>1966150
however, i did have a background in real analysis and philosophy of mathematics, so that always adds to the experience

>> No.1968027

bump

>> No.1968033

>>1968027
You do realize a tripfag bumping his down threads like this so obviously and bluntly and not adding more material shows you are a one of the worst tripfags.