[ 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: 7 KB, 279x281, imgnietzsche2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2119532 [Reply] [Original]

Existentialism is the only philosophy worthy of my time. Why should I bother with any other philosophy if it doesn't involve existentialism?
pic related. the best philosopher.

>> No.2119537

Well, in true existential fashion, if those are your values, live by them. Don't bother with any other philosophy since existentialism is obviously what matters to you.

>> No.2119549

>>2119537
>being reasonable
fucking plebeian

>> No.2119551
File: 51 KB, 297x220, Nihilists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Fuckin' nihilists.

>> No.2119559

Yaaaaay

What have you read, have you read untimelly meditations (thoughts out of season?) Do you understand and/or enjoyed Zarathustra (i did not in fact)? Can you observe, or is it my mistake, that N's perspectivism mutated into value relativism (erm erm >>2119537), that he would hated and can you deal with the question of what is objective truth and what is just an opinion?

what else have you really enjoyed reading?

>> No.2119570

existentialism is nothing more than emotional hyperventilation and meaningless poetry about life. To me, analytic philosophy is endlessly more interesting than a bunch of artyfarty idiots who write whole books full of non-solutions to non-problems

>> No.2119572

>>2119570
For someone that is analytic that was pretty vague and non empirical, mind giving some examples?

Also, is it still popular to have analytic vs. continental debates? i thought that died out

>> No.2119574

>>2119570

>non-solutions to non-problems
>p ^ q -> ~q totally fixed my plumbing the other day guys

>> No.2119576

>praises Existentialism
>picture isn't of Existentialist

>> No.2119579

>>2119570
you know yourself this is not fair, right? How I see it in simplicity is - analytics is okay if you have your terms preciselly defined, once you have that, you have your answers. Of course this is also a big issue in analytics, the language, but the problem is huge here, the terms are defined by their usage, by the function they have and the function depends on context and usually is not very precise itself. The way we use language could be roughly said to form our paradigm. You can not solve any philosophical probems, if you do not step out of the paradigms and at that time you are getting into a strange position where it seems, that either you or society must be insane and that in my opinion is the formative continental/existentialist experience.

maybe I am wrong, I am not huge on history of philosophy. That is why I am writing, to learn, so if you could explain, why existentialism is nothing more than emotional hyperventilation and meaningless poetry about life, I would be glad.
So far it seems as a simple prejudice, that forms a comfortable buble preventing the strain of trying to figure out what the fuck are these guys trying to say.

>> No.2119582

I read human all too human, beyong good and evil, the geneology, twilight of the idols, will to power. haven't read zarathustra, i can't get past the biblical prose... yet. anyways. I'll work on it. I enjoyed heidegger, or what little i read of him.
JP sartre's being and nothingness was alright for me.
I LOVE Kierkegaards Sickness unto Death and Fear and Trembling.
The Underground man by dostoevsky makes me happy as well.

i absolutely agree'
>>2119570
non solutions to non problems if the problem never occurred to you in the first place. but i agree with whatever philosopher (Camus?) wrote that one day the facade will fall down on you, one day you're going to ask yourself, "why?".

i hated philosophy of action... mental masturbation to the extreme.. .e.g. so you thought about killing your friend by shooting him in the back, but then the gun broke and fire on it's own... did you kill him? ugh

recommendations for further reading?

>> No.2119585

>>2119576
nietszche not existentialist? maybe he didn't define it. but come on, he basically started the shit

>> No.2119588

>>2119585
Existentialism is too broad of subject to disagree with you, but I don't think of him in that way.

>> No.2119591

>>2119582
Heidegger seems like a smart chap, but can you tell me, don't you find it terribly boring? Do you believe the standart mantra that once you understand his language, instant enlightement satori and superpowers?
I am not sure that that is not just a standart ideologicall empty promise.

From my own experience I recommend Teh Untimelly meditations by Nietzsche, he is pretty young and fierce there, interesting.

Other books that felt important are the Brave new world and Schismatrix. And Plato of course. Those that I did not forgot anyway.

>> No.2119592

>>2119579

Here's an example of this. In On the Heights of Despair, by Cioran, you have a quote that goes like this:

"All men have the same defect: they wait to live, for they have not the courage of each instant...we do not live in the living present but in a vague and distant future."

Now, what does any of this even mean? How can you check whether any of this is even true? To me, all of this is just vague and meaningless. It's nice as literature, but nothing more than that. It doesn't solve any philosophical problem, whereas analytic philosophy at least tries to define and solve some problems

>> No.2119597

>>2119592

>he thinks he can know if things are true

Hahahaha.

>> No.2119598

>>2119597

you can, actually. It's just that can only arrive at a certain level of truth, but you can nevertheless arrive at certain truths

>> No.2119600

>>2119592
I agree there is immense volumes of shit in existentialism. I can not stand sartre for example. But there are real human concerns under those vague words, sometimes important, sometimes just hipster chitchat.

this quote imho means that if we saw the mountain of shit in our future in one clear moment, we would not want to continue. Relatives dying, body malfunctioning, you know, the standart process. You end up in hospital shitting under yourself.
We do not often realize how shit life is or will be to us and to others, we live in kinda vague expectations that future will be better, visualising our day and the future, in a kinda automatic optimism.

its a vague and not at all precise interpretation for vague quote without context. So the interpretation is mostly a guesswork. But that is how people work, in a vague world of concealed psychical mechanisms, hard to explain simply.

But please recommend me what you see as a good analytic author, except russel and Wittgenstein. I really have a limited experience.

>> No.2119602

>>2119598

Nope.

>> No.2119604

>>2119602

really? can you please tell me how the result of two apples to the sum of one apple and one apple is falsified?

>> No.2119605

>>2119604

It doesn't have to be. You can't know if it's true in the first place.

>> No.2119612

>Nietzsche
>Existentialism

niggaisusrs.jpg

lrn2philosophy

his shit may have led the way for modern existentialism but it bears little resemblance

>> No.2119613

>>2119600

Actually, Russell is pretty amazing, though I agree that Wittgenstein is a bit out there. But I personally like Frege, Russell, G. E. Moore and Quine. I just think that analytic philosophy is philosophy to its simplest core, which would be the definition of problems, and I don't the point to all this semi-religious bullshit that the continentals attach to it

>> No.2119617

come on, mister analytical man, do not be discouraged by relativist faggots, nor waste your breath on them.
They can not define their terms.

>> No.2119619

>>2119592
come on man youre not dumb, you can go through the poetic language as you call it and understand what he is talking about

he is describing the human condition as negative in this instance because we have the defect of saying "i can just do that tomorrow"

can you deny this? no you cant, maybe as an individual you have never ever done this ( i dont believe it), but someone out there has, and then has to wonder if it is better to live like that or not

honestly what is more important, figuring out if the premises of a metaphysical question leads to the conclusion, or what you want to do with your life?

>> No.2119621

>>2119605

so, according to you, one apple plus one apple does, in no possible way, make two?

>> No.2119627

>>2119621

I don't know.

>> No.2119628

>>2119619

I'm sorry, but I don't see the merit in basing the answers of life's most important questions on such simple sentiments like Cioran does.

I'm willing to agree that the answers to the great questions are most certainly unknown and perhaps even unknowable, but I do not think that going to some wild conclusion is a very productive thing to do.

>> No.2119629
File: 26 KB, 309x488, camus.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

OH HEY GUYS WHATS GOING ON IN THIS THREAD

>> No.2119632

>>2119613
I agree, that definition of problems is the core of philosophy, but I am not sure, that this is only done in analytics. It always seemed to me that they tend to replace a thing by a fixed definition and never review if it still fits and the problem is, that terms change meaning, even when two different people use them. I would not defend existentialists if not for Nietzsche. I am pretty sure he is very good at defining, where the problem lies. Very good.
So I will look at some of those analytics of yours, but make sure you do not judge continentals on prejudice.

"all this semi-religious bullshit that the continentals attach"

is not

"definition of problem", which which totally is "philosophy to its simplest core"

>> No.2119634

>>2119627

and is this ignorance justified by anything?

>> No.2119635

>>2119628
Describe in what way Cioran does "this", im guessing poetic language and all that

What wild conclusion?

And how do you go about ethics? Do you take some objective method? Or do you disregard ethics as a whole?

>> No.2119638

>>2119634

I don't know.

>> No.2119650

>>2119635
I have a model based on a key word, conception that is care. it basically is motivation oriented ethics, but what you care about is imho better question than what are you motivated by. The basic principle is, that you should care about what you claim you are doing. The problems here are in these facts - we care about ourselves. What self means is a pretty complicated to define, if we care about our comitments, that is good, if we care about our profit only, it is not good, drawing the line is not as simple as it seems, though saying you should always care about others is a good pointer. Second problem is that people are pragmatical. We care about something, there is a problem, but it is not anything what you can change, because that is just how things are. Pretty difficult to argue with. Third problem is practicall, for this to work, you would need to know, how a psychology of a person works and it is obvious that you can not take anyones word on it, nor you see inside his head.
So the theory seems unpractical, because very often if we focus on difficult examplex (trolley problems), there is just not a way how to respond. But imho this itself is a problem, because we should focus on situations, where we very well know what is right, but we do not act accordingly.

>> No.2119660

>>2119591
heidegger i can't much remember. so I can probably agree that, at least, I didn't find him very interesting.

>>2119612
pedantic.jpg

I'll only say that he's taught in many if not all Existentialism courses. And I doubt any book related to existentialism as a whole ignores him in any way.
umad.jpg

>>2119592
I must read this.

>>2119628
Haven't read the Corian, but hopefully this isn't some sort of proposed solution. I personally like the Kierkegaardian idea that the questions don't seem to matter for the guy who doesn't ever consider them.

>> No.2119662

>>2119635

let me get back to the quote:

"All men have the same defect: they wait to live, for they have not the courage of each instant...we do not live in the living present but in a vague and distant future."

The first thing that comes to my mind are the definitions of "waiting to live" and "the courage of each instant". Is this some sort of psychological perception or some sort of physical action, how do you define them if you've chosen between one of them, and how is this a defect?

For instance, I can think of situations in which "waiting to live" might actually be an excellent idea, for instance, right now, it's probably not such a good financial stategy to start having the courage of each instant.

Furthermore, in Cioran's philosophy and in any existential philosophy for that matter, it is never made clear in which case people like Cioran are absolutely wrong and their knowledge needs to be discarded, something I expect from any truly intellectually honest person

>> No.2119669

>>2119650
since your creating your own theory the terms are foggy, and thats fine im only saying this to lead to my next point

let me know if this agrees with your theory:
psychological ethics - any decision must have a self at its core, described in human linguistics (shittily im no expert) a noun must precede a verb. this may or may not reflect how our consciousness works, that we must think of the self first no matter what. "I" want to help you, etc.

This is a description of the human condition, so then what is the prescription?

You point to the answer being "caring for others", when you say this, are you saying, this is my best bet on how to live a good life, or saying, this is the only way to live the good live and is objective?

>> No.2119676

>>2119662
guy you replied to here

im not sure about the context but from what i can gather from the quote, its basically carpe diem. and i believe cioran would reply to you "what do you mean not a good financial strategy, you could be dead tomorrow"

there a good number of cases in which "existential" authors point to how they can be proven wrong, and usually if not always it is if they are being objective within ethics. Sartre calls it at times bad faith, and one could argue that when he makes his ideas of facilities, he is creating objective guidelines for humanity, thus being a hypocrite. though i would disagree with this attack on sartre, it is plausible and im not certain of it myself

>> No.2119680

>>2119662
I really do not want to defend the man, I did not read him and I do not know the context, that simply is important.

I am sorry, I interpretted it for you for the first time, but I misread the phrase, (they want to live)real sry.

Now it seems more obvious. The key word to understanding this imho is the world live. It works similarly to "you should live, not just survive" its living full of adventure, decisionmaking, freedom. It is a value to certain people, because it sounds so romantic, you know what I mean? leave your commitments, live again, this shit.

So if we start here, we can see that he talks about common mental state, where we carefully lay out our future plans in front of ourselves and then only follow, study, work, consume, die. Which he probably sees as stupid. The courage of each instant probably is the ability to decide at the moment what is good at the moment, courageous to ignore possible dire outcomes. Leave a college and become a travelling musician.
I do not like people like this man. Hopelessly romantic, which is not bad, but also unjust in their romantic fever. But I understand the type and there is a certain value in it.

As I said, I am not going to defend the people, that are called existentionalist, but existentialism as such and Nietzche in particular are in my opinion all right. Pointing out that most of the field is shit is not an argument to me, even though I understand the sentiment and the hopelesness, if you realize that those people actually take money for what they do.
In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, analytic philosophy is the same in this regard and I have not noticed any argument agains this. Also have you noiced, that on this board (and all similar) any reference to experience is ignored and most attention is given to referencing references, or references of references?
Ritualistic copypasting of copypasted copypasta in all domains. Deep bro.

>> No.2119681

>>2119662
Let's use fapping instead.
I want to fap. I am at work. I should fap at work because I want to.
To me it makes more sense to simplify the philosophy and not cloud it with other concepts like finance.
What Corian says to me is that we live in the future, in this case most of us wont fap at work because of a fear of being caught, we remove the idea because of a future fear. How cowardly.
Nietzsche would agree with Corian. But its a very slippery slope. Want the woman? Then take her. Want the house? Then buy it. The philosophy falls apart at this point.

>> No.2119683

My favorite philosophy book is Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It's like a handbook on life.

>> No.2119687

>>2119681
Falls apart how.

>> No.2119688

>>2119687
2deep4u.jpg

>> No.2119689

>>2119669
Nietzsche makes a big deal out of grammar, but it never seemed important to me.
This is maybe a little unexpected, but there is not really any self per se. No substance. Self consist of things, that are yours and caring about yourself always mean caring about something that is yours and relevant in the context. So we care about our body, our relationships, our interests relativelly if we are in shower, bed or on the internet.

You can see, that people that really care about something just need to understand it and be just towards the object. That seems to be a naturall mechanism. Where care is not, there is not understanding either. All things that are understood are interesting, all things that interest us, we care about and ultimatelly take responsibility for. Where is not care, and interest, there is no justice and understanding and there is usually prejudice. So we do not care about our enemies, call them dirty villains and barbarians and do not feel the need to be just to them. Which of course involves the sweet sweet revenge.
And again, I do not know, what is objective, the only thing I think is really really objective is the fact, that there is no life, only stuff in movement.

>> No.2119690

>>2119688
Let me guess, you think it fails because it isnt a guidebook for humanity and allows for things you dislike to happen?

>> No.2119691

Who is the best translator of nietzsche?

>> No.2119693

>>2119662
Actually, a "truly intellectual person" will take a philosopher they feel strongly about and attempt to extend, reapply, or amend the philosophy. OP has probably already done this unconsciously if he hasn't been exposed to a ton of formal logic. Most regular people will interpret and add sense to what they're reading.

>> No.2119696

watch your mind working: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F40ZBDAG8-o

>> No.2119705

>>2119689
guy you replied to

I agree with you, I sympathize greatly with existential thought and have always thought that passion in life is very important.

>> No.2119708

>>2119693
>>2119693
>>2119693
This, but is it a bad thing as we would tend to think? because I am pretty certain, Nietzsche touches this topic and sees it as a good thing. (works on history, at least, no sure about others)

>> No.2119710

>>2119690
Yes, I don't think it's a guidebook to humanity. That much is true. But I think it works with fapping, and not with raping women, for instance, because of ethics. We've all got a code of ethics we abide by, and we can all generally agree that rape and financial irresponsibility are ethically wrong. In other words Nietzsche's or Cioran's philosophy should not be used as an excuse to be ethically wrong or morally unjust.

To be accurate the philosophy may not fall apart, but it gets convoluted when you talk about morals and all that junk.

Fapping, though taboo, not exactly an ethically wrong thing to do.

Oh, and Georges Bataille was another interesting philosopher (not existentialist)

>> No.2119711

>>2119680

Let's use Nietzsche then, his main thing IMO seems to be the Dionysian mindset. In the work Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Nietzsche describes the attitude of the pre-socratic philosophers. Their attitude towards life was basically life as a tragedy, and we are to play our part in it:

"The hero of tragedy does not prove himself...in a struggle against fate, just as little does he suffer what he deserves. Rather, blind and with covered head, he falls to his ruin: and his desolate but noble burden with which he remains standing in the presence of his well-known world of terrors presses itself like a thorn in our soul"

This, to me, seems to express Nietzsche's early philosophy (I think something similar to this can be found in the Birth of Tragedy). Now, I reject this, because to me, almost none of this means anything outside an emotional context. Sure, it speaks volumes of our emotional attitude towards a truly massive universe by which we are dwarfed, but that's where it ends. It doesn't clarify any non-human facts, and to me, carefully analyzing knowledge can. Of course, there are limits, but I think that, all and all, analytical philosophy is a much clearer alternative to these type of continental sentiments

>> No.2119715

>>2119696
SPOKES

MORE SPOKES

>> No.2119720

>>2119711
Interesting. But if I understand what you're saying, I think you may have it backwards. He disagreed with this I think. He rejected the idea that you should look at the world objectively, and simply follow the herd.
And I think this is what you would be doing if you were only playing a part in a play.
He advocated a will to power didn't he? Just going through life, as in a tragedy, doesn't seem to follow that line of thought.

>> No.2119722

>>2119710
Except the will to power explains how this wont work, or to put it differently, a war of ideas

guy 1 wants to have sex, he rapes.

guy 2-100 have biological tendencies to be social, since humans have to be raised by other humans, and thus tend to care for others, as another anon put it

guy 2-100 stop guy 1

the result will be a balance between the individual and society, or anxiety between the two

>> No.2119728

>>2119710
>>2119711
to maybe clear things up, ive always thought of the existential philosophers to be more about meta-ethics than normative ethics

they describe the world, but then realizing what theyve found true about the world, cannot prescribe a solution to you

>>2119711
are you talking about the sciences and mathmatics when you say "non-human facts"? i dont think anyone was disagreeing with you on that front, i think the conversation has been based upon human facts, or ethics and politics

>> No.2119731

>>2119705
Oh yeah? Well, that is nice and well, but if there is one lesson in Nietzsche it is - find a pile of shit, get a pitchfork and move you body, because time is short.
As he would say, the real purpose of a philosopher is to be a bad conscience to a society.
Do we live in a perfect society? I do not think so. Do we know why? I think we do not. Do we know a way individual can change something? I surelly do not.

But I am vaguelly aware, that our society is probably unjust in certain actions, that there are areas of collective social blindness only too much similar to those of a societies with artificial ideologies.

I am not going to simply accept the fact, that I do not understand what is going on, that the problems can be known, but not solved and that I should not care, because it is not comfortable.

The care can be broken, in any form, very easily. And that is the worst thing that can happen to a person, because if you do not care, nothing really is interesting any more and you are the last man, eternally resting.

but if you care, you have to take responsibility. It can not be passed on, to whom?

So to conclude, if one side is wrong, do not automatically go to the other side with the belief that it is right. As the matter stands today in philosophy imho, no one really gives a fuck about the world and understanding it, nor even about the miserable state of academical philosophy itself. They have to be pragmatic about that. Surelly they are not going to lose work for ideals.
Have fun and take care guys, heading to work.

>> No.2119732

>>2119722
I take your point. But I guess this is where things have always been hazy for me. I know Nietzsche uses some pretty vivid examples, but is he talking about -all- desires? Did he actually bring up rape? If he did, then I only accept part of his philosophy, the ones that follow a moral or ethical code. If he didn't, then I just don't think he was talking about rape.

I like the idea of anxiety between the two.

Hmmmm.. His philosophy really is founded on the individual and that has a tendency to fuck things up.

Is there an existential type philosopher he bases things on a group or social mentality? Or is that just lame moral philosophy.

>> No.2119741

>>2119731
>pragmatism

seems about right. but existentialism is surely > other philosophy.

>> No.2119750

>>2119732
Im not well read of Nietzsche, i read beyond good and evil among other pieces here and there two years ago and have now realized i should re-read him. I know more about Camus, Sartre, and Kierkegaard, and all three were heavily based on the individual. Id think most existential philosophers would be like that, since their only common themes are the individual, being authentic, subjective ethics, and the dread of realizing your power and freedom.

Though sartre did dabble in "the other". from what i read, the other is a part of the self that can not be taken away, a human will always have other humans in mind, which is where he made the quote, "hell is other people". again i think these philosophers were more about meta-ethics than normative ethics, so they deal with what is the good and bad, and less on, ok now we know what the good and bad are, how do we reach a better society. the reason being is that they believe it is up to the individual to do decide this

and something ive come up with, and i believe they believed, is that there is a war of ideas and the stronger ones will survive. and if you look at history it seems pretty good. weve only been around with civilization were a little bit and already people dont publicly lynch other races in a good part of the world

>> No.2119757

>>2119741
last remark - would not agree, this habit of talking about groups like they had a mouth and wrote books is misleading. Both are ways how to express yourself, tools in a way. I believe there are quite able philosophers among analytics, I even enjoy talking about brain mechanics and bits about psychology. More than heidegger anyway.
But we have to understand, how the discord usually works. It is a comfortable way, how to ignore a whole set of life experience, based on prejudice, nothing more.

>> No.2119759

Because in order to fully comprehend the progression of thought that led to the advent of existentialist thinking, one must understand each and every school of philosophy which preceded it?

>> No.2119780

I don't think existentialism is all that important. I don't agree that we have any reason to believe we exist. If we don't exist, why worry about it?

Once you take away that fragile keystone existentialism becomes meaningless.

Am I wrong?

>> No.2119784
File: 20 KB, 300x300, 1316717650361.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

While we're on the topic, could anyone give me some recommendations?

So far I've read:
Tao Te Ching (that counts right?)
Walden
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
The Stranger
Thus Spoke Zarathustra again

I've also got Nausea and The Metamorphosis on deck, but I'm sure there are tons of great books I'm still missing.

>> No.2119785

>>2119780
metaphysical problems like that arent really cared about by existential philosophers, because

even if you and everything else dont exist, whatever this fake state, illusion, whatever you want to call it is, you have to deal with it until you die, and you have to make decisions, so what are your decisions going to be based on? and so on and so on

>> No.2119788

>>2119780
I agree, to a degree. I don't think we need a reason but I find enjoyment reading about it. More than other philosophies anyways.
Recommend some reading for my well roundedness please.
I just find pedantic philosophy so dull, existentialism seems to have life in it, philosophers actually seem passionate about it--understand what I mean?

How about this. Recommend philosophers who also have written fiction. Are there any that aren't existentialists?

>> No.2119815

>>2119784
you may like the bagavhad gita (sp?)
i have to think of others...

>> No.2119817

bergson and deleuze are the only two who are really relevant in the 20th century philosophy

>> No.2119984

>>2119817
I don't even

>> No.2119992

Isms are everything wrong with liberal arts studies. If it reflects an opinion, it is completely fucking irrelevant. C'mon you dumb fucks you should know better. You should be piecing together a framework for reality, not twiddling your thumbs of "what I like is best"

>> No.2119996 [DELETED] 

>>2119585
oh shit nigger whatare u doin
my eyes
why did i wander into this fucking thread

Kierkegaard, KIERKEGAARD

>> No.2120018

>>2119992
ironically existentialism argues that it is all about what you like best