/lit/ - Literature

[JamesBond !!5mGgi8gVMGJ No.2155121]

This is a question primarily for D&E: But please participate if you believe you have the answer. I would only be glad to be shown the way.

What are some good criterion to start judging a Philosophy? I would like to gain some new knowledge and you happen to be my only trusted source now.

Also, what books should I read to start learning literary criticism?

Also, is the distinction I am making above in literary and philosophical criticism valid? If yes, then what should I read about philosophical criticism.

Enlighten me,

I mean those last words.

[Anonymous No.2155127]

>What are some good criterion to start judging a Philosophy?

1.Does it get you laid?
2.Does it get you laid?
3.Does it get you laid?
4.Does it get you laid?
5.Does it get you laid?
6.Does it get you laid?

[JamesBond !!5mGgi8gVMGJ No.2155130]

>>2155127
I don't really care about getting laid through philosophy. Are there any universal criteria?

[Anonymous No.2155134]

A good philosophy should be one that takes nothing for granted and that ensures your life will be very miserable.

[Anonymous No.2155141]

Hm I think a good philosophy is one that makes you think.
Something you won't necessarily take for granted, or let's say you can't take for granted, but which will make you think about it and abou life. Something that will give you your own thoughts and will instill in you the will to 'think'.

[Anonymous No.2155142]

>Hey D&E, tell me what to think about stuff

great thread, faggot.

[Anonymous No.2155148]

>>2155121
JamesBond asking himself questions.

[Anonymous No.2155157]

>>2155121
Every time I see this tripfag post, I grow more and more certain that it's a shill of Deep's. They write similarly, they think similarly, and they're both snide Lake Wobegons in miniature.

inb4 dull and churlish comments from James/Deep

[Anonymous No.2155161]

>>2155157
We know.

You aren't the first person to pose this.

[Anonymous No.2155166]

>>2155157
dne has many shills on here so it's possible.

[Anonymous No.2155168]

>They write similarly, they think similarly, and they're both snide Lake Wobegons in miniature.
Not to mention they both show up in the same threads at the same time, though that may just be because /lit/ is slow and they're on 24/7.

[JamesBond !!5mGgi8gVMGJ No.2155203]

Patient Bump.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2155360]

>>2155203
Bump before last.

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.2155365]

>talk shit about philosophy every day
>change his mind so he can cybersuck D&E's dick

fuck off bitch
use google

[Anonymous No.2155370]

>This thread is for one single person who posts here on /lit/, but you other plebeians can respond, I guess. Not like I'll take it seriously unless it comes from The Master!!

Awesome thread. You're a genius and a social juggernaut, James.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2155491]

Final Bump

[Anonymous No.2155495]

Criterion is singular you dipshit. Way to try and use smart-sounding words so it makes you look like you gots the book-learnin'.

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2155496]

>>2155495
I am sorry. I meant Criteria.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.2155501]

you could wait until D&E actually posts and then bump.

[Fabulous !!uPAynS9nRTz No.2155504]

if you're going to use that, atleast give me credit or something, sheesh

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2155508]

>>2155121
>What are some good criterion to start judging a Philosophy?
whether it makes life better or worse. pretty obvious but that hasn't stopped like 3/4 of the people in the practice from fucking up and fucking it up.

>Also, what books should I read to start learning literary criticism?
Terry Eagleton's 'Literary Theory: An Introduction'. it's decidely marxist but at least it's open about it.There's no one ur-text that gives you everything on literary theory, because it's a discourse that is informed by different ideologies. Hence, compilations or readers such as 'Modern Criticism and Theory' might help ground you, but the hard work ahead of anyone who wishes to invest significant time in Literary Theory is to read the formative texts in the practice, which are voluminous and reach anywhere from Derrida to Bakhtin to Barthes to Adorno to Empson to Leavis to Freud to Todorov, it goes on and on.

>is the distinction I am making above in literary and philosophical criticism valid?
I think so but that's just me and my love for literature and not a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with it. That is to say yes, insofar as you are willing, like me, to distance the peripheral theoretical concerns of marxism, historicism, deconstruction, feminism, post-colonialism from the actual literary evaluation of a text (the task of the critic, not the theorist).

>what should I read about philosophical criticism
What do you mean by philosophical criticism?

[Anonymous No.2155531]

>>2155501
>>2155504
>>2155508
ty, fab and d&e back together like a sandwich!

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2155541]

>>2155508
Thanks. I am willing to devote a reasonable amount of time for studying the formative texts. Can I count upon some discussions as I go along? This is of course a privilege and a request.

>Philosophical criticism

This is twofold. One: Is there a historic precedent to criticizing Philosophies in some established manner? Two: If I want to do the same by assessing the validity of each theory and testing its supposed veracity, is there some available guide?

>That is to say yes

This is what I would expect too. But the ideas of an individual are open to rejection through ideas from discussions, to not to put it in a pithier fashion.

[Anonymous No.2155557]

Pic related, it's JamesBond's dream in which Sonic represents D&E and Tails represents JamesBond

[Anonymous No.2155558]

Philosophy is all opinions. Don't bother reading any of it. Study psychology to better understand yourself.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2155562]

>>2155541
>Can I count upon some discussions as I go along?
Sure dude. I don't focus on literary theory any more but I'll give you a hand where i can.

>Is there a historic precedent to criticizing Philosophies in some established manner?
I'm not sure what you mean here; criticism of philosophy doesn't really occur outside of philosophy or as "established manner", one philosopher writes something, the next guy comes along saying he's full of shit, why, and what's actually right. Y'know, dialectics. What I think you are asking me is whether there is a specific method to the concept of philosophical criticism. This is perhaps best represented by the concept of 'critique', which of course stems from old Kant as the investigation of the conditions of possibility of something.

>If I want to do the same by assessing the validity of each theory and testing its supposed veracity, is there some available guide?
Philosophy doesn't really work like that, you don't stand outside all philosophical perspectives with a checklist tallying up which works and which doesn't. Analytic philosophy sounds like what you are interested in that it its method consists of the comfort blanket of a multiplicity of logical forms to test propositions and clarify concepts. So logical positivism, wittgenstein and philosophy of language (people like Kripke, Quine etc), people like Popper and Kuhn might be up your alley.

[Anonymous No.2155563]

Depends on the type of philosophy. It's a multi-branched discipline ranging from [the minute details of] cognition to the body politic. I really don't feel that there's one specific list of guidelines you can consult to test such diverse ideas.

[Behemoth, Leftenant of the Grammar Nazi Party !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.2155567]

>>2155558
>he thinks psychology gives a person a better understanding of themselves
So how's your first year going? You started diagnosing yourself yet?

[Anonymous No.2155570]

>>2155557

[Behemoth, Leftenant of the Grammar Nazi Party !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.2155583]

Also JB you should be looking into Hume and then following it up with analytics. The "criteria" you're looking for is called logic. Logic isn't a closed, perfect system, but it is the process which one philosopher critiques another, through the use of pointing out logical contradictions or problems.
Get yourself a basics of logic book, study some Hume, move on to the analytics of the early 20th century and I'm seconding Quine considering your interest in the sciences.

[Anonymous No.2155597]

>>2155567
By better understanding the mental processes in one's head, one can better understand one's actions. Psychology is, of course, based on evidence whereas philosophy is based upon one's ideas which may or may not be true. Philosophy is only useful insofar as it raises questions to ponder about ourselves.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2155599]

>>2155597
>By better understanding the mental processes in one's head, one can better understand one's actions.
This guy has a point, there is of course a lot of fruitful work to be found in Freud, Jung, etc that is wholly evidentially verifiable.

[Fabulous !!uPAynS9nRTz No.2155604]

>>2155599
that was nice of you to say

[Anonymous No.2155619]

>2011
>implying D&E and JB are TWO different people

ISHYGDDT

[Anonymous No.2155627]

>>2155599
How much of Jung have you read? From what I've read, I would say very, very few of his ideas are empirically verifiable. The very foundation of his theory is premised on the sovereignty and determinacy of the subconscious. That's not only a deistic kind of idea, but such a notion has been obliterated with evidence on how exogenous elements (such as nutrition, sunlight, socializing) shape cognition more than Jung's identification of endogenous factors (ie: having an "archetypal" character or personality; patients become progressively psychologically healthier with psychotherapy).

I haven't read Freud and I know there was a big split between him and Jung, but I imagine the foundations of psychology are similar with respect to the sovereignty and determinacy of the psyche.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2155646]

>>2155627
>How much of Jung have you read? From what I've read, I would say very, very few of his ideas are empirically verifiable.
Why would I take your suggestion to read psychology seriously then?

[Anonymous No.2155718]

>>2155646
I'm not suggesting you read it. I'm just implying you haven't because your opinion regarding Frued and Jung's ideas doesn't appear to be informed.

[spiderman is back No.2155876]

>>2155718
If you state outright what you intend to imply, it no longer becomes an implication

stop adding more negative vibes to this thread. There were valuable things here.

[Anonymous No.2155881]

shit thread

saged and hidden

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2155888]

>>2155718
>I'm not suggesting you read it.
but you did
>Philosophy is all opinions. Don't bother reading any of it. Study psychology to better understand yourself.