/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21685228]

could anything substantial come from a person attempting to write philosophy while having never read any? would the scraping together of things already gone over many times before outweigh any potential new ideas, unburdened by tradition?

[Anonymous No.21685231]

Yes, it is possible. Most things are.

[Strange Love No.21685236]

>t.

[Anonymous No.21685240]

>>21685228
No, do not even bother either

There is nothing valuable in reading historical philosophers or approaching it from a casual armchair point of view. There are too many paradoxes in current academic philosophy and ethics so we're already at the end of history, there is nothing to be gained from speculation or the views of a casual

[Anonymous No.21685242]

Try it, start writing! If it turns out to be good then awesome, you did something great! And the world in general are better off because of it.

If it turns out to be bad, who cares? At least you didn’t waste time reading up on how pretentious old fags cope with our world.

[Anonymous No.21685244]

>>21685242

[Anonymous No.21685245]

>>21685228
it only works if you are black

[Anonymous No.21685250]

>>21685228
anyone who's offed himself is ahead of the greatest philosophers

[Anonymous No.21685267]

yes, it is the only possible route for authentic philosophy

>the philosopher always becomes such as the result of a perplexity from which he tries to disengage himself. this is plato's thaumazein, astonishment - a very philosophical emotion (theatetus, 155D). but what distinguishes ungenuine from genuine philosophers is that this perplexity comes to the latter from looking at the world itself, to the former merely from a book, a philosophical system which lies in front of them.
t. schopenhauer (indirectly discounting himself because he was perplexed by kant and upanishads)

[Anonymous No.21685296]

>>21685228
I ended up with philosophical protocols in a different area of study and they remain superior to everything culpable.