/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22604320]

start with the textbooks

[Anonymous No.22604355]

>>22604320
Which textbooks would you recommend? Why is your pic a good one?

[Anonymous No.22604401]

>>22604320
>no falsifiable claim given
>"I just feel that it's true bro"
In the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.22604412]

>>22604401
I’ll never understand people like you. You don’t seem to realise the seriousness of life. It’s like you’re stuck in the realm of day-to-day concerns but you never stop to think: what am I? What is this place? You don’t question your assumptions.

[Anonymous No.22604450]

>>22604320
Please spoonfeed me what textbooks to read so that I can into philosophy

[Anonymous No.22604486]

>>22604450

[Anonymous No.22604491]

>>22604401

[Anonymous No.22604535]

>>22604401
Not even Karl Popper claimt that you cannot think about somewith without a falsifiable claim.
Most Critical Rationalist believe that mathematics cannot be falsifizied for instance.

>>22604491
Cope.

[Anonymous No.22604541]

>>22604491
What a stupid quote. Metaphysics relies totally on intuition since there is no empirical verification of it. It's deductive reasoning applied to intuitively appealing postulates. How do we know those postulates actually describe reality? Answer always comes down to feelings

[Anonymous No.22604544]

>>22604535
>Cope
cope

[Anonymous No.22604554]

>>22604541
>can't into spekulative Logik
ngmi

>I have been only too often and too vehemently attacked by opponents who were incapable of making the simple reflection that their opinions and objections contain categories which are presuppositions and which themselves need to be criticised first before they are employed.

[Anonymous No.22604608]

>>22604535
>Most Critical Rationalist believe that mathematics cannot be falsifizied for instance.
A large part of published math can't be empirically falsified and almost assuredly doesn't describe reality. See the frequent Zeno posts here that always have someone claiming reality isn't infinitely divisible and the real numbers don't exist. Something can be deductively true in the sense that it follows the rules of the game but that doesn't mean the game is reality.

[Anonymous No.22604626]

>>22604541
>Metaphysics relies totally on intuition since there is no empirical verification of it.
read it again nigger

[Anonymous No.22604645]

>>22604320
I've been saying for years that secondary texts are a superior way of studying philosophy, but /lit/ only seethes and keeps bashing its head against impenetrable german schlock

[Anonymous No.22604694]

>>22604608
>A large part of published math can't be empirically falsified and almost assuredly doesn't describe reality. See the frequent Zeno posts here that always have someone claiming reality isn't infinitely divisible and the real numbers don't exist. Something can be deductively true in the sense that it follows the rules of the game but that doesn't mean the game is reality.

Thank you for making my point.

There are mathemtatical problems and attempts to solve them.

Some people seems to confused Critical Rationalists aka "Popperians" with Positivists aka "logical Empiricists" (like Wiener Kreis).
The people of the vienna circle believe that metaphysical statements doesn't have a sense.The are literally nonsens, so to say.
But Popper and his school does believe that Metaphysicas can have a value. For instance as inspiration for scienctists. Regardless, metaphysical claims can be true or false for them.

"There is a God" cannot be emprical falsifized but it still makes a difference in believe it or not.

>>22604541
Now, do meta-ethics.

[Anonymous No.22604712]

>>22604694
>Regardless, metaphysical claims can be true or false for them.
And just like I said the truth or falsity of such claims without either inductive evidence or a deductive chain of reasoning(which always ends up with an arbitrary postulate) to support them always comes down to feelings.

[Anonymous No.22604724]

>>22604712
>which always ends up with an arbitrary postulate
tell me more about how you've never read Hegel

[Anonymous No.22604749]

>>22604724
The "arbitrary" in "arbitrary postulate" is redundant and I only added it because I knew that most of you retards wouldn't know what postulate meant. If you had some non-arbitrary reason for choosing a postulate then by definition it wouldn't be a postulate since it was logically based on something else.

[Anonymous No.22604764]

>>22604749
>always ends up
it was this part you pseud. it was this part that outed you. and now you are desperately coping.

[Anonymous No.22604778]

>>22604764
>>always ends up
>it was this part you pseud.
Then it's even dumber. Do you understand how deductive reasoning works? You ALWAYS have to start with some postulate. If you're not starting with some postulate you're not using logic.

[Anonymous No.22604781]

shitting was my legacy

[Anonymous No.22604795]

>>22604778
>You ALWAYS have to start with some postulate.
just admit it anon. say the words: I HAVE NOT READ HEGEL.

[Anonymous No.22604801]

>>22604795
And you should just admit that Hegel was a moron since according to you he thought you could do deductive logic without starting from some set of postulates

[Anonymous No.22604812]

>>22604801
>Hegel was a moron
>t. irredeemably filtered
pseud confirmed

[Anonymous No.22604823]

>>22604812
>doesn't even know how logic works
/lit/ in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.22604833]

>>22604823
>t. wouldn't know since he's never even read the most influential philosopher of modern time's magnum opus on Logic
tell me more pseud about how you don't know what Logic is.

[Anonymous No.22604848]

>>22604833
I don't care what Hegel said about logic if he doesn't even understand that you start from postulates. You haven't read my book on Logic(notice the cultish capitalization) that shows logic is whatever I say it is.

[Anonymous No.22604863]

>>22604848
>I don't care what Hegel said about logic
so willfully ignorant? even worse.

[Anonymous No.22604870]

>>22604863
Why are you willfully ignorant about my book?
>You haven't read my book on Logic(notice the cultish capitalization) that shows logic is whatever I say it is.

[Anonymous No.22604882]

>>22604870
not my book anon.

[Anonymous No.22604884]

>>22604882
You still haven't shown any interest in my book. Why should I care about Hegel's when you claim it contains such blatant stupidity as logic not needing postulates?

[Anonymous No.22604904]

>>22604884
oh idk maybe because he was the most important philosopher of modern times and all philosophy after him was a development of his work or reaction to him? maybe that's why?

[Anonymous No.22604913]

>>22604904
So an appeal to authority then.
>all philosophy after him was a development of his work or reaction to him
Lol

[Anonymous No.22604927]

>>22604904
Hegel's philosophy is so odd that one would not have expected him to be able to get sane men to accept it, but he did. He set it out with so much obscurity that people thought it must be profound. It can quite easily be expounded lucidly in words of one syllable, but then its absurdity becomes obvious.
Bertrand Russell said that. Analytic philosophy has next to no engagement with Hegel

[Anonymous No.22604933]

>>22604913
>...man thinks, and seeks freedom and a basis for conduct in thought. Divine as his right to act in this way is, it becomes a wrong, when it takes the place of thinking. Thought then regards itself as free only when it is conscious of being at variance with what is generally recognised, and of setting itself up as something original.
smoothbrain, appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when you've actually examined the authority yourself and accord with the authority through your own reasoning. Read more thinklet.

[Anonymous No.22604962]

>>22604933
>appeal to authority isn't a fallacy when you've actually examined the authority yourself and accord with the authority through your own reasoning
Lol aren't you accusing me of not reading Hegel? If I haven't read him myself someone telling me to read him because he is important is an appeal to authority. Especially when the same person telling me that also says Hegel insists on idiotically false things.

If appeal to authority worked the way you seem to think it does there would never be a fallacy there since everyone making an appeal to authority presumably agrees with that authority. You fail even at informal logic.

[Anonymous No.22604971]

>>22604320
This might be slightly off topic because they are books compared to textbooks. But there is an infograph of three books and it's like the basics of learning or writing of some kind.
Anyone have or know what I am talking about?

[Anonymous No.22604983]

>>22604927
>Analytic philosophy has next to no engagement with Hegel
That's because all analytic philosophy began with Russell and Moore's rejection of Hegel in England and the Neo-Kantian rejection of him in Deutschland. No Hegel no analytic philosophy. Ultimately it came down to bugmen who couldn't believe Hegel was saying the shit he was saying in modern times (the sense-world is an abstraction, the ideal-realm is concrete and knowable, absolute knowledge is possible, relativism is fake and gay) and just went back to Kant, or worse, to Hume, or worse still, so-called "common sense".

[Anonymous No.22605004]

>>22604983
>who couldn't believe Hegel was saying the shit he was saying
Don't blame them. You're claiming the idiot said you could do logic without postulates. Obviously a retarded position.

[Anonymous No.22605007]

>>22604541
Man… a sad case of materialism. You honestly don’t know half of what you’re missing. Not that I want to reveal it to you, people need to come to this stuff on their own, or else die in their blindness. But I’ll drop you a hint: there’s no such thing as unadulterated empirical perception. People already accept that colour, texture, heat, cold, etc. aren’t “in the world”; but the midwit stops at that. The ascended mind whispers: Neither is Contiguity “in the world”. Neither is Unity. Neither is Number. Neither is Similarity. Neither is Equality. But here I will stop because I really don’t want you to come to know the truth unless you’re fit for enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.22605039]

>>22605007
Another bizarre post. You understand that color, texture, heat, and cold are just concepts in the human mind with no necessary reality. But then you go on to make an analogy to what I would guess you would think were the metaphysical concepts of Contiguity, Unity, Number, Similarity, and Equality. Your analogy implies that these are also just concepts in the human mind with no necessary reality. You're making an argument in support of me saying that metaphysics is nothing besides feelings and you don't even seem to realize it.

[Anonymous No.22605049]

>>22604962
>Lol aren't you accusing me of not reading Hegel?
yes because you obviously havn't

>>22604962
>If appeal to authority worked the way you seem to think it does there would never be a fallacy there since everyone making an appeal to authority presumably agrees with that authority.
>t. can't into the complexity of the world
sometimes it's a fallacy (when the appeal is done solely on the authority) sometimes it isn't (when the authority has
been examined and confirmed through your own reasoning). I'm not saying you need to read Hegel because he is Hegel. I'm saying your a pseud for talking about logic as if you knew what it was without reading a recognised master in an alternative take on logic. He is an authority-- but he is an authority for a REASON you fucking dimwit (and hence not a fallacy since the appeal is not solely to his authority but on the reasons for his authority). A reason that can be confirmed rationally by anyone who actually engages with his work-- but you wouldn't know about that since you've never actually read him (and which you repeatedly refuse to openly admit since you are, in fact, a massive pseud). Try actually reading a book on informal logic.

[Anonymous No.22605058]

>>22605004
>Obviously
kek

>a newcomer to philosophy [...] forgets that in this science there occur determinations quite different from those in ordinary consciousness and in so-called ordinary common sense-which is not exactly sound understanding but an understanding educated up to abstractions and to a belief, or rather a superstitious belief, in abstractions.
-Hegel

[Anonymous No.22605062]

>>22605049
>I'm not saying you need to read Hegel because he is Hegel
Also you
>because he was the most important philosopher of modern times
Textbook example of appeal to authority

>a recognised master in an ALTERNATIVE take on logic.
So you finally admit that he's not doing logic. I was right from the very beginning where I said only a retard would claim you can do logic without postulates. I don't care what ever mystical gibberish Hegel was spouting but it's not logic.

[Anonymous No.22605096]

>>22605062
>So you finally admit that he's not doing logic.
he is but you wouldn't know since you havn't actually read him

>I don't care what ever mystical gibberish Hegel was spouting but it's not logic.
suit yourself anon

>Common sense cannot understand speculation; and what is more, it must come to hate speculation when it has experience of it; and, unless it is in the state of perfect indifference that security confers, it is bound to detest and persecute it.
-Hegel

[Anonymous No.22605115]

>>22605039
I could spot you from a mile away. I’ve dealt with you my whole life— at job interviews, dinner parties, university. You are the all-present spirit of revolutionary bourgeois modernity. You are the calculating, the tabulating, the rationalising and systematising, the managing, the controlling, master of efficiency and progress. It hurts my manhood to say this but I am afraid of you. Afraid because every time I have met you I have found you totally without feeling or love. Your voice and demeanour projected kindness, but your eyes were TOTALLY TOTALLY empty. As though you would dispose of me without thought if your calculations led you there. Yes, I know you.

[Anonymous No.22605116]

>>22605096
>he is but you wouldn't know since you havn't actually read him
Just like you haven't read my book here >>22604848
>You haven't read my book on Logic(notice the cultish capitalization) that shows logic is whatever I say it is.
The only reason you could come up with to accept Hegel's patently imbecilic claim over mine is an appeal to authority. Logic requires postulates. Anyone who disagreeing with that is a moron.

[Anonymous No.22605139]

>>22605116
>Logic requires postulates. but-- IT JUST DOES OK!!!!
>t. actual moron

[Anonymous No.22605143]

>>22605115
sorry anon. I'm the hegel defender in this thread and even I thought this was cringe.

[Anonymous No.22605144]

>>22605139
Did you really try to make fun of me saying logic requires postulates by then asking me what postulate I was basing that statement on? It's like you're a parody of yourself.

[Anonymous No.22605148]

>>22605144
>Did you really try to make fun of me saying logic requires postulates by then asking me what postulate I was basing that statement on?
actually I didn't. but since you havn't read Hegel you wouldn't know.

[Anonymous No.22605149]

>>22605143
I don’t care. This is how I feel after years of living with these people.

[Anonymous No.22605152]

>>22605149
>This is how I feel
oh ok carry on

[Anonymous No.22605153]

>>22605148
So what did you mean here then?
>Logic requires postulates. but-- IT JUST DOES OK!!!!
You're claiming that logical arguments don't need foundational postulates. So if you're not asking what I'm basing my statement on what are you asking?

[Anonymous No.22605160]

>>22605153
>says he doesn't want the Hegel
>actually wants the Hegel so hard
many such cases

[Anonymous No.22605169]

>>22605160
We've already confirmed Hegel is an idiot who thinks you don't need to start with postulates in logic. I'm asking you what you meant if you weren't asking what postulate I based my statement on. Because it seems like along with the appeal to authority fallacy above you've committed another basic error in informal logic by contradicting your own position. That someone as stupid and unaware as you agrees with Hegel is another mark against his already shitty record.

[Anonymous No.22605237]

>>22605169
>you don't need to start with postulates in logic
this is exactly what I am saying. Logic must start not with a postulate (or else it is without a solid foundation), but with an absolute concept-- not arbitrary, not contingent, not conditional, etc. As a corollary to this, the principle of contradiction also cannot be taken as a starting point, since it is itself in need of a derivation from this absolute concept, and therefore this concept and all derivations from this concept are not bound by the law of contradiction. This absolute concept is absolute indeterminacy-- the concept void of all predicates: PURE BEING.
Hegel shows the growth of logic as it emerges and develops out of this concept.

[Anonymous No.22605257]

>>22605237
See my first response to you here >>22604724 which you claimed wasn't relevant to what you said. An unjustified foundation is called a postulate by definition. If your absolute concept is and unjustified foundation it's a postulate. All postulates are "arbitrary" which is just another word for unjustified. If they were justified by something else they wouldn't be foundational postulates. There is no way to determine the truth or falsity of a postulate besides saying your feelings make you think it's true.

[Anonymous No.22605429]

>>22605257
>unjustified
unjustified=\= absolute
Pure Being is not a postulate, it is not postulated-- it IS. Nor is it arbitrary, in fact, and necessarily, concepts like justification, arbitrariness, contingency already presuppose Pure Being, which is universal absolutely and from it everything else is derived. And since the principle of contradiction is not actually a principle and must be derived from this universal principle, it antecedes any distinction into justified and unjustified, or arbitrary and not arbitrary. Because of this Pure Being is, as the absolute principle of Logic, both justified and not justified, necessary and contingent.

>there is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally contain both immediacy and mediation,
-Hegel

>>22605257
>There is no way to determine the truth or falsity of a postulate besides saying your feelings make you think it's true.
The true is the whole. Not any particular proposition in the system of logic, but the whole system itself.

>what logic is cannot be stated beforehand, rather does this knowledge of what it is first emerge as the final outcome and consummation of the whole exposition.
-Hegel

[Anonymous No.22605463]

>>22604320
Why are you following me?

[Anonymous No.22605465]

>>22605463
?

[Anonymous No.22605469]

>>22605429
And this is just mystical gibberish not logic. Your feeling make you think it's important but I don't care about it at all. At least some metaphysics(not Hegel's) tries to be logical but to return to my original post logical coherence is not a guarantee of reality

[Anonymous No.22605490]

>>22605469
>And this is just mystical gibberish not logic
>t. doesn't know
ngmi

>Speculative truth, it may also be noted, means very much the same as what, in special connection with religious experience and doctrines, used to be called Mysticism.
-Hegel

[Anonymous No.22605545]

I studied philosphy in high school and I loved it, I'm reading Plato now because I couldn't find a decent general textbook so thank you for the rec OP

[Anonymous No.22605692]

>>22604795
>the science of logic
but there was nothing scientific about what he said.

[Anonymous No.22605897]

>>22604486
Someone better upload this to libgen or I swear to God.