/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2430829]

Why does philosophy appeal to you?

Do you hold knowledge in high regard?

If the definitions you regard the world with were to change in such away that you no longer felt a necessity to attach increased value to yourself and/or those around you, would you consider yourself to have become a 'better' person?

Do you believe the inherent nature of a concept or object can be surmised by observation alone, without sources of external knowledge? If so, have you chosen to utilize this capability?

Do you believe in the possibility of the above concept to be applied to humans? Esp, do you believe our experiences and perceptions affect our manner and appearance in such a way that would allow us to read them through observation alone?

What stock do you place in the notion of intuitive understanding, or intuitive knowledge?

What moment in your life do you regard as the most enjoyable or valuable?

Do you subscribe to the idea of distinct psychological archetypes? Esp, the separation of Physical and Mental? Action and Theory? Insight and Impulse?

Answer any you wish.

[None !phi.HcTbyc No.2430884]

>Why does philosophy appeal to you?

Because it is in some sense the most earnest, encompassing and critical (in the sense of critique) striving for knowledge.

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term. Under 'things in the broadest possible sense' I include such radically different items as not only 'cabbages and kings', but numbers and duties, possibilities and finger snaps, aesthetic experience and death[...]What is characteristic of philosophy is not a special subject-matter, but the aim of knowing one's way around with respect to the subject-matters of all the special disciplines."

>Do you hold knowledge in high regard?

Yes.

>Do you believe the inherent nature of a concept or object can be surmised by observation alone, without sources of external knowledge? If so, have you chosen to utilize this capability?

"Observation" is a very specific word. Not even science is comprised only of observation (theoretical explanations, for instance). Concepts are mind-dependent and changeable, they don't have "inherent natures" in the way objects do.

>What stock do you place in the notion of intuitive understanding, or intuitive knowledge?

Our intuitions about things are our starting point for philosophical inquiry. They are very frequently wrong.

>What moment in your life do you regard as the most enjoyable or valuable?

Reading poetry, writing poetry, thinking about philosophy, being outside away from people.

>Do you subscribe to the idea of distinct psychological archetypes? Esp, the separation of Physical and Mental? Action and Theory? Insight and Impulse?

What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.2431141]

Philosophy makes me miserable... the only thing I really enjoy these days is drinking and writing/reading poetry (not always at the same time)... but as my old philosophy teacher and mentor once told me; "One does not often escape the burden of knowledge."

I'll probably go out like John Berryman.

[Anonymous No.2431155]

>>2431141
Philosophy makes me miserable as well, partially because it's mostly deconstructive, partially because it's so formative. It feels like most of the groundwork that has been done (for what will be called "the philosophical corpus" ten thousand years from now, let's say), is the depressing, nihilistic, devaluing shit. We haven't even begun on the constructive beautiful stuff like phenomenology, post-nihilist ethics, etc. We're still dealing with a very barbaric world, with ossified, monolithic power structures, so experimentation is impossible and mostly limited to centuries of revolutionary and ideological conflicts.

Then again, I can't give it up. I think some part of me dimly hopes this is just the first step on a much greater journey, and a million years from now we'll be experimenting with pan-galactic post-scarcity contractualist poleis, with a firmly agreed-upon metaphysics.

In the meantime, I drink a lot, and try not to get too big a dose of Heidegger or Heraclitus at once.

[Anonymous No.2431167]

>>2431155

I don't know what I consider myself... Stoic most likely...

[Anonymous No.2431178]

I don't care for knowledge. Post from the kitty's perspective

[Deep&Edgy !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0 No.2431180]

lol phenomenolology. Our modern scholasticism as deleuze would say

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.2431196]

>Why does philosophy appeal to you?
It doesn't. I've read only a little bit of philosophy, mostly introductory books or secondary texts. It's interesting sometimes, but usually I'm only reading it because of its relation to something else.

>Do you hold knowledge in high regard?
Not particularly. Experience is just as valuable and in the end more worthwhile, given the finite nature of existence and the limitations of knowledge. Reading a book teaches you about, doing teaches you how. I've learned more in the discipline of philosophy debating people while expressing the retarded opinions I have/had than I have from reading philosophy.

>If the definitions you regard the world with were to change in such away that you no longer felt a necessity to attach increased value to yourself and/or those around you, would you consider yourself to have become a 'better' person?
No. I'd see that as a lateral shift, not one of quality, if we're talking morality.

>Do you believe the inherent nature of a concept or object can be surmised by observation alone, without sources of external knowledge? If so, have you chosen to utilize this capability?
No, because there simply isn't enough time to observe something that much. That's why I read, too. Experience and knowledge aren't a hierarchy or a dichotomy.

>Do you believe in the possibility of the above concept to be applied to humans?
I don't think this is possible at all. It would be like measuring the universe with a meter-stick.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.2431200]

>What stock do you place in the notion of intuitive understanding, or intuitive knowledge?
Useful if you can figure out where it came from and where it leads. Otherwise, intuition is useless, it's a game of leap-frog into baseless assumptions.

>What moment in your life do you regard as the most enjoyable or valuable?
A specific moment? Too many to pick from, I'll go with one favorite: I and a girlfriend tried to have sex on LSD. It was completely impossible because of how hard we kept laughing. We went outside instead and we watched the sun come up over the Everglades in complete silence. I mean the Everglades as well as ourselves, completely silent, which was something very strange that was not eerie at all.

>Do you subscribe to the idea of distinct psychological archetypes? Esp, the separation of Physical and Mental? Action and Theory? Insight and Impulse?
Don't even know what you're talking about, but it sounds fishy to me.

[Anonymous No.2431209]

The philosophy of kicking your ass.

[Anonymous No.2431220]

I love knowledge so obviously philosophy appeals to me.

[Anonymous No.2431253]

Is that a man?

[Anonymous No.2431262]

Ive read a tiny amount of philosophy and these sorts of questions and thoughts are why I don't get into it ( that and the Christianity).

It just seems so.... Wrong. Wrong because it attempts to quantify things that can't be. Goes off on it's own and neccessarily omits so much.

Can a philosophy guy please run me through why it's good.

[Adorno !VGOK6fUxDA No.2431668]

>>2431196

>Not particularly. Experience is just as valuable and in the end more worthwhile, given the finite nature of existence and the limitations of knowledge. Reading a book teaches you about, doing teaches you how. I've learned more in the discipline of philosophy debating people while expressing the retarded opinions I have/had than I have from reading philosophy.

That's assuming that the reading and mental destruction of a text is not a comparable experience. That's also assuming you have unlimited access to every experience you may want to experience. Debate is after all nothing more than an out of text dialectic. Your point makes little sens in that framing. You may as well just say you'd rather be out plucking daisies on a fine spring morning than inside reading a book on the ethics of destroying God's creatures. Either way, you're setting up a false dichotomy.

[Anonymous No.2431727]

>>2431262
>( that and the Christianity).
Confirmed for either trolling or having never read any decent philosophy ever

[Anonymous No.2432419]

I suppose the last one could've been worded better.

It is in reference to a Jungian view of psychology. Or, more specifically, Beckett's presentation of internal conflict in Waiting for Godot.