ITT: Post your favorite philosopher, and why Consistent, simple style. Great contemporary philosophy and extremely influential. Sartre is way overrated while this guy gets hardly any credit. >Implying this thread won't become a total shitstorm

File: 15 KB, 220x318, 220px-Martin_Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:39:46 2013 No.3436028 [Reply] [Original]

ITT: Post your favorite philosopher, and why

Consistent, simple style. Great contemporary philosophy and extremely influential. Sartre is way overrated while this guy gets hardly any credit.

>Implying this thread won't become a total shitstorm

Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:41:01 2013 No.3436037
File: 76 KB, 384x506, Machiavelli Seriously Hopes you Christians Do Not Partake of This.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because he's misunderstood. Also he nails the idea of a republic for and from the 'common good of the people' thing about 200 years before the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:43:01 2013 No.3436043 Ayn Rand because it feels good telling people she's my favorite philosopher, especially to people who hate her. i must have a malfunctioning reward system

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:44:51 2013 No.3436049 File: 31 KB, 240x332, Epic tits.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3436028 His philosophy is understandable to anyone, can be practiced by everyone, and is basically water-tight.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:45:37 2013 No.3436054 >>3436043 Nah, you just have a good sense of humour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:49:12 2013 No.3436067 File: 37 KB, 283x382, Prophet_muhammad[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mine is the great prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. He was truly the perfect human. All of gods creatures should follow in his teachings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:51:15 2013 No.3436073 >>3436067 >PBUH >PBUH >PBUH that x9001 was what was in an essay on Muhammed I had to peer review (protip: a muslim did it). Not that I have anything against muslims.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:52:52 2013 No.3436077 >>3436067 YOU SHALL BURN FOR POSTING AN IMAGE OF MUHAMMAD PEACE BE UPON HIM

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 22:53:54 2013 No.3436085 >>3436073 I think in the orthodox faith you're required to say that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:09:28 2013 No.3436119 Kierkegaard. Because of aesthetics. No, not the debate on aesthetics, I mean HIS aesthetics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:19:00 2013 No.3436140 File: 13 KB, 259x195, wittgenstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] No question. It's frightening how brilliant he was.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:20:14 2013 No.3436142 >>3436077 But that's Ibn Sina (or Ibn Arabi?)

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:32:15 2013 No.3436165 What's that Indian philosopher's name that starts with 'A'? He did a lot of stuff with the concept of being

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:34:24 2013 No.3436170 File: 1.09 MB, 1956x2940, neet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Most influential thinker since Aristotle. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:43:20 2013 No.3436183 >>3436165 >What's that Indian philosopher's name that starts with 'A'? >He did a lot of stuff with the concept of being Sounds like every Indian philosopher ever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 4 23:58:43 2013 No.3436208 File: 99 KB, 400x400, jesus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:01:14 2013 No.3436213
File: 419 KB, 500x329, muhammad heaven.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3436077
Did you know that: pictures of Muhammad were common in Muslim art through the middle ages and up until the 19th century?

It's only the Wahhabist school of Islam (way too influential right now) that takes that prohibition remotely seriously, I think

pic related

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:02:14 2013 No.3436218 >>3436213 Lol check out this nerd just wait till i blow your shit sky high tomorrow faggot

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:13:28 2013 No.3436239 >>3436213 Where is that art from?

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:19:52 2013 No.3436252

>>3436239
I ask this because I'm pretty sure that's Persian, and if it is, it comes from a Shia artist. Sunnism has never allowed for the prophet's face to be shown. In fact it has always looked at depictions of humans as iconography that pulls people away from God.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:29:07 2013 No.3436269
File: 96 KB, 300x459, asmc9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3436252
I always found that to be rather beautiful, really.

I don't know much about Islamic tradition, but I like that there are no qualms on the written and spoken language to be a way to connect with God, and how they managed to focus their production of pictures into abstract mathematical patterns and their calligraphy as well.

Am I thinking correctly here? Do you recommend anything on this subject?

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:31:07 2013 No.3436275 [DELETED]

File: 298 KB, 832x1024, muslim+art+2[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3436067

That's a picture of Ibn Sina.

>>3436213
>It's only the Wahhabist school of Islam (way too influential right now) that takes that prohibition remotely seriously, I think

Nah, depiction of animate life has only been common in certain Eastern traditions of Islamic art, most famously Persian miniatures. Islamic art generally focuses on calligraphy, abstract geometric patterns, and arabesques/plant life

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:51:11 2013 No.3436332 >>3436140 >It's frightening how strong the autism was in this one. Fixed that for you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:53:11 2013 No.3436337 >>3436332 good one bro XDDD

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 00:54:11 2013 No.3436342 >>3436269 Unfortunately I don't have any recommendations. Also your thinking is aOK.

>>	None !Rrxa7zePwI Tue Feb 5 00:59:12 2013 No.3436349 >>3436332 that's an advantage, at least in the sense of pushing philosophy somewhere. a brain with problems is an interesting one.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:11:11 2013 No.3436375
File: 49 KB, 400x400, 1350756775140.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

it took Wittgenstein's entire life to finally work to where Heidegger was in his 20s. Heidegger saw that you didn't need to do it with math/logic, but language was fine. Heidegger was able to end up doing much MUCH more for us.

>mfw

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:21:12 2013 No.3436398 >>3436165 Krishnamurti? That's the only India philosopher I know of.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:24:12 2013 No.3436402 >>3436028 Socrates. Last true philosopher. Father of science view.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 01:33:12 2013 No.3436426
File: 121 KB, 1000x1262, 129896-immanuel-kant-1724-1804-philosopher-transcendental-idealism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because of the Good Will, rational ethics, and the Categorical Imperative.

Also, contentment with lifelong:
>tfw no gf
Someday, I too may reach his level of wizardry.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:06:32 2013 No.3436484 >>3436426 >rational ethics Deontology is a joke.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:11:24 2013 No.3436487 >>3436375 yes but wittgenstein did so much by studying the underlying tenets of math and logic >>3436165 you can't be thinking of arundhati roy

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:15:30 2013 No.3436491 >>3436484 ya man

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 02:53:10 2013 No.3436519

>>3436375

Um the tractatus says that our language is fine. It's only that he didn't want to make academic those discourses which can neither be true or false. If you look closely the possibility for a truth value is his criterion for sense, so he's not saying all that much by making philosophy senseless.

In his lecture on ethics he claims that talk of the ethical is something that he would not ridicule for the life of him despite ethics being "senseless" in the above connotation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:09:05 2013 No.3436529 >>3436426 he shares dat feel with us BROTHERS

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:20:05 2013 No.3436542

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. ..

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:26:06 2013 No.3436554 >>3436165 Avicenna, I think when he did that spiel about the law of non-contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:32:50 2013 No.3436568 File: 11 KB, 199x264, rousseau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Because people not understanding the social contract is the source of a lot of confusion in the world and especially in America.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:33:50 2013 No.3436570 >>3436568 Rousseau is one of the worst writers for a philosophyer

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:34:50 2013 No.3436571 >>3436028 Heidegger is a joke among psychiatrists. No wonder college kids lap his shit up.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:34:50 2013 No.3436572

In terms of hilarious wit, Daniel Dennett. In terms of precision, clarity, and accessibility to the public, Bertrand Russell. In terms of raw content, I can't really think of one philosopher that I can completely agree with. There's always a weakness in their logic somewhere—or they go crazy after the fashion of Wittgenstein.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 03:44:46 2013 No.3436588 For me it's a tie between Jiddu Krishnamurti, Alan Watts and Giordano Bruno

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 04:02:47 2013 No.3436606 Roger Penrose.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 04:35:34 2013 No.3436658 >>3436252 That particular pic is Persian, but there was similar art in what's now Saudi Arabia before it was defaced by Wahhabists.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:10:10 2013 No.3436689 >>3436571 0/10 Psychiatrists are a joke.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:13:10 2013 No.3436697 >>3436689 yawn. Put some effort in.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:14:10 2013 No.3436698 I think Western Continental philosophy peaked with Hegel, or Kierkegaard. None of us know what we are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:15:10 2013 No.3436702 >>3436697 Eh, at least I didn't use the "college kids" straw man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:16:10 2013 No.3436704 >>3436698 Peaked at Kant, Hegel and Kierkegaard are near the summit

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:17:10 2013 No.3436705 >>3436606 >Roger Penrose. >tfw Penrose is actually listed as a philosopher: "Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS, is an English mathematical physicist, recreational mathematician and philosopher."

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:17:10 2013 No.3436706 >>3436704 Have you ever read Hegel? He is the summit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:18:11 2013 No.3436709 >>3436706 >Hegel - Art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immediately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than subjective revelation of beauty. "Objectivity? Really, Hegel. STFU. Next."

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:19:11 2013 No.3436712 >>3436571 Get aload-ah this b8

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:20:10 2013 No.3436717 >>3436706 In that he managed to represent through language, philosophical language, the totality of consciousness in extreme abstraction as it exists and develops in time and space. Too bad the book is almost impenetrable.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:24:10 2013 No.3436725

>>3436709
God man, you have provided the perfect argument for the extermination of our generation.

How can you dismiss Hegel using one sentence, using one word that you probably don't really even understand? Jesus Christ. Even that one sentence gives enough context for me to realize you are severely misunderstanding it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 05:57:10 2013 No.3436759 >>3436717 >he managed >implying it's even remotely possible >implying it's not idiotic to even try

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 06:01:10 2013 No.3436760 File: 41 KB, 200x255, 200px-Zhuangzi.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Zhuangzi -To use the limited to pursue the unlimited, he said, was foolish

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 06:50:12 2013 No.3436807 >>3436028 >favorite philosopher wtf is this shit? mu?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 07:04:11 2013 No.3436815 >>3436717 >>3436759 What book exactly are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 07:07:10 2013 No.3436817 >>3436815 Not sure, probably the Phenomenology of the Spirit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 07:08:10 2013 No.3436818 >>3436815 the one that hegel is known for

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:09:05 2013 No.3436870 >>3436519 >Um the tractatus says Right, the book that Wittgenstein himself shit on year later.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:10:05 2013 No.3436874 >>3436571 No, college kids lap up psychiatry. Literally. OM NOM NOM GIMME MY ADDERALLZ

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:11:05 2013 No.3436875 Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard.

>>	The Nokong Doublein Tue Feb 5 08:16:05 2013 No.3436878 File: 8 KB, 170x223, bataille.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Bataille circle jerks it with the most mystical bits of Hegel and Nietzsche and other friends. L'Impossible.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:18:06 2013 No.3436882

>>3436870

he takes odds with the need to spell out the logic of language, that we can only talk about proposition, and the existence of atomic facts. the current that runs through both books is the idea that language is ok as it is and that it is given to us by living in the world and being human.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:38:05 2013 No.3436906 1) Spinoza 2) Kierkegaard 3) Nietzsche 4) Diogenes Because they are the best philosophers seen from an objective/superior point of view.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:41:06 2013 No.3436915 >>3436170 Umh, eyeglasses, smart-look, scar on his top-left forehead... Must be Harry Potter.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:45:05 2013 No.3436919 >>3436028 >Sartre is way overrated It's 'cool' to mock Sartre, even the scum teachers at my public school did. Seriously, I would say everyone has turned against him. Welcome to 21st century

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 08:47:05 2013 No.3436921 Wittgenstein because the Investigations. Most "meaningful" text.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 12:38:04 2013 No.3437533 Chuang Tzu. Because his Taoism is the greatest philosophy ever and the immense pleasure of his writing style.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 12:39:04 2013 No.3437536 >>3437533 I also really Epicurus, who is strangely similar to Taoism, I think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 12:40:03 2013 No.3437543 >>3436906 true diogenes fan, i.e. troll

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 12:43:04 2013 No.3437553 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkp8IxJNU I like Schopenhauer. He's the philosopher that begins with an 'S'

>>	the only guy on /lit/ who has read Derrida !!ZGTNbOU33+3 Tue Feb 5 12:47:04 2013 No.3437558 Kierkegaard, because the Sickness Unto Death is the only book anyone needs to read as a psychological text in terms of personality and the self.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 12:54:03 2013 No.3437585 >>3436571 >being a joke among psychiatrists That must pretty much mean he is right.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 12:56:03 2013 No.3437593 William James. He's useful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 16:03:16 2013 No.3438248 >>3436140 >brilliant he was a pretty normal guy, only that his standards were different from usual ones as a result of the out-of-the-ordinary character of his upbringing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 16:05:16 2013 No.3438258 Ayn Rand. She made egoism work and adapted the Ubermensch to modernity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 16:06:16 2013 No.3438260 >>3436554 >Avicenna >Indian slap.gif

>>	Bacchus Pantheism Falsch Essex de Vere !!lmSgGrvazOe Tue Feb 5 17:05:16 2013 No.3438530 File: 34 KB, 488x650, Dionysus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3436542 Your Top 5 Philosophers: Archimedes Amadeus Shakespeare Marie Curie Einstein

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:00:02 2013 No.3439619 >>3436709 You clearly havent read Hegel, because this quote is one of the less provocating thing Hegel said. If you are impressed by that, you've not read much philosophy...

>>	ƷӜ̵̨̄Ƹ̵̡ Tue Feb 5 22:05:02 2013 No.3439641 File: 126 KB, 284x423, 1344920191902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3438530 What, no Dylan?

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:07:02 2013 No.3439651

>>3436709
Explain me what Hegel mean by :

art?
Art like Beaux-Arts? or like Ars (Techné)?

Absolute spirit?

Manifeste

Immediately (and explain mediately)

Sense-perception?

Objectivity and Subjectivity (in Hegel sense)

Revelation?

Beauty?

After that, i'll trust that you've read Hegel. For now, i only consider you've taken a quote randomly on branyquote.com and copy past in a random 4chan tread to say : hurr durr, Hegel's a hack.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:19:02 2013 No.3439679

>>3436519

I think the tractatus mainly demonstrates that when language and logic fully reach the place philosophers have been trying to put them, you really cant talk about anything at all, and reality kind of dissolves away.

Ethics is a good example. In "Culture and Values" Wittgenstein says bluntly that his ethics can only be described as "super natural, and nothing more."

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:19:02 2013 No.3439680

>>3436170
Influantial?
Plotinius was the most influential since Aristotle... After that, christian philosophers of Middle Age (Augustinius, Aquin), after that Descartes, Kant, Hegel and then Nietzsche. Dont get me wrong, i like Nietzsche, but he is far from being the most influential philosopher, and i wont deal with it.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:21:02 2013 No.3439689

Also, I love the shit out of Wittgenstein.

At the moment I am part way though "Philosophical Grammar", one of his lesser known middle period works, that deals mostly with the philosophy of mathematics (Wittgenstein once said his greatest contribution was to the philosophy of mathematics).

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:26:03 2013 No.3439701

The way /lit/ reduces philosophers down to meme-sized catchphrases is Orwellian in scope and execution. Give Nietzsche a catchphrase or two. Put some shades on Hume.

Philosophy is about arguments, not characters. Ideas and knowledge are separate from people, and they are what philosophy is about, not: kierkegaard was da coolest 1 cuz he is a badass fo sho xD bitcheszzz *holds up tractatus logico philosophicus* lol did u niggas even read dis??

I am truly sorry.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:29:02 2013 No.3439711

>>3439701

Well you are right, the ideas are more important. But once the idea exists there is little work to be done. Its easiest to reference a set of ideas by who is known for introducing them.

But we mention these people because we love them. Yes, the man, and the name is not on par with the idea. But we do love these men.

You are trying to make me feel like its a mistake to meme-ize the people I love. I wont feel bad for doing so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:32:02 2013 No.3439714 File: 171 KB, 429x480, diogenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Taught me the shortcut to happiness.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:32:02 2013 No.3439715 File: 120 KB, 402x1136, Waking_Life___On_Lorcas_Bridge_by_glimmerfish.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3439711 >we love these men I aint in love with no men, hombre.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:35:03 2013 No.3439725 >>3439701 >Philosophy is about arguments, not characters. This is what analytical faggots actually believe. All philosophy is autobiography and someone's wisdom is best observed in how one actually lives one's life.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:36:02 2013 No.3439726

>>3439711

I cringed and excised myself from this post the minute I hit submit, because I'm holding others to standards which I don't hold myself. I actually havn't read a lot of philosophy and can't argue about the induction principle or is ought problem or any of that shit. So, who the fuck am I to complain about what people post about? Plus I was strawmanning /lit/ from what I expected this thread to be like, but after having read it, I realised it wasn't like that at all.

So the post you replied to now has no owner.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:37:02 2013 No.3439732 >>3439701 I mean...you're absolutely correct. The project of /lit/ should be to completely abandon memespeak as often as possible for the sake of substantial threads/conversation.

Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:41:03 2013 No.3439747

>>3439725
I agree with you, not with him in that which you quote.

I do agree with him in how horrible it is that people treat philosophy by measuring the philosopher's dick. Reducing their ideas (and their characters and their wisdom and their lives) to a catchphrase and a nice picture and saying "this nigga here figured it all out, bros!"

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:44:03 2013 No.3439756 >>3439715 Therefore you are in love with yes men. Homoness: 1 You: 1 in the ass

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:47:03 2013 No.3439765 Rousseau. I find his refusal to ignore real experience, and his determination instead to account for and analyze the complexity of reality and especially politics, immensely appealing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:48:02 2013 No.3439771 File: 2 KB, 313x313, stirner49.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3439747 When done seriously in a sort of tumblrish way, yes. When done for fun it's fun.

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 22:52:02 2013 No.3439785 >>3439771 Sure, only an idiot would take this place seriously anyway

>>	Anonymous Tue Feb 5 23:02:02 2013 No.3439829 >>3439785 it's the best place to discuss literature online though. makes me kinda happy/sad

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:29:15 2013 No.3440111 >>3436568 >implying social contract is fact and not abstract rational for the statist

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:46:14 2013 No.3440141 >>3438248 Not sure if serious, but the dude was obviously brilliant and came from a brilliant family. He excelled at anything he did.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:50:14 2013 No.3440153 >>3439689 >Wittgenstein once said his greatest contribution was to the philosophy of mathematics All his philosophy is about mathematics. Any time he's talking about "language" it's referring to mathematical/scientific language use.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 00:59:14 2013 No.3440162 Augustine and I guess Plotinus by extension.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 01:03:14 2013 No.3440171 >>3440153 lolwut

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 01:18:15 2013 No.3440202 >>3440171 Have a think about why he views language as he does: that it's to refer to an object in the world. That doesn't cover all uses of language (see if you can think of some examples).

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 01:20:15 2013 No.3440210 >>3440153 so thats why they call it philosophy of ordinary language....

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 01:25:15 2013 No.3440231 >>3440210 His OL phil. is still very much mathematically based. Remember the beetle in the box?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 01:30:14 2013 No.3440250 >>3436028 >2012 >Not worshipping Hume ITT: Plebs

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 03:27:14 2013 No.3440509

Nietzsche. I have read every one of his books and a few of them several times. "The Birth of Tragedy" is probably my favourite as it seems to help me most in day to day life... the whole reciprocation between the Apolline and the Dionysiac has become my favourite theme.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 03:55:14 2013 No.3440528 Christopher Hitchens. >inb4 haters

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 03:58:08 2013 No.3440535 Plato, Spinoza, Kant and Wittgenstein

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 04:11:09 2013 No.3440551 >>3440528 What would your parents say if they saw you attempting troll baits this weak? Apply yourself.

>>	MY R&D is filled with H&D Essex de Vere !!lmSgGrvazOe Wed Feb 6 04:59:09 2013 No.3440613 >>3439641 Dylan was the nicest guy in everything: I am a humble homme! Instead of the Acoustic harmoniker saying: I am a derper that herps endlessly, but shit man look at what I didn't do.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 05:00:09 2013 No.3440617 >>3440613 Worst. Tripfaggot. Ever.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:03:01 2013 No.3440712 Carl Sagan

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:11:01 2013 No.3440722 >Heidegger >simple style >consistent Are you being ironic? ITT: Henri Bergson here. I love him, and his contributions to the studies of sociological - my area - determinisms is vast, as incredible as it looks.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:16:01 2013 No.3440732

>>3440509

And it's almost scientific proved this antinomy. It is now known that the left hemisphere of our brains has some functions very similar to Apolline myth: linguistics, order, temporal thinking, conceptual while our right hemisphere has our Dionysiac side: spacial, emotional, holistic, perceptive.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:20:01 2013 No.3440736
File: 222 KB, 1024x1253, theodor-adorno.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

John Zerzan prevented me from killing myself, but I think Adorno (who Zerzan uses a lot) is probably my favorite.

Vaneigem comes at a close second, but I hardly count him as a philosopher.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:22:01 2013 No.3440738 >>3440736 >John Zerzan prevented me from killing myself How, man? Can you explain yourself, please?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:26:02 2013 No.3440746 File: 16 KB, 300x304, bataille.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:27:02 2013 No.3440749 DFW

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:35:01 2013 No.3440763 >>3440738 I found someone who explained a source for my anxiety and depression. Even though I don't fully agree with him, his writing gave me enough hope to continue living, and also introduced me to the Situationists and Frankfurt School.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:45:01 2013 No.3440770

>>3440763
you should check out Stirner, seriously. A lot of people who deal with alienation and ideology and think of themselves as Marxists are really not such big Marxists, if by that we mean in terms of the base-superstructure metaphor qua German Ideology. You would be interested in Stirner because Marx got the criticism of ideology mostly from Stirner (who referred to 'spooks', but the criticism of idealism and humanism Marx takes from Stirner without changing much), but Stirner does not try to fool the individual into serving some abstraction like 'class interest', when it is obvious that the phenomenon of class is only a valid method of orientation for the individual as long as the class interest is actually an overlapping of pre-existing individual interests, as opposed to a crypto-idealist moral standard to which the individual is supposed to adhere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:46:01 2013 No.3440772 >>3440749 Epic. Simply Epic. Brought to you by the DFW-hater reverse troll crowd, the bane of /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:46:01 2013 No.3440774 >>3440763 What is the source of your anxiety and depression? Please, help me. You can really help me.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:53:01 2013 No.3440783

>>3440770
I read Stirner before Zerzan. I like him, but I like the interpretation of him found in The Right to be Greedy better.

>>3440774
Zerzan would say that it's civilization itself. I think the source of my depression and anxiety is the pressure put upon me to be productive and useful to the economy, by the economy itself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:54:01 2013 No.3440784 >>3440772 's'been-a pleasure

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 06:59:01 2013 No.3440795

>>3440783

I feel like the exigency of a "productive" way of life, wherein production means actions based on pragmatical action as the only motive, is overwhelming me.
I feel like shit, really. I'm a nineteen years old "gifted" - as it touches to psicometrics - boy who are a case of underachiever and tedious personality.
I can't escape it by any means. It feels like my will and my self-conscience are in a antagonic relation where I interprete a posteriori everything I do in many ways, and feel sick of the ridiculous of my existence.

My god, why I am saying that in 4chan? I must be really desperate.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:02:02 2013 No.3440801
File: 6 KB, 272x185, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Albert Camus. Wrote the single most important phrase in philosophy.

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest [...] comes afterwards."

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:03:02 2013 No.3440806 >>3440783 >The Right to be Greedy I like Bob Black, I like reading him, but I'm slightly unsure as to how he helps me. Sort of like Hakim Bey.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:04:01 2013 No.3440813 >>3440783 >by the economy itself. >Implying the economy is singular. > Implying the economy has agency.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:05:01 2013 No.3440815 >>3440806 >Bob Black I know he wrote a preface for its Loompanics publication, but I don't know if we're talking about the same thing here. http://libcom.org/library/right-bereedy-theses-practical-necessity-manding-everything

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:05:01 2013 No.3440816 >>3440801 The problem of suicide is terribly neglected in philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:09:01 2013 No.3440831 >>3440815 >I don't know if we're talking about the same thing We are, I'm just confused.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:22:13 2013 No.3440854 I like how no one but this guy >>3440722 pointed out that OP is full of shit about Heidegger being easy to penetrate. For how often his name comes up here, has no one even given him a try?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:23:13 2013 No.3440856 Richard Feynman

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 07:41:12 2013 No.3440891

>>3440854

His neologisms are terrible. It seems like he hampers things on porpuse. For example, why not to call Daisen just Human Being? It's like a need for universality leads him to suppose another subjectivity than the human one, as if his theory would fits even other forms of complex conscience.
The first part of his most important work, Being and Time, is cool. I felt a very pedagogic will when he explained the primacy of the being question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:03:12 2013 No.3440936 >>3440891 "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy" Heidegger I know he's not referring to his writing style, it's just funny and a common joke made at his expense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:04:12 2013 No.3440937 >>3440891 >For example, why not to call Daisen just Human Being? Because it isn't.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:08:12 2013 No.3440942

>>3440783

I think I had as similar experience when reading the Unabomber's works. Similar content. I know that feel.

Interestingly enough, the Unabomber, from prison, wrote some writing addressing a number of stereotypes about primitive life, trying to demonstrate that its not a peaceful, easy, gender equal life. Its actually hard brutal and violent. In part of the article he calls Zerzan out pretty hard for idealizing primitive life as a kind of liberal utopia.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:20:12 2013 No.3440957

>>3440942
I understood the Unabomber's argument, that we are becoming television watching 'leftists' who would be better off in nature, following basic desires like hunting and fucking instead of worrying about reality TV stars. But his basis in Psychology was way off. His argument not only falls apart because of is faulty grounding, he also alginates -even though he defines 'left'- the majority of people who read it by enhancing a left/right dichotomy.

It just came across as a social outcast raging against a technological and economic system purely because he wasn't a part of it.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:28:13 2013 No.3440968

>>3440957

Yeah, I think ultimately, his work wasnt really... rigorous enough? He made argument that I believe, and accept, and changed my perspective forever. For that I treat him like a hero. But, I will admit that his arguments dont always hold up, critically.

So whats wrong with his psychology? I remember he talked about his idea of a power process. That people need their lives to be demanding, full of responsibility, and they need control over them.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:29:13 2013 No.3440972

>>3440891
Because he is doing phenomenology and the phenomenological reduction comes before anthropology.

If he calls the dasein human beings, it means that he still has the knowledge of anthropology and thus has not finished his phenomenological reduction.

I believe that the problem most people have with heidegger is that he uses the language of phenomenology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:33:12 2013 No.3440979 >>3440783 >I think the source of my depression and anxiety is the pressure put upon me to be productive and useful to the economy, by the economy itself. This can for a large part be countered by living as Cynically as you can.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:49:12 2013 No.3441011

>>3440968
>So whats wrong with his psychology?

Two things. In the start he has that 'individuals are responsible for their own actions' section. I'm paraphrasing here, it's a while since I read it. but he goes on to reject any kind of social conditioning. It's pretty obvious that, for the majority of society, views and opinions are an amalgamation of experiences and logic systems that they have been exposed to. For example with his 'leftist' issues, a woman is more likely to be a feminist than a man because of a subjective bias, but he ignores this. We know that a child raised in poverty and beaten will grow up to be different that if it had been raised as a prince, but he fails to accept environmental factors are a huge part of shaping a person, and thinks 'leftists' choose their opinions purely because they are weak and inferior.

Secondly, and partly because of his rejection, his idea that humans would be 'happier in a primitive environment,' is also unfounded. He personally would be happier, as would some other people, but pleasure reward networks don't care. There are plenty of people happy to eat McDonalds and watch TV, also other who are happy with the creative and entrepreneurial freedom the present system provides. There is nothing to suggest that 'primal survival urges' provide a greater amount of pleasure. He uses the argument that automation is replacing labour, thus people are less challenged to support this. While that is true, it is not the reason for depression, television watching –these are 'path of least resistance' issues– and the primitivism solution isn't a logical solutions as the premise is false.

He also uses Marx's argument; "Race, gender, religion, sport are just things invented to keep you from looking at class struggle" But changes 'class struggle' – as he doesn't advocate communism – to be 'keep you from looking at your system and realising anarcho-primitivsm is best'.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 08:55:13 2013 No.3441020

>>3441011

>happiness

I dont know. For example, I remember in a passage in another work of his he says that boredom is a modern phenomenon. I always felt, not that he was arguing that its happier living like a cave man (indeed, he goes out of his way to detail how difficult it is). He seems to treat happiness and boredom like problems in themselves. Like that whole mindset is not healthy.

I remember in another passage he claims that, when he was living in the woods, he reaches some level of peace were 'he doesnt even care if he dies the next week'.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 09:08:12 2013 No.3441038 Isn't primitivism just ideologised can't-hack-itism?

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 09:11:12 2013 No.3441041

>>3441020
>that boredom is a modern phenomenon.

Yeah, he says the rise and improvement in technology means the majority of people are working shitty jobs that aren't challenging them. In the past we had carpenters, masons, blacksmiths etc.., but now these are people stood feeding burgers into broilers, and it's this lack of stimulation that leads people to become complacent consumerists who vegetate in front of televisions all day. These people will then express their weakness and bordom by attacking issues like gender and race because they have become weak and empowered, unable to 'fight the system' and fighting small symptoms of the system instead.

He groups all of society like this as if everyone is like that. While it is a real problem, he ignores the millions of people who don't do that, and actually love going to labs and workshops and pushing the boundaries of technology and knowledge as far as it will go. He sees society as something that will end with computers doing everything, while people sit in boxes eating burgers and watching TV. And it may have a partial truth, but certainly won't apply collectively.

He also rejects any method of self improvement as a negative thing. The person who wants to understand quantum theory, or the athlete who wants to push his body as hard as he can are doing this as a distraction technique because their basic urge to hunt and fuck aren't being met.

I agree with some of his critique of society. But think he greatly exaggerates, his knowledge of human behaviour is flawed, and his solution is unrealistic. Society will always reform into a structure that minimises the burden of hard work. I honestly think that he didn't 'fit in' and just advocated a system that he could thrive in.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 09:41:12 2013 No.3441109

>>3441041

I think ultimately we agree, so I dont mean to disagree but:

1. I do remember a few passages where he acknowledges that some small chunk of society truly fit into academic stuff like mathematics very well.

2. Yeah, I hate saying this, because its more often then not said as an excuse to ignore his points. But, we cant fight or destroy civilization/technology like that. Its literally impossible.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 09:58:12 2013 No.3441147
File: 10 KB, 220x263, 220px-Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This glorious bastard. Understood human nature to its fullest and wasn't afraid to look at the ugly sides of it. His system of the Will is one of the best explanations why humanity is as awful as it is.

I also like Ludwig Boltzmann and Charles Darwin, but they weren't philosophers, so I guess they don't count

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:10:12 2013 No.3441185 >>3441147 >Ludwig Boltzmann I like Boltzmann machines! Yay!

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:13:13 2013 No.3441200 >>3440979 Yeah. I have some money coming to me soon, and I plan to buy a small amount of land (5-10 acres) to live on. I may or may not invite like-minded individuals to live with me. Should be fun.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:21:13 2013 No.3441216

>>3439829
go to goodreads.com and find a good book club. There is a club dedicated to reading the western canon, going through a book in about three months. In depth conversation of the works with people who know literature better than 80% of /lit/. /lit/ is one the worst places . . .

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:36:13 2013 No.3441270
File: 16 KB, 305x330, foucaultandcat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Michel Foucault is easily my favorite. Super smart and insightful about any topic he touches, and really great at breaking down difficult concepts in an interesting and intelligible way.

After him:
Judith Butler
Paul Mann
Jacques Derrida
Ranciere
and Peter Sloterdijk (who I've been reading voraciously of late).

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:46:15 2013 No.3441299 >>3441200 Sounds like you are living the dream friend.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:50:15 2013 No.3441306 >>3441270 "Michel Foucault has a head like a fucking orange" -Jacques Derrida

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:51:15 2013 No.3441307 File: 61 KB, 200x228, mckenna_terence7_med.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:52:15 2013 No.3441309 >>3441307 aww yeah, nigga. Big-T in tha house.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 10:57:15 2013 No.3441325

>>3441306
As far as I can tell that quote only ever came out of chan boards. Derrida admired a lot of Foucault's work, even if the two didn't get along so well personally after Derrida graduated (he was once Foucault's student) until right before Foucault's death. The two referenced each other a bunch and built off of each other in interesting ways.

Also, have you seen Foucault's head? It's not an unapt description. Though I'd go with Grapefruit...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:00:16 2013 No.3441331 >>3441325 >As far as I can tell that quote only ever came out of chan boards. Replace Derrida with Ricky Gervais and Foucault with Karl Pilkington.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:08:15 2013 No.3441349 >>3441309 >>3441307 This is a highschool level thread, don't bring middle school level people.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:08:15 2013 No.3441350 >>3441200 That sounds great. Where do you plan on doing this and how much money are you getting? Just curious, don't worry I'm not looking to exploit you, I already exploit the gubment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:09:15 2013 No.3441353 >>3441307 >"if I keep posting McKenna, maybe someone will start taking my Hedonistic moral philosophy seriously!" >"Timewave zero is some serious shit!"

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:21:16 2013 No.3441372 >>3441353 >Implying the academic world doesn't already take McKenna seriously. >Implying McKenna isn't one of the greatest thinkers of the past 50 years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OXQv66qw

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:23:16 2013 No.3441376 >>3441372 >>Implying the academic world doesn't already take McKenna seriously. >posts youtube video Yes, youtube is at the centre of the academic world.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:27:16 2013 No.3441386 >>3441376 >implying I was directing you to youtube comments >Implying I didn't over-credit your intelligence and foolishly presumed you would listen to what he said.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:27:16 2013 No.3441387

>>3441372
You may like him as much as you want, but no, he is not one of the greatest thinkers of the past 50 years and I don't even have to bring examples, because you'll already find them in the thread and, well, anywhere. He is far off from anything that is even posted here, he doesn't have a clue on any of the heavy philosophical shit. He is tripping and talking about it. Which is fine, which is cool, but then you can't put him with the others at all in how elaborate this whole thing can be. He doesn't even know the words he is using most of the time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:28:16 2013 No.3441390 >>3441376 "Your source of information isn't hip and edgy, therefore you are wrong."

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:39:16 2013 No.3441405 >>3441353 >>3441372 >>3441376 >>3441386 >>3441390 Jesus Christ are you fellows serious? I dont like or dislike McKenna at all. If you like him GREAT. But nothing at all about McKenna is academic.

>>	The problem is /lit/ Sartre's Lazy Eye !!RLlzAVzoISl Wed Feb 6 11:41:16 2013 No.3441408 Sartre may be overrated, but he's still important I really like his views regarding choices Nothing annoys me more than faggots going on about being forced to do things

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 11:46:17 2013 No.3441423 >>3441405 >But nothing at all about McKenna is academic. Terrible troll.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:11:17 2013 No.3441467

Terrence McKenna:

>Wherever and whenever the ego function began to form, it was akin to a cancerous tumor or a blockage in the energy of the psyche. The use of psychedelic plants in a context of shamanic initiation dissolved-as it dissolves today-the knotted structure of the ego into undifferentiated feeling, what Eastern philosophy calls the Tao.

>academic

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:12:16 2013 No.3441470 >>3441408 What did Sartre contribute other than a decent story for a philosophy that already preceded him?

>>	Sartre's Lazy Eye !!RLlzAVzoISl Wed Feb 6 12:15:16 2013 No.3441476 >>3441470 I'm only referring to the concept of choice His writings are neither here nor there I find him a bit dull as an author, but it's the idea about choice even in the face of certain death that appeals to me

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:17:16 2013 No.3441483 File: 67 KB, 450x600, 450px-Socrates_Louvre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] socrates he resume al the "western" (human) thought

Screwtape !!tdBUE9PLvpz Wed Feb 6 12:20:16 2013 No.3441492

>>3441372
>people are accepting lazy arguments, nobody cares about proper education anymore
literally one of the oldest pieces of writing we have is a variation of this complaint, idk what he adds to the discussion

>>3436028
Kierkegaard obvs

>Kierkegaard seems to have genuinely loved Regine but was unable to reconcile the prospect of marriage with his vocation as a writer, his passionate, introspective Christianity and his constant melancholy. Regine was shattered by his rejection of her, and was unwilling to accept Kierkegaard's breaking of their engagement, threatening to kill herself if he did not take her back. Kierkegaard attempted to quell this through actions which made it appear that he did not care for her at all and make it seem that Regine had broken it off. As he later wrote, "there was nothing else for me to do but to venture to the uttermost, to support her, if possible, by means of deception, to do everything to repel her from me in order to rekindle her pride." He wrote her cold, calculated letters in order to make it seem that he didn't love her anymore, but Regine clung to the hope that they would get back together, desperately pleading to him to take her back. On October 11, 1841, Kierkegaard met with her and again broke off the engagement in person. Her father tried to persuade him to reconsider after assessing his Regine's desperate condition, claiming that "It will be the death of her; she is in total despair" Kierkegaard returned the next day and spoke with Regine. To her query as to whether he would ever marry, Kierkegaard icily responded: "Well, yes, in ten years, when I have begun to simmer down and I need a lusty young miss to rejuvenate me." In reality, Kierkegaard had no such plans, and would remain a celibate bachelor for the rest of his life.

>Regine was crushed by the whole affair, as was Kierkegaard, who described spending his nights crying in his bed without her.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:22:16 2013 No.3441499

>>3441467
I'm not sure if you are trying to use that to prove he was academic or not?

Either way he is unquestionable regarded as 'academic'. He was a brilliant biologist, philosopher, mathematician, sociologist, and linguist. Unfortunately his fondness for psychedelics, and acknowledgement of the impact they have on psychology makes him a target for the straight-edge pseudo-intellectuals.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:26:16 2013 No.3441512
File: 70 KB, 961x710, neverhappened.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3441499
"According to Terence McKenna, the universe has a teleological attractor at the end of time that increases interconnectedness, which would eventually reach a singularity of infinite complexity in 2012, at which point anything and everything imaginable would occur simultaneously."

Somebody show me the machine elves!!!!

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:27:16 2013 No.3441515
File: 170 KB, 650x1129, cI553.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3441499

> are trying to use that to prove he was academic or not?
>Either way he is unquestionable regarded as 'academic
> him a target for the straight-edge pseudo-intellectuals.

>cryingProfessor.jpeg

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:29:17 2013 No.3441516

>>3441499

I love how you point out that he's a target for "straight-edge pseudo-intellectuals" while omitting the fact that he's also the go-to psychonaut for stoner pseudo-intellectuals. You also brush off his lazy philosophizing as "acknowledgement of the impact [psychedelics] have on psychology" as if he hadn't penned entire books linking psychedelics to unscientific ideas related to the mind/"ego", only perpetuating new age bullshit culture.

What exactly were his contributions to mathematics and biology? You called him brilliant, after all. Didn't he believe in alchemy also?

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:31:16 2013 No.3441520

>>3441512
Congratulations on bringing up his genius time wave zero theory again as an attempt to discredit him. You're really digging around the bottom of the barrel now, for someone 'who has no opinion either way.'

The singularity wasn't actually his theory though, it's the collective opinion of numerous other scientists. McKenna was just the one who sat down and generated a complex mathematical formula to express it.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:36:17 2013 No.3441529

>>3441516
>go-to psychonaut for stoner pseudo-intellectuals.
Allan Watts.

>lazy philosophizing ... unscientific ideas ... new age bullshit culture.
It's pretty obvious you have either not read him, or totally failed to comprehend his ideas. You can point to almost any philosopher for an example of unscientific bullshit, but McKenna is usually grounded in either philosophy, mathematics or empirical data.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:38:16 2013 No.3441531 >>3441520 >complex mathematical formula You have to be fucking kidding me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:39:16 2013 No.3441534 >>3441529 >it's pretty obvious you have not read him/didn't get him Great argument, champ. Keep deluding yourself. I don't like Watts either, but I respect him way more than McKenna.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:43:16 2013 No.3441537

>>3441531
>complex mathematical formula
>You have to be fucking kidding me.

>Fractal/Logarithmic interpretation of chronological events expressed as data size is pre-school stuff.

Look, you obviously have some kind of grudge against him, or don't understand him. I suggest sitting down and actually trying to read him without your bias. You may hate drugs, but try not to let that blind you.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:47:17 2013 No.3441542

People are taking McKenna with some amount of seriousness? Really?

I remember I watched him talk once, where he said something like.. "You know how people always say that as they have gotten older time goes by faster? THATS BECAUSE IT IS. SOON EVERYTHING WILL JUST BE HAPPENING AT ONCE"

Thats insane.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:48:17 2013 No.3441543 >>3441542 he has a point here though

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:49:17 2013 No.3441544 >>3441543 No he doesnt. How can you claim time is going faster? Relative to what? There is nothing outside of time that you can compare time to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 12:59:17 2013 No.3441552 File: 14 KB, 245x271, eyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441537 >thinking thousands of baseless assumptions about the historical events interpreted as numbers provides accurate data are you serious

labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:05:17 2013 No.3441566
File: 24 KB, 260x196, 260px-Ludwig_Wittgenstein_by_Ben_Richards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

In a sense, Wittgenstein was two philosophers, both of which extremely influential.

He was an honest and clear writer lacking in all pretension and he was sincerely concerned with guiding the student of philosophy through the problems of logic and language that tortured his mind throughout his entire life.

I absolutely love Wittgenstein.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:07:17 2013 No.3441571 >>3437593 hehehe He's...pragmatic...wouldn't you say? :3

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:07:17 2013 No.3441572 File: 196 KB, 1509x1158, CountdowntoSingularityLin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441552 >thinking thousands of baseless assumptions about the historical events interpreted as numbers provides accurate data

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:07:17 2013 No.3441573 >>3439726 You're so cozy /lit/. We don't have hard feelings towards each other here. Also, Rorty, with Wittgenstein, is my favorite thinker, as his pragmatism is just delighting to read about after having read through centuries of philosophy

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:07:17 2013 No.3441574 File: 227 KB, 1503x1164, CountdowntoSingularityLog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441552

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:09:16 2013 No.3441583 >>3441572 >can't refute the fact that selecting relevant history and quantifying it is wish-fulfillment >I'll just post another!

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:10:16 2013 No.3441586

>>3441499
You have to be shitting me.That amount of ball sack licking is absurd, it doesn't matter if you are talking aboud Jesus, Dawkins, Kant, Chaplin or your dad. Get over him.

You are delusional if you think he said anything in that. He managed to misunderstand psychology, taoism and merge with wibbly wobble terms. For people outside of the academic circles, the academic speak may sound a bit wibbly wobbly and that leads to a lot of people rejecting without getting to know better, etc. That is one problem. But you also have the contrary, those who think it IS wibbly wobbly and thus, that they can do the same. Terrence is just tripping, he doesn't connect, he is not saying anything when he says that shit.

Seriously, get over this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:10:16 2013 No.3441587 File: 201 KB, 1205x768, computingpower.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441552 >>3441552

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:11:16 2013 No.3441591 File: 31 KB, 553x370, mooreslaw_graph2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441583

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:11:16 2013 No.3441594 >>3441572 Dear god, the implications that arise from that chart... An "Event" can either be the splitting of the first cell or the agricultural revolution. I have no words.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:11:16 2013 No.3441596 File: 370 KB, 1500x1128, photovoltaic-production-1975-2007-logaritmic-plot-exponential-grwoth-of-solar-power.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441583 >>3441583

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:13:16 2013 No.3441601 >>3441591 >I'll post even more! Meanwhile on the dumb and dumber show...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:13:16 2013 No.3441602 File: 165 KB, 1514x1195, MicroprocessorClockSpeed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441596

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:13:16 2013 No.3441603 >>3441591 >>3441587 >>3441574 >>3441572 You are embarassing yourself... Less internet discussions and youtube videos, pal.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:14:16 2013 No.3441607 >>3441542 >"You know how people always say that as they have gotten older time goes by faster? THATS BECAUSE IT IS. SOON EVERYTHING WILL JUST BE HAPPENING AT ONCE" Please be joking...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:15:16 2013 No.3441614 File: 202 KB, 1508x1251, DynamicRamPrice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441601 >Still denies that the exponential increase does exist. Son, it seems I need to post more.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:15:16 2013 No.3441615

I remember when I started smoking weed at 15 and got deep into some McKenna. Was pretty fun.

>tfw 420 blazed telling people that agriculture and booze and refined sugar is the cause of all problems
>tfw you wish you were just like all tripping on shrooms and in equal utopia
>tfw you can't find dmt in high school so no machine elves

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:15:16 2013 No.3441616

>>3441566

I think you are mistaken friend.

1. I think its a common misconception that Wittgenstein had two famous and different philosophies. Its more accurate to say, he demonstrated the limits of philosophy, retired, and then came back to explain what it was that philosophy was limited in doing.

2. So, I love the tractatus, but its very pretensions, and I think Wittgenstein even admitted that the tractatus is written very pretentiously. It very much snubs the entirety of everyone else's work. It doesnt try and cater to those who misunderstand it. Thats part of why it as necessary for him to come back and do all that other philosophy.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:15:16 2013 No.3441617 >>3441603 Dude just watch (youtube video X) and you'll see, dude. It's like so obviously, we're moving to a point of technology....where like everything will be consciousness...

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:18:16 2013 No.3441625 >>3441566 >tfw deep affection for Luddy Dubs I don't care what they say I'm sure those toddlers were talking shit in class.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:18:17 2013 No.3441621 >>3436028 I don't see why, as a Jew, I should listen to anything a Nazi says.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:18:17 2013 No.3441624 File: 181 KB, 1550x1199, MagneticDataStorage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441617 How can you sit there and deny it? Seriously, are you genuinely that stupid?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:19:16 2013 No.3441626 File: 12 KB, 785x508, terencemckenna.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441594 I am really entertained by that graph. Here, I made my own.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:20:16 2013 No.3441627 >>3441621 But he fucked your Jew women all day. Surely you can't dislike him that much.

labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:20:16 2013 No.3441630

>>3441616

I'm a grad student of history with a BA in Philosophy so I really claim to expertise and whatever comments I make about Wittgenstein are bound to be pretty superficial. I've only read On Certainty, TLP, and PI. I guess I just appreciate how he could graciously admit that he was mistaken. I also appreciate being "taken by the hand" through the PI. Plus I've learned more German from him than in all of my college German classes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:21:16 2013 No.3441632 Gah... time itself isn't passing any quicker, it's just that shit's happening more frequently.

>>	Sartre's Lazy Eye !!RLlzAVzoISl Wed Feb 6 13:21:16 2013 No.3441636 >>3441614 Does that account for inflation?

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:21:16 2013 No.3441637 >>3441624 "Look at these graphs! They have lines!" You sound like my younger brother telling me about "universal consciousness like can alter reality strings, and stuff."

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:22:16 2013 No.3441639 >>3441630 can't claim expertise* Wow, critical typo...

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:23:16 2013 No.3441646

>>3441630

Ah I see. Maybe you know more than I do. I havent read PI or On Certainty yet. I read TLC, and some summaries of his later work. I am part way through "philosophical Grammar' and "Wittgenstein's lectures on the foundations of mathematics." I kind of fell in love, and I decided to read all his work in order. So, as much as I want to read On Certainty, it will be the last work of his I read.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:25:16 2013 No.3441650

>>3441637
>"Look at these graphs! They have lines!"
Do you not understand Logarithmic expressions? Do you not understand an exponential increase?

I'm not claiming anything about 'consciousness' I'm showing you that everything advances at an exponential rate. Are you trolling, or do you honestly not see that?

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:26:16 2013 No.3441654 >>3441646 I enjoy reading him for intellectual masturbation and when I need a break from historical monographs. Good luck in your LW pursuits.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:27:16 2013 No.3441659 >>3441650 "everything advances at an exponential rate" SO....MUCH.....CONFLATION.....

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:28:16 2013 No.3441662 >>3441659 Oh, you are trolling.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:29:16 2013 No.3441664 File: 26 KB, 864x622, quality.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441626

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:31:16 2013 No.3441668 >>3441664 I can't believe that we're really advancing towards a point of universal reptiles. How can anyone argue with those nicely drawn lines and axises?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:33:16 2013 No.3441671 >>3441664 >>3441668 Butthurt pseudo-intellectual told status: [x] Told and loathing in las vegas [x]Told and punishment

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:34:16 2013 No.3441674

>>3441624
Nice that you just grabbed the first thing someone pointed out to use as strawman. So we have moved from McKenna to singularity?lol

I don't like McKenna, not because of what he said, but because how people take him so seriously. I spoke of the very same things he speaks about when I was in college taking LSD and blazing 24/7. It was nice. We managed to go from archeology, to physics, to art, to aliens, to psychology, to politics and back in one second. But we were well aware that we were talking ultimately about sensations, experimenting with our terms, trying to access other modes of thinking. New age, high brow, science, religion, one thing we saw the other day, it was all on the same level. Because we were not making any judgement, we didn't have to dismiss ideas. It was not academic though, none of us knew physics, none of us knew much on psychology. And the more you read about it, the more you learn better on how to use these terms and understand what they mean beyond vapid common sense. And there is something deep about these terms, which is the starting point of the other men posted here. McKenna is not even there.

And it's funny because if there is anything new age thinkers taught, Watts, RAW, McKenna himself was not to bow to these authorities and yet one bows to THEIR authority. The first two still had some humor, they never took themselves or anything seriously, which is very healthy imo.

You are not seeing how much ego you are putting in defending him

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:34:16 2013 No.3441675 >>3441668 It'll all converge into infinite Reptilian Taoist Mckennas soon. Extrapolating laws not relevantly connected to the shaky data I'm using to plot the chart told me so.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:34:16 2013 No.3441676 >>3441671 Nothing happened in 2012.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:35:16 2013 No.3441677 >>3441668 >How can anyone argue with those nicely drawn lines and axises? "I don't believe in mathematics and logic, especially when the evidence is irrefutable. This is just that dumb empirical data science stuff."

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:37:17 2013 No.3441682
File: 71 KB, 625x417, silver.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Don't feed the trolls. Anyone denying the coming singularity of sort can suck a big one.

>throwing ad hominems at ray for supposedly coming off as a leader of some sort of techno cult
>making 0 arguments against ray kurzweil thesis of law of accelerating returns layed out in a 600 page book
>no one has yet to make a good argument against it
>people just whine at his guesses/predictions which are not at all central nor part of his thesis
>guy is a millionare many times over from his inventions, 9000+ honors and accomplishments, and who are you exactly? Some lowlife on an anonoymous image board yelling DERP ONE CONSCIOUSNESS LEL SINGULARITY HO ho WE CYBERBUNK : DDD:D

blow my robo dick/10

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:40:05 2013 No.3441699 >>3441677 >reducing history to laws >not defining "events" I'm drinking a cup of coffee; where does this event fit in to humanity's exponential progress?

>>	lrn2Causation Butterfly effect !!RLlzAVzoISl Wed Feb 6 13:44:05 2013 No.3441709 >>3441699 Monies paid allowed some great thinker to finish master plan

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:44:05 2013 No.3441711

>>3441674
I'm not defending McKenna. I know his calculations were wrong. I'm defending the Idea that Mores exponential increase applies to a wide range of things, both biological and technological. I used to completely reject this stuff back in college, I thought it was new age shit until I studied it.

I'm not pro-McKenna, I'm just amazed at the idiocy of the people ITT who are attempting to deny the exponential increase that's accept as fact by nearly every academic. I don't know how someone can look at the progression of RAM size, or CPU speed, or cell mitosis in bacteria, or bus speed, or internet speed, or data collection, or transistor size, or thousands of other things, actually sit with the data in front of them and deny that its progressing exponentially relative to time.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:44:05 2013 No.3441712 >>3441699 your are also shating your thoughts on the interweb

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:48:05 2013 No.3441723

>>3441711
Ok, but no one is making a big case here about it, anyway. That's why you say "I can't belive no one has an argument!". We are all rolling our eyes here. Take that to /sci/, it is not adding to the thread nor educating anyone. Unrelated to the philosophers itt, I don't care either way.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:50:05 2013 No.3441728 >>3441711 secular millennialism

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:50:05 2013 No.3441729
File: 32 KB, 620x372, Alex-Jones-015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3441699

nowhere, because you're are no one, you will stay no one, forever. You're probably one of those bitter tryhard writers here on /lit/. "Please guys how to get motivation to write. How many words did you guys write today? Are you guys also reading 1 book per day? I think I should travel the world and write about my life experiences. Oh maybe I should do LSD because so many greats did heroin. Fuck my writing sucks critique please? Are you guys published? I want to write so bad. Oh writing. Writing writing writing I need to make it. I want to be famous and get sucked off by Tao Lin. Just fucking kill yourself nigger.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 13:52:06 2013 No.3441736 File: 1.98 MB, 260x152, 1358818643039.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441729

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:53:06 2013 No.3441739 slavoj zizek

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:53:06 2013 No.3441740
File: 224 KB, 1804x1164, coffee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3441699
>I'm drinking a cup of coffee; where does this event fit in to humanity's exponential progress?
Strangely enough, exactly where we'd expect it. You might have thought it would be where the green dot is, but no, we can put any random event onto a logarithmic graph and it always appears on that line.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:56:06 2013 No.3441743 File: 315 KB, 714x675, 1359051815588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3441729 subtle/10

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:58:06 2013 No.3441748

>>3441740
I'm a little curious what the formula used for calculating this is

defining "events" is the major problem I see with this kind of arrangement. The data to really calculate this simply doesn't exist, and simply citing scaling effects doesn't seem isn't very compelling giving the diversity of "events"

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 13:59:06 2013 No.3441753 >>3441729 Your quote never ends. This bugs me tremendously.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:02:05 2013 No.3441759

>>3441723

>I don't care either way

Why don't you fuck off this board yourself, we don't like ignorance here. Being scientifically literate and aware of the distruptive technologies of the 21st century should be well on your mind because you yourself are living in this complex scientific world. But no just read your fucking fiction and flip burgers at macdonals and whine why you're poor while bukowski in one hand and some ascetic bullshit in another to ease your cognitive dissonance for being a gullible ignorant fuckface.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:03:05 2013 No.3441762 Alaxandre Kojeve

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:04:05 2013 No.3441766 >>3441762 Alexandre*

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:06:52 2013 No.3441769 Lloyd Blankfein >Look at those suckers wallowing in their own shit. Look and laugh -- Lloyd Blankfein every night before falling asleep

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:11:23 2013 No.3441781
File: 38 KB, 650x415, groucho-filof_001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3441759
I care for science. I don't care for your egoistic rampage. Much like I can turn up the volume for AIDS in Africa here and call you alienated ignorant for not caring. Not the point of the thread. Don't preach your shit here, if someone wanted to know about it, they would argue with you. Not me.

Also, that's not what cognitive dissonance means.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:11:23 2013 No.3441782 Isaiah Berlin or Noam Chomsky. Because I enjoy their respective philosophies, and they have a lot of interesting things to say about reality, rather than ludicrous abstracts.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:12:23 2013 No.3441783 >>3437558 But thats Christian gibberish?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:14:46 2013 No.3441788 >>3441783 LOL I NO RITE? LOL, STUPID CHRISTIANS, LOLOLOL. GOD IZNT REAL, THERE SO DUMB! LOL! LIKE, HAVE THEY EVEN READ THE GOD DELUSION?! LOL!

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:15:46 2013 No.3441793

>>3441748
The 'events' themselves aren't that important. The time between single cell organisms and mammals is enormous, but the time between homo sapien and now is tiny. You cold add the communist manifesto, the building of the Colosseum, the writing of the epic of Gilgamesh on there and it wont change the graph in the slightest.

It's trying to denote progression. On a linear graph that would be a straight horizontal line up to mammals and curving round until it's almost vertical now. You can add any prehistoric species in our own timeline to the graph and it wont change.

Interestingly, if you map information that humans possess it's an identical path too; knowledge written down, knowledge accumulated about the world. 150,000ish years ago we were using tools and perfecting weapons, the knowledge that our species has accumulated has been increasing exponentially until now we have the internet.

It means if you go back, the time taken between two markers is doubled, but going forward it's halved. We can see the same pattern in almost everything that evolves and progresses.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:16:46 2013 No.3441795 >>3441512 >Somebody show me the machine elves!!!! just go smoke some DMT and see for your self.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:16:46 2013 No.3441796 >>3441783 Kierkegard is wonderful, bro.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:18:34 2013 No.3441801 >>3441796 Alright, guess I'll read it. >>3441788 retard.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:19:05 2013 No.3441803 >>3441788 God isn't real though, and no amount of post-ironic caps lock can change that fact.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:22:04 2013 No.3441815 >>3441803 Don't read Kierkegaard yet. You must first get over that sort of debate entirely. Which is not to say you should "believe in God".

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:30:04 2013 No.3441831

>>3441793
you're not really explaining how the calculation methods are valid. If the only measure of exponential growth is the distance between events, you can easily write this off as increased perception of events and ability to calculate them rather than increasing number of events.

I have significant problems with models like this since they rely on a static function rather than a dynamic one where the function changes based on the context.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:33:05 2013 No.3441838

>>3441537

Every description I read says something about converting the I Ching into fractal equations, which just screams of bullshit, but if you can point me to the actual complex (not "zomg he used the word fractal") math, or, hell, just ANY of the math in the process of converting the I Ching to any kind of useful graph, I'd be more than satisfied.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:35:05 2013 No.3441841 >>3441803 Reading Kierkegaard can actually make you even more edgy towards Christians, since he hates most aspects of popular Christianity, including priests.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:36:04 2013 No.3441845 Kurzweilists are the new Christians. Holy shit. The singularity is Judgement Day.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:37:04 2013 No.3441847 >>3441845 It really isn't, it's like you know absolutely nothing about his ideas.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:39:05 2013 No.3441859 >>3441847 They argue like Christians, too!

>>	Charles Dingus !!N4jGcT6O5vY Wed Feb 6 14:40:04 2013 No.3441863 >>3441859 >>3441845 See: >>3441728

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:41:04 2013 No.3441867 >>3441859 But I'm not a 'Kurzweilist', and that's not even relevant. On what grounds do you draw parallels between people who agree with Kurzweil and Christians?

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:42:04 2013 No.3441868

>>3441847

Well I agree that waiting for the singularity is about the same as waiting for the return of Christ or whatever. Neither is going to happen and then other people will come up with some other thing they think is going to happen. You're all quacks, though.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:45:04 2013 No.3441877 >>3441867 I already implied it. They both think something is inevitable that isn't...to the point where it affects their perception of modern life and the decisions they make.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 14:51:04 2013 No.3441899

>>3441845
we are nearing the end of our epoch already. Look at us. Our grandparents would have thought our parents were insane if they tried to explain the idea of an an ipad to them, but we sit here now, in this thread, collected from many different countries to discuss stuff in real time, in a giant electron web of data. This is part of the singularity. We are a part of it. Do think we are peaking now? We have only just started. People thought the record player was the peak, yet now I can store every song I have ever heard in my pocket. Bell was called a lunatic when he said "One day in the future, we will have a single phone in every city in America."

The singularity isn't a judgement day, it's the actualization of our technological progression. It's very easy to sit back and think this is a far as we can go, but try to see the potential of our species. The same amount of technological change between the French revolution and the Apollo space mission has happened in the past ten years. Think of all the change that has happened in your lifetime and be happy that you are living in the first era where the change is actually visible to our species.

labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:07:05 2013 No.3441956

>>3441899

millennialism and the "end of history" (both secular and religious)

This is one of my favorite intellectual/cultural patterns of modern history. Thank you for introducing me to this contemporary variant.

inb4 "no, but this time it's for REAL"

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:13:04 2013 No.3441977

>>3441899
>Our grandparents would have thought our parents were insane if they tried to explain the idea of an an ipad to them

It's like a television, but it's flat and touching it moves things on the screen. Back then people thought we'd be in space by now with flying cars and shit. They wouldn't have had a hard time understanding the filing cabinet would be replaced with a television that you could read off of and type into.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:15:05 2013 No.3441987 File: 34 KB, 232x235, 2000522.jpg[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] because fuck you!

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:17:05 2013 No.3441997

>>3441956
What part of my post are you attempting to refute? You can sit with your fingers in your ears if you want and we will happily invent things around you. If you wouldn't mind, as I really don't know what your problem is, could you outline your opposition for me?. As far as I can see, your argument must be either, "humans haven't advanced at all and we still live in caves", or "we have been advancing exponentially up to now, but this is the cut-off point because I'm not intelligent enough to imagine any more progression."

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:19:05 2013 No.3442007

>>3441868
Please die in a fire

>>3441956
Do you live in a fucking cave? Are you fucking blind? Turn on the fucking TV and watch the science channel for a second and see the radical advances in biotech, nanotech

What are you fucking arguments?

I have scientific data, what the fuck do you got? QUACK SHIT faggot. fucking jump off a fucking bridge

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:20:05 2013 No.3442010 >>3441977 You say that, but people still have a hard time believing we can advance any further now.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:20:05 2013 No.3442016 >>3441956 >I don't understand that the world is changing

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:21:05 2013 No.3442018 >>3441997 please see: earlier arguments about the freely interpretable character of the data. unverifiable projections about continual increase are also suspect

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:21:05 2013 No.3442020 >>3441997 It seems to me that you're making two claims: >We are reaching a point of "technological actualization" >We have only "just started" to advance What will "actualization" look like?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:21:05 2013 No.3442023 >>3441997 >Feeding the troll Shiggy

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:22:05 2013 No.3442024 >>3442007 Keep on with that attitude and no one will assimilate with you.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:22:05 2013 No.3442025 File: 19 KB, 491x404, 1358726007986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3442007

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:23:05 2013 No.3442027 >>3442025 Not that guy, but reaction pictures are a cop out.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:24:05 2013 No.3442033 >>3442016 >>3442007 It's possible to assert that the world is changing without asserting that we're reaching a point of singularity. That is what I am doing. Christ Almighty

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:27:05 2013 No.3442054

>>3442033
>It's possible to assert that the world is changing without asserting that we're reaching a point of singularity.

The singularity is the future point where no further change is possible. So do you think we will keep advancing forever, or just stop?

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:29:04 2013 No.3442066 >>3442054 What kind of vague and loaded question is that? No, I don't believe we will ever reach a point where we will go "ok, we're done, now we can chill." I assume this is what you're asking?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:30:05 2013 No.3442069 >>3442054 That's not what the singularity is. The singularity is just the point at which the human race is completely unidentifiable as what it used to be.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:30:05 2013 No.3442070 File: 12 KB, 313x203, 1360182125548.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3442027 >cropout

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:31:05 2013 No.3442076 >>3442054 Honestly, how old are you? >a 16 year old YouTube scholar

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:32:05 2013 No.3442084 >>3442076 >>3442066 >Responds to the same post twice Jesus Christ, calm down.

>>	labor history bro Wed Feb 6 15:33:05 2013 No.3442085 >>3442084 I need to get off the internet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:40:05 2013 No.3442113 >>3442070 it kinda looks like teemo

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:46:05 2013 No.3442126

>>3442069
Not the kurzweilian singularity. An element of it is humans merging with technology. Starting of with prosthetic augmentation, skin grafts, neurological augmentation; stimulating receptors, mimicking neurons. Eventually we will gain control of our biosphere at the atomic level. We have just managed to make nanotubes; we can take carbon atoms and shape them into perfect geometric shapes, and form then into large structures, we should manage other atoms within a few years. The singularity is the point where we have full control and interaction with everything else, both biological and technological.

People remain opposed mainly because of scientific ignorance. You can tell someone to imagine bullet proof skin, or neuroscans that can show pictures formed in the brain and they'll laugh at you, not realizing that we do this already. People seem to like stasis and hate change. Some get very agitated knowing that we can e-mail biological organisms. If you show someone a computer generated model of a holographic organism, email it to a friend and watch them 'print' it into an actual living creature, people get terrified, maybe at the thought of human DNA being sent and constructed from the atomic level and artificially created to be perfectly able to interact with silicone technology.

So now we get stem cell laws, compulsory termination date on spliced organisms, bureaucracy everywhere. People fear the singularity and ridicule anyone discussing it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:48:05 2013 No.3442129 >>3442027 To be fair, "turn on the TV" isn't much of an argument to respond to.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:53:05 2013 No.3442143 >>3442007 >I have scientific data No, you don't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:54:06 2013 No.3442145 >>3442085 ITS THA SINGULARITY THATS WHY YOURE ON THE INTERNET DONT YOU SEE???

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:54:06 2013 No.3442146 The singularity will either happen or not happen. Since we aren't the people making it happen, it doesn't matter very much. We can just wait and see and then perhaps later cry to see jew robots like kurzweil taking off in spaceships.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:55:06 2013 No.3442150 File: 3 KB, 112x126, cerealguy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3442126 except that still isn't a very compelling proof

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:56:05 2013 No.3442152

The very real and very recent proposition of decentralization and distribution as a predicate for the most powerful applications of computing power is well-recognized by only very very few traditional institutions or private corporations. The matter of this technology's ownership is far less important than you might guess (especially compared to the importance of the question of ownership and leveraging of the data generated.) This is mainly because so few classically vertical organizations are even capable of conceiving or building these applications due to cultural allergy to sharing and collective valuation. Kurzweil, George Gilder and others need review and a rewrite.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 15:57:05 2013 No.3442154 >>3442129 It's not an argument, it's a suggestion because you seem to completely ignorant of our current level of scientific progress.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:02:05 2013 No.3442173

>>3442126
>You can tell someone to imagine bullet proof skin, or neuroscans that can show pictures formed in the brain and they'll laugh at you, not realizing that we do this already.

First of all, nobody would laugh at you when you tell them these things, they'd just believe it. Because, like you, they're actually ignorant to the scientific details of the accomplishment and are only parroting the piss poor journalism that reported the research.

Second of all, we haven't developed bullet proof skin in the sense that you're implying (actual living skin), it's composite material that isn't even fully bullet proof.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:06:06 2013 No.3442185

>>3442154
>because you

Me? You were talking to labor history bro, not me.

>our current level of scientific progress

It's good, but completely blown out of proportion by people like you. And I can say "like you" because you suggested going to the television instead of going to the actual studies. You want the glitz and glorification, you don't want to see what has actually been done. I'm not saying nothing impressive has been accomplished, because that is certainly not true, but you're basically talking out of your ass and corralling all of these disparate threads of progress into the notion of a singularity, which won't ever happen unless the West changes its infrastructure in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:07:06 2013 No.3442187 I dont know yet. Anyway i only have Heideggers Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes here.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:09:05 2013 No.3442194

>>3442187
There is a collection in English called "Poetry, Language, Thought" that includes that essay along with a few others (including his excellent essay on poetry). Not sure if it's available as a collection in German, but it's definitely worth reading (and you could obviously get the original essays in German if you wanted).

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:09:05 2013 No.3442195 Belief in the singularity is is basically a religion at this point. The acceptance of atheism but the yearning for something divine. Prove me wrong.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:10:05 2013 No.3442200

>>3442173
>Because, like you, they're actually ignorant to the scientific details
Please stop the childish name calling. I am glad you goggled 'bullet proof skin,' though I'm disappointed you didn't understand it. I find it remarkable that I'm 'scientifically ignorant' yet hold a degree in cybernetics.

>we haven't developed bullet proof skin in the sense that you're implying (actual living skin)
The skin wasn't grafted on to a body, I never said it was, but yes, it was human skin. If you actually want a discussion, I'll don a trip for this thread and talk to you, but just stop posting tedious contradictions.

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:11:05 2013 No.3442205

>>3442195
It would be more apt to say that it is akin to modern interpretations of religion rather than "a religion", meaning that its proponents are both delusional and ignorant of the "facts" of their own beliefs...but your comment is only going to derail the thread even further so shame on you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:14:05 2013 No.3442216 >>3442195 >Prove me wrong. No need. Time will do that for us.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:16:04 2013 No.3442224 File: 894 KB, 200x189, 1359324516676.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3442154 >>3442007 >turn on the tv Dude, that is pop-sci bullshit vomited onto you, don't believe that crap. What the fuck are you even doing watching tv in 2013?!

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:22:06 2013 No.3442243

>>3442200
Why did you also cut out the part about it not actually being bulletproof? The point of you bringing that example up was to amaze the reader with our progress ("not realizing we do this already")...which was misleading. What didn't I understand, though?

By the way, holding a degree doesn't preclude you from being scientifically ignorant. Even if it's a technical degree. It just makes the case more shameful.

>name calling

I called you the thing that you mistakenly called me. You don't seem to really know what you're talking about. But for the sake of the argument, you should post the relevant papers to things you want to impress us with. And no Discovery links, no Mickey Mouse bullshit. We're grownups.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:23:06 2013 No.3442246 Singularity sounds like the whole universe becoming aware of it self thing. amirite ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:25:06 2013 No.3442252 Gorgias. Nothing is true, everything is permitted was his creed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:33:06 2013 No.3442281 >>3436049 this

Anonymous Wed Feb 6 16:52:10 2013 No.3442364
File: 270 KB, 960x504, bits-mann-tmagArticle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3442243
>you should post the relevant papers to things you want to impress us with.

I'm not going to scour google for citations from lecture notes, but I'll try and impress you with the impending technological revolution. The singularity is, in part, the merger of bio with tech, but we are already there, right? Every time you use a tech device you are temporarily outsourcing you conciousness to a more efficient device; a phone becomes an extension of your hearing, a word document allows you to store thoughts. A more complete merger with technology is not only possible, but inevitable. First up on the stage to impress you is Steve Mann(pic related). This guy actually beamed a laser into his retina so he can read his emails and 'project' onto surfaces. He is transcending his biological limitations.

Up next; Kevin Warwick. He can walk around in pitch black and navigate his way via an implant in his arm –I think he's had it removed now though. It plugged directly into his nervous system to allow him to 'feel' proximity to objects; he has given himself an extra sense. (Mann is at UofToronto and Warwick is at UofReading, relevant papers should be easy to find).

We also have synthetic organs, synthetic blood, in vitro meat, prosthetics that can be controlled mentally, fMRA scanners that can generate an image of what you are looking at via neural activity. We have self driving cars on the roads, gene splicing, organisms that started life as binary code, 23 and me[*] and a host of other things that raise us above our lowly primate origin, becoming denizens of a technological kingdom that we have created and are in control of. We can and will decommission natural selection, and are already in the singularity.

[*]This is worth doing. The company will genotype your DNA and tell you your full ancestory, and what hereditary illnesses you are likely to get, so should combat now.
www.23andme.com/howitworks/

We will code the perfect mind, the perfect body, and it will be glorious. Anonymous Wed Feb 6 17:23:12 2013 No.3442474
File: 40 KB, 670x459, 1557866t139h9810.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fuck everyone in this thread who denies the exponential rise of technology and belives we'll continue to use this 100,000 year old body designed to survive in the wild, susceptible to disease and death, when we're already building and seeing the tools to overcome these limitations and remove these defunct functions of our old reptile brain that once helped us survive but today shape our world sometimes in the most sickening way.

Fuck everyone in this thread who denies the exponential rise of technology and doesn't see that the world is getting more intervowen and complex by the hour on an exponential scale mostly due to the rapid rise of information technologies and because of this exponential change we are lead to a point in time where humans can't keep up with the incoming flow of information and change with this old fucking money ape shit body and brain.

Fuck everyone in this thread who denies the exponential rise of technology and can't see the distruptive implications of strong AI with computing power of all of humans brains on earth as it swoops university Phd degrees in milliseconds and rises above human intelligence trillionfold and moreover fuck people who can't see the current interconnections of humanity and AI as already everything from power grids to banking to planes run on intelligent systems and fuck you people who haven't even heard of Deep blue beating Gasparov at chess and Watson dominating world champions at Jeopardy.

Last, but not least Fuck everyone who.. actually, I'm done. I will never fucking again let my ape brain take over my conscious mind and let it shitpost on 4chan in an attempt to satisfy some desire to prove a point or to be 'correct' and 'right' or whatever the fuck just made me write these fucking 4 paragraphs. LOL NIGGER :DDD:DD

Anonymous Thu Feb 7 06:40:20 2013 No.3444679

>>3441997
>we will happily invent things around you
no, we both know all you will do is jack off to CGI pix of cyber sex dolls and wait for TEH FUTUER to come in all its holiness and grace you with eternal life in CYBOR HAEVAN with INFINITEEEE cyber sex dolls

You retards are not scientists that actually make change happen, you are self-indulged nutters, pseudo-intellectual, hedonistic gadget fetishists. It's you and your half-assed naive worldview that allows libtardian neoliberals to justify their exploitation of people, environment, limited resources. NO ACTUAL SCINETISTS BELIEVE FOR A SECOND IN SINGULARITY. Get a grip cranks.

Anonymous Thu Feb 7 06:55:09 2013 No.3444728

>>3442126
it's so cute when self-deluded cultists claim the achievements of science as their own and try to fit them into their grand narrative of judgement day and cyb0r haevean. You pull shit out of your ass - christards do the same

you are not scientists, you are a circle jerk club of

your lord and savior yudkowsky shits on consensus science, how come you didn't know that. lurk moar

Anonymous Thu Feb 7 07:03:11 2013 No.3444761

>>3442474
ye babby, keep jacking off to your fantasies. Keep clappin' and cheerin' and wishin' real hard - jezus oops sorry mista yudkowsky will make it happen

keep throwing meaningless memes of stronk supa speciul non-existent thing being better than weak supa speciul non-existant thing

don't forget to send your pocket money to singularity "institute" (LOL), yudkowsky and his crowd of yes-men need help in coding ROBO-JESUS

>Fuck everyone
np, FUCK YOU for being a deluded, weak-willed ingoramus indulging in fantasies, pretending to actually do something for progress and shamelessly claiming achievements of science as your own.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature