/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3871315]

I recently finished a university philosophy class. I really liked it (well, parts of it). I'm in a strict science degree so I don't have many free courses, so I thought I'd just explore other ideas in greater depth and continue from there. It seems like tons of information on the internet exists, so I'm just reading stuff from .edu websites on ideas I want to know more about. Is this the best way to go or should I just find a harder text book and go through it?

Look an elephant!

[Anonymous No.3871335]

Science and philosophy are mutually exclusive and incompatible.

[Anonymous No.3871347]

Read the Greeks brah

[Anonymous No.3871348]

>>3871335
No they're not. They cross paths at the roots and branch out separately. Its true philosophy will never tell you things which are as useful as science often can be, but well there's more to living a life than just not being dead yet.

[Anonymous No.3871358]

>>3871348
no there isn't

[Anonymous No.3871362]

>>3871348

where's your comic?

[Anonymous No.3871371]

>>3871348
philosophy has shaped the world that we live in more than science.

[Anonymous No.3871383]

>>3871315
It really depends what kind of philosophy you're looking for.
You could always start from the beginning (pre-socratics and such) and work your way up through history. That way you'd be able to grasp the fundamental concepts and how they evolve, so within time you'll know a lot of philosophy "inside and out".

[Anonymous No.3871404]

Just gonna throw this out there, but maybe you should take a gander at Aristotle.
He worked on a broad spectrum of subjects (logic, metaphysics, etc) and would work very well with your scientific work.
Perhaps you could read something like his Nicomachean Ethics, find what you like, and follow the subject on from there.

Here's a link to the ethics: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

[Anonymous No.3871407]

>>3871371
>written on a computer
>sitting on polymers
>eating food grown with artificial fertilizers

Yeah, no

[Anonymous No.3871410]

>>3871407
no empiricism, a philosophy, no science. game, set and match.

[Anonymous No.3871415]

>>3871410
With the invention of the scientific method philosophy became obsolete.

[Anonymous No.3871421]

Text books are great because they always give recommended reading! Good text books will guide you by the hand to the areas which you should naturally take to gain a better comprehension of a subject.

>>3871410
stop answering

[Anonymous No.3871422]

>>3871415
The scientific method was invented with philosophy bruh

[Anonymous No.3871426]

>>3871383
I don't advocate the chronological approach. Its rather pointless and over emphasizes the outdated. Don't get me wrong there's a lot to like in some of the stuff, but I really think its best to work backwards from contemporary work, from real conversations instead of from old dead ones written in stone. Too often I see people sort of deifying the old philosophers, people reading philosophy and not actually think and participating in the project of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3871427]

>>3871422
So what? Do philosofags actually believe appeal to tradition is a valid argument? Humans evolved from monkeys. Does that mean you deny we are better than monkeys?

[Anonymous No.3871428]

>>3871427
What does "better" mean?

[Anonymous No.3871431]

>>3871428
A person who likes to make wagers.

[Anonymous No.3871433]

>>3871428
Are you too cognitively impaired to understand colloquial language?

[Anonymous No.3871435]

>>3871431
then my money is on the monkeys.

[Anonymous No.3871436]

>>3871427
Evolution doesn't imply objective value judgments like "better than."

[Anonymous No.3871446]

>>3871436
Common sense implies them and denying common sense is just stupid. By denying common sense philosophers are on the same level with conspiracy tinfoil hats, pseudoscientists and schizophrenics.

[Anonymous No.3871453]

>>3871446
>Common sense implies them

That's not science.

[OP No.3871503]

That's a good point, I forgot textbooks had suggested readings. I don't know how I could pick a textbook though, I'd imagine it would be extremely difficult to find one that didn't cover the stuff in the one I just read. I asked this on /adv/ first, someone asked what ideas I liked, I'm seeing a few people ask here too, I posted this as a response:

Becoming more authentic is the main appeal. A lot of the dissatisfactions I've had in my life have been made extremely clear. I've been able to change a lot of things in my life for the better with ease because it didn't make sense not to. To mention some specific ideas I liked:

>The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord.
>On the Poverty of Student Life (situationist essay).
>Existentialism had great ideas.
>Self actualization and fully functioning persons (although that's pretty basic).
>I liked hearing about Steve Fitch's ideas about art.
>Peter Singer on "location-ism".
>Value of work.
>Quality, as an idea, and in life.

Mostly basic stuff, there is a lot of stuff I don't care about, mainly, repetitive feminist theories.

[OP No.3871579]

pls respond

[Anonymous No.3871591]

Just go read Donald Davidson.

[Anonymous No.3871816]

Philosophy is just mathematics for idiots who don't understand numbers or abstraction.

Philosophy uses a lot of the same tools, like 'proof by contradiction'; the only difference is that philosophy doesn't ever use well defined terms and often doesn't follow logically (as a result of not being able to define the ideas you're playing around with in the first place)

[Anonymous No.3871994]

>>3871816
>philosophy doesn't ever use well defined terms

nigga have you even read the Socratic Dialogues?

[Anonymous No.3872022]

>>3871994
>WELL defined
>Socrates

[Anonymous No.3872119]

>>3871427
that is not really an appeal to tradition...but speaking of logical fallacies, nice appeal to ridicule and red herring bro
consider the following
>philosophy has typically four categories: Metaphysics (what IS it) Epistemology (how do we know what it is) Ethics (what do we do after answering first two) Aesthetics (how do we communicate the answers)
>so philosophy (lit: "love of wisdom") asks "what is it? How do I know (ie: the logical process) how do I act? How do I tell?
> science asks the same questions through the scientific method, which is essentially the process of induction; observe reality, formulate and idea, devise an experiment come to a conclusion, conduct the experiment.
>so science is, at its prime root is a logical process of inquiry based on our perceptions (again, what is, how do I know what is) to come to a conclusion
>Ethics and Aesthics come into the scientific field when you consider how a scientist chooses to proceed after coming to a conclusion. Do you continue your study despite it's dangers to (say) capitalism as in the case of Henry Lai and his study of dangerous cell phone radiation? Or occult it in the case of the China Study and the "benefits" of a low-fat/cholesterol diet?
>aesthetics is a bit harder, but authors like Joyce described the "science" of dreaming in Finnagens Wake or architects like Buckminster Fuller's natural beauty of his design science and rules of synergy

[Anonymous No.3872124]

Also OP what type of science are you in specifically? To get into philosophy and science/physics at the same time, try reading Newton (especially his responses to Descarte's "science") He is a good example of using induction through the scientific method. Galileo also said he took his knowledge of scientific method from Aristotle's logic Also consider listening to David Harriman's 6 hour lecture "The Philosophic Corruption of Physics" available on Peace Revolution Podcast. (don't remember the podcast number, just search for "harriman" on the podcasts website)
That will give you an idea of how the philosophy of Kant made possible the ideas of quantum physics, denial of atomic theory (for a time) and how science has taken mathematical expressions to the extreme (to the point at which we have "invented" black holes!) Just be careful you don't become an objectivist.....lol

I wouldn't suggest textbooks, you'll basically be taking reading suggestions from a company more interested in book sales than giving out information.

>>3871503
>Existentialism
I liked Simone de Bourvoise "ethics of existentialism" if you'd like to be existentially authentic
>self actualization
study the Trivium Method, a guide to gain a knowledge base, understanding through informal logical fallacies/syllogisms, and wisdom by learnign rhetorical ideas of expressing yourself.
>ideas about art
(being this is /lit/) Aquinas theory of aesthetics which is summarized in Joyce's works (portrait of the artist)

[Anonymous No.3872141]

>>3872022
so attack Socrates because his definitions are achaic by our standards? hmmmm
on the other hand, you could examine the Dialogues method of inquiry. The first step in his debates is to arrive at a definition both parties can agree on. I argue the principle of the Dialogues and of the method of the first "true" philosopher rather than the literal definitions he came up with.
This may be more obvious when you actually read the material rather than insult the person himself (an ad hominum!)

[Anonymous No.3872340]

>>3872124
Sorry for responding late, I thought the thread died, I'll read all the things you suggested they sound good. I'm in geophysics, a subset of geological engineering at my university.

[Anonymous No.3873366]

>>3872340
>geophysics
hmmm
well I don't know of many philosophers that have to do with that in particular. But you may get a kick out of what pre-socratic philosophers (thales, anaximander, aneximenes)considered to be the prime nature of things (either earth, wind, water, fire or infinity) lol
Overall though, to draw out the most form philosophy (or ANY subject from sushi making to astro-physics) you need to have a good sense of critical thinking. Posted above what the Trivium Method; it is better than any "self-help" book at getting you to think stronger, analyse and realize mental potential
>a link for ye
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
also since you are in geophysics yo may be interested to move on to the Quadrivium because as the Trivium is a practice in MIND the Quadrivium is a practice in MATTER

[Anonymous No.3873376]

Philosophy: A Literary and Conceptual Approach by Porter.