Hey, /lit/. I've got a question. What should I read in order to get into Saint Thomas Aquinus? In what order should I read his works? Thanks in advance!

File: 413 KB, 548x536, Santo Tomás Basado.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:41:23 2013 No.4276543 [Reply] [Original]

Hey, /lit/. I've got a question.

What should I read in order to get into Saint Thomas Aquinus? In what order should I read his works?

Thanks in advance!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:47:23 2013 No.4276563 >Aquinas "Right guys, now hold my trappist beer, imma prove god is real". "haha ok" "Well, god is real... because... uhhh... Because god." "AHAHAHAHAH OMG" "CLASSIC THOMAS" "ENCORE!"

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:49:53 2013 No.4276568 Start from the beginning, like you would with any other theologian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:50:53 2013 No.4276571 The Bible, though that might seem overly obvious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:51:53 2013 No.4276574 >>4276563 your fedora is showing

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:51:53 2013 No.4276576

>>4276543
Summa Theologica. It's his primary work and considered his most important. He writes about Aristotle too (who's philosophy was a big influence on Catholicism, along with Plato through Augustine who's book City of God is also supposed to be pretty good/important).

>that image
That is why I love his work. Same with Pascal, who we had a thread on a couple of days ago. Shit's great.

iVulgarThrust !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 19:52:53 2013 No.4276581

the summa obviously, but why?

also, how old are you and what are your qualifications?
you won't understand a word if you're the kind of common knob found in this shithole

issues of comprehension aside, that work is absolutely obsolete in this day and age, scratch that, the whole body of work on practical reason is obsolete.

the retarded ox really serves as nothing but an widely used example of direct appeal to transcendent signifiers...which has now become an established formal flaw in modern logic

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:52:53 2013 No.4276584 >>4276574 >you have to be an atheist to think Aquinas' argument for God is weak Cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:55:54 2013 No.4276591 >>4276574 >buzzwords Try harder.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:58:55 2013 No.4276601 >>4276574 >what is the argumentum ad hominem

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 19:58:55 2013 No.4276602 >>4276591 Considering the effort/quality of the post it was responding to, I'm not sure you have much of a point here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:00:55 2013 No.4276609 >>4276602 >ad hominem without buzzwords We're getting better, I'll give that to you.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:00:55 2013 No.4276612

>>4276576
Thanks!
So, I should also read Aristotle, Plato and Agustine too. I already have the basic concepts of the first two, but Agustine is new to me. I'll check out City of God.

>>4276581
Well, if you insist. I'm 19 and I study English Literature, but nevertheless, I want to read Aquinas because I know he is a very important figure in theology and philosophy.

Regarding the supposed "out-dated" nature of his work you are talking about, he still stands as one of the most influential thinkers, and his work is still relevant.

Anyway, thanks for the honest answer.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:01:54 2013 No.4276614 hay guiz, lets make sarcastic passes at each other in internet speak but don't address anything. It's really cool when you do that!

>>	iVulgarThrust !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 20:02:54 2013 No.4276616 >>4276612 >relevant to what?

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:07:55 2013 No.4276629

>>4276616
Relevant in the sense that his work is still quoted at university courses (or at least in my university). I understand the point you are making, but I also believe that reading him will help me in understanding other philosophical works.

I'm religious, so I might be biased, but would reading his work really harm my knowledge or my way of seeing the world? I do not try to convert anyone or prove atheist wrong or the like, I just want a better undestanding of my religion (or at least, of my religious ideals).

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:10:55 2013 No.4276637 File: 51 KB, 500x753, history-god1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4276629 >I just want a better undestanding of my religion (or at least, of my religious ideals). This seems like a good book for you

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:11:54 2013 No.4276639

>>4276612
Yes, you should get around to reading some of their major works, they're very enjoyable and have an influence on a lot of other philosophers outside of Catholicism. Augustine was the primary philosopher before Aquinas.

>>4276629
Don't listen to him, I think he's just being an ass. Aquinas is still relevant and not as out-dated as he claims. The last paper published discussing his work and Thomism in general was published in 2008. There's been some more work published on his ethical philosophy throughout and after the 1900's as well, which isn't too far back. The Catholic church still regularly publishes philosophy stuff as well, last I checked, if you're interested in more of that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:11:54 2013 No.4276641 File: 24 KB, 315x475, 413PQZNSGNL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4276637 This one's pretty useful as well

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:16:54 2013 No.4276653 >>4276637 >>4276641 Thanks, I'll chek them out too. >>4276639 Thanks a lot, you have been really helpful. I'll see if I can get ahold of those books.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:18:54 2013 No.4276660 File: 49 KB, 310x459, Kierkegaard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw the last Christian died in Copenhagen

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:19:56 2013 No.4276661 >>4276653 No problem, enjoy.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 20:49:12 2013 No.4276730

>>4276629

i really don't care about converting you i'm merely stating a fact, ie. that
your hrhrhr entire religion is fucking wrong and terminally retarded. aquinas justifies his bullshit by a direct appeal to the big daddy of all transcendental signifiers thereby making the entirety of the summa one big circular argument.
it is the year two thousand thirteen.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 20:56:11 2013 No.4276743

>>4276730

the cosmological argument was destroyed centuries ago. you have no legs to stand on. the crux of your religion has now been classified as a formal argumentative error in modern logic, together with ad hominems, appeals to the crowd, red herrings, etc.

you just cannot construct a synthetic foundationalism which begins in the real and ends outside the scope of the immanent. you do not have the luxury of transcending the boundaries of the material, you can't just fucking introduce a meaningless signifier, a ghost, to serve as both the conclusion and foundation of the premises. your entire life has been a sham.
wake the fuck up idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 20:57:11 2013 No.4276745 File: 165 KB, 773x1024, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4276660 There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:05:11 2013 No.4276767 File: 54 KB, 450x675, the.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:09:11 2013 No.4276777 File: 9 KB, 236x213, 0xRJ866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4276563

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:25:12 2013 No.4276837

>>4276730
>>4276743
Look at this fucking child attempting to shove his militant atheistic idiocy on a completely non-threatening and passive theist.
You are the fucking scum of this earth.
Do the world a favor and kill yourself right now you disgusting, worthless piece of shit.

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 21:27:12 2013 No.4276843 >>4276837 aww come on bae dont be like that

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:27:12 2013 No.4276845 >>4276743 It's like my entire life...is a spook

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:39:12 2013 No.4276881 >>4276843 Seriously fucking kill yourself you scumbag. You need to kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:44:11 2013 No.4276893 Aristotle is immensely important for understanding his writings. Plato and particularly the Neo-platonists (Proclus, Boethius, Pseudo-Dionysius etc) are also important influences. Maybe the writings of the Church Fathers as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:44:11 2013 No.4276894 >>4276637 >Don't read classic primary texts to understand the history of ideas. Read this shitty pop trash and receive an incomplete, shallow, and entertaining view of those ideas instead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:45:12 2013 No.4276896 File: 405 KB, 800x532, Parrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4276743 >you just cannot construct a synthetic foundationalism which begins in the real and ends outside the scope of the immanent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:46:12 2013 No.4276899 >>4276743 lol did you get touched in church or something? tone down the euphoria, my brother in christ. I hope you don't mind that I pray for you.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:49:12 2013 No.4276911

OP here.

>>4276894
I'll be sure to read both the Bible and the Quran, but I don't think these kind of books are bad.

>>4276730
>>4276743
Wow, you are a retard. I don't know if you are trolling or being serious, but you need to calm the fuck down. You are no better than those fanatic idiots who claim to understand religion when they can't even understand the Book of Job.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:51:11 2013 No.4276914 >>4276837 >>4276899 >>4276911 >focusing on how his post sounds angry rather than saying anything to refute it

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:51:11 2013 No.4276915 >>4276911 >I'll be sure to read both the Bible and the Quran, but I don't think these kind of books are bad. If you want to have any intellectual honesty you need to realize that pop books like that are supplementary and introductory.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 21:51:12 2013 No.4276913

>>4276896

terrific objection. would you care to bring up some of aquinas's arguments and see how they fare? have you actually read aquinas? i have.
i promise to not use any modern analytic phil terminology, or deconstructionism for that matter. i promise to use plain everyday language in showing you that everything he's written is circular and terminally retarded.

>>4276881

bae stop.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:52:11 2013 No.4276917 >>4276896 the funny thing about that image is that it's not a parrot

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:53:12 2013 No.4276920 >>4276917 the funny thing about that quality post is that..

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:55:11 2013 No.4276927 >>4276920 >what is saging

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 21:56:11 2013 No.4276930

>>4276914
I can't really say anything to refute someone who is so immersely delusional as to think his point of view is the only valid one, can I?

>>4276915
Well, as a matter of fact, it is the first time I've heard of that author. Of course I plan to read her as an introduction, not as the only book I will read. Obviously I will read the primary texts and then I'll read, as you said, supplementary texts in order to get the most of the primary sources.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 21:58:11 2013 No.4276936

>>4276911

i'm very calm sweetheart. i'm aware of the fact that your being non-threateing and passive, as that other bleeding vagina pointed out, stems out of fear of confrontation, lest you start to see that your entire belief system is a sham, lest you start to feel utterly lost without your delusions.

but it gets better after the first year or so. you might even find yourself rather liberated.

reminder: it is the year 2013

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:00:11 2013 No.4276940

>>4276930
>responding to someone who's immensely butthurt and just trolling
Just ignore it, he's just baiting and trying to get people upset or turn this into another "Atheism vs. Religion" thread. He probably bumped the thread without his trip to try and get more people to watch him.

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 22:00:11 2013 No.4276941 >>4276930 >immersely delusional lel, and we both know that's not the reason why you won't engage me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:01:11 2013 No.4276944 Why are you guys responding to him? He obviously cares more about wrecking shit than about meaningful discussion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:04:11 2013 No.4276951 >>4276930 I can see where you are coming from would it help then if I asked the same question as septichrist minus the sass Is the cosmological argument a valid argument and if so how important is it in Christianity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:04:11 2013 No.4276952 File: 97 KB, 220x264, 220px-Emanuel_Swedenborg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4276936 Do you understand religion or faith at all? say words

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:04:11 2013 No.4276953 Stan, le epic edgy shitposter

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:10:25 2013 No.4276971 >>4276951 nope. who created God? plus its all semantic and ya know we can't discern the true origin of the universe using just language and no empiricism

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:11:11 2013 No.4276974

>>4276743
"I find myself coming across conversation with other creative intillectual people, having the common audacity of college education. Within of course ivy league ranks. Being so I found myself at a stale mate in life... I take that back, A crossroads of sorts. Maintain formal education and study and major in Physics. In natural hope to be the next Michio Kaku or Albert Einstein, Making contributions to the scientific database of human society! The other more "ambitiously idiotic" pursuit of. Dropping out of highschool and becoming an transfering aspiring singer songwriter, to ultra fan based rockstar only to be withheld by excessive mainstream life style that successful recording artists may have. That in latter dreams I may have stability in passionate audio entertainment. In turn and in finality I have decided abrubtly to become a writer, in a fashion to pursuit the adventures of life that may proceed from this 14 year old state. What wisdom or experience do I have you may ask? Please tell me, What length of creativity and ambition like fantasies does your mind veer off to when the path of endless potential crosses you?'

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:14:12 2013 No.4276980 >>4276941 >and we both know that's not the reason why you won't engage me. If that reason is my refusal to converse with the king of faggotude, then yes we do both know.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:15:11 2013 No.4276985

>>4276951
I can't really answer your question because I lack the knowledge to do so (hence, this thread).

What I can tell you is that I believe in the cosmological argument because that is what my faith tells me (not the Church, but my faith). It is important to Christianity because that's where it comes from (Genesis). And it is at least more rational than other shit like Creationism and the like.

Sorry if my answer is rather dull or otherwise stupid, but as I said, I lack the knowledge to answer it in a more sophisticated way. This is another reason I want to read Aquinas and the other philosophers that precede him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:16:11 2013 No.4276988 >>4276971 I can get that but how important is the argument when it comes to the belief of christians?

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:19:11 2013 No.4276993

>>4276988
Well, this is purely anecdotal, but growing up in the Catholic church, no christian I knew had ever seemed to display any sign of having every even once pondered the justification of or reason behind their beliefs. So it didn't really matter. They accepted blindly- hence, "blind faith". I am not sure how relevant the argument is to the major christian institutions like the Vatican and what not.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:25:11 2013 No.4277004

>>4276993
Mark 9:24
>And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
It's not unheard of to struggle with faith. Not a lot of people accept it "blindly" and a lot of people even lapse, convert, etc. People just don't talk about it with people who aren't either very close to them or their priest. Besides, the whole point of theology and apologetics, etc. is the questioning and thinking about your belief.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:26:11 2013 No.4277005

>>4276993
I felt like that might be the case.

Also given your experience how true does my experience come to your experiences when it comes to Christians changing churches:

The practicing Christians Ive been around either simply never left the church they were brought up in or when they did change churches/faith it seemed to be almost like shopping for a church that would stop cut the least into their hedonism or allow them to be feel special by being more esoteric or unique.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 22:27:12 2013 No.4277009

>>4276980

dont be coy with me you little fucking pederast, i'll bury you.
anyway, i see that you're still in the early stages of philosophical inquiry. at this stage there is no way in hell you'll want to address my posts, you can't even understand them. i get that. my only advice to you is this: if you want to keep your faith steer the fuck away from philosophy, steer away from aquinas or any other theologian who attempts to use philosophic structure to defend his claims, as they're all fundamentally flawed and by exposing yourself to them, you will inevitably end up undoing what you've been trying to build.

i suggest you stick to bullshit like the book of job and any other religious text which does not use philosophic methods and arguments, as these texts will always be incommensurable to any sort of reason and thus immune in the same way that any work of fiction is immune to external standard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:29:12 2013 No.4277014 >>4277009 >if you want to keep your faith steer the fuck away from philosophy This. So much this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:31:11 2013 No.4277019 >>4277009 You've already said too much you fucking asshole. You've already said way too fucking much. >crisis intensifies

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:33:11 2013 No.4277026

OP, judging by your posts you aren't going to understand a goddamn word of Aquinas.

And stop with the "muh faith, muh point of view" shit. A deductive argument such as the cosmological argument is either valid or invalid. You beliefs should be based on the validity of these arguments, not the other way around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:33:11 2013 No.4277030 >>4277009 I got banned the other day for a le tip fedora post so I'm going to say: you probably have never even touched a real philosophy book, so stop trying to impress or "troll" people on the internet until you have.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:34:11 2013 No.4277031

>>4277014
>Aquinas
>Kant
>Berkeley
>Kierkegaard
>etc.
I don't know why people think philosophy and religious belief are antithetical, there's really no reason to believe that. A lot of philosophers were religious or had faith.

>>4277026
Looks like he already mentioned he'd be reading Plato and Aristotle, broseph. Those are good primers for Aquinas, considering that they're his biggest influences.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:42:17 2013 No.4277048 >>4277009 Looks like we've got an internet tough guy here. Oh and a tripfag, what joy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:42:17 2013 No.4277049 >>4276837 >>4276881 are these the words of a good christian?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:44:17 2013 No.4277054 >>4277049 0wn3d

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 22:44:17 2013 No.4277056

>>4277031

Literally all of those have been rendered obsolete by modern analytic philosophy.

the only one who has any legs to stand on is Berkeley, and the only way he could do that is by immersing himself in extreme solipsist skepticism, which, even though it is structurally sound and philosophically rigorous, it still requires us to accept the something which is just fucking prima facie ridiculous : ie. that the material world does not exist....

kant himself proved that believing in god was impossible within the boundaries of reason.
he got that right but kant is just so fucking wrong with everything its sad. i've dissected kant countless times on this board, i can post you some links to my old archived posts i really dont have the patience to go over him again...

>kierkegaard

lel

>>4277030
keks back to your corner you little retard

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:45:18 2013 No.4277059

>>4277014
There is by a HUGE MARGIN more religious philosophy than non-religious. And the best non-religious stuff doesn't contradict faith at all, in fact they share a huge amount of common ground. Don't try to drag philosophy into your Science Vs Religion shit-slinging contest.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:45:18 2013 No.4277060 >>4277048 I love stan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:46:18 2013 No.4277062 >>4277060 Stan who?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:47:24 2013 No.4277067 >>4277054 i'm a priest. just encouraging some self-inquiry

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:49:18 2013 No.4277072 >>4277056 Wow, so this is what everyone is alluding to when they joke about euphoric militant fedora-tipping atheist. I thought you guys were fucking kidding. This idiot is so obnoxious I'm on the brink of becoming a born again christian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:52:18 2013 No.4277081 This thread's ripe for a 404 like just happened with the other religion thread.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:53:18 2013 No.4277085

>>4277056
>by modern analytic philosophy
Logical positivism has been ditched, and there's quite a few religious analytic philosophers like Plantinga. Geeze, man. This stuff is on wikipedia, get it together.

>>4277072
He's just trolling for laffs at best, m8.

>>4277081
I'm surprised OP hasn't deleted it yet, since he got his answers and now people are just trying to troll it.

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 22:54:18 2013 No.4277088 >>4277072 im not even atheist you stupid vagina, ctrl atl delete

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 22:56:19 2013 No.4277097 >>4277085 yeah and there's korsgaard and swinburne too you fucking dolt, what's your point lel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 22:57:18 2013 No.4277099 To the theists here: Why do you believe in God?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:00:17 2013 No.4277107 >>4277099 Why not lel?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:01:17 2013 No.4277112 >>4277085 >He's just trolling for laffs at best, m8 I now realize this and feel stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:01:17 2013 No.4277113 Septichrist, why are you doing this?

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:01:17 2013 No.4277116
File: 403 KB, 905x700, 1230081046067.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

All the euphoria aside, you have to be pretty retarded to think the universe was made by a being thats anything like man.

If there is a creator I cannot say.

What I can say is that we are not the sole purpose of the universes existence and that we were made in no ones image. We are the produces of random chance defined by rules of unknown origin.

Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Sat Nov 16 23:02:17 2013 No.4277118
File: 27 KB, 400x304, 1231398279665.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4276543
>What should I read in order to get into Saint Thomas Aquinus?
First you must ask yourself if this is really necessary.

>Anticipates odd and ironic fashion critique.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:04:17 2013 No.4277126

>>4277113
Tripfags have inferiority complexes and desperately need attention. They waddle into threads where people are having a discussion and try to steer things to be about them as quickly as they can. They do this by stating controversial opinions, being obnoxious, or even just out and out trolling. The solution is always to ignore them, and starve them of the oxygen they desperately crave. Eventually they will either give up, or sort their real lives out to an extent where they are no longer reliant on imagined internet notoriety to feel good about themselves.

>>	Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Sat Nov 16 23:06:18 2013 No.4277130 >>4276745 Paul of Tarsus was crucified? I missed that part. Is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:06:18 2013 No.4277132

>Gradation: If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative which is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God -->note Thomas does not ascribe actual qualities to God Himself.

The fact humans can tell differences relative to other states proves God exists, what flawless logic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:07:17 2013 No.4277135 >Anons throwin out ad hominems left and right >Septichrist is right

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 23:07:17 2013 No.4277137 [DELETED]

>>4277113

there comes a point in a man's drinking binge, that he must find either a. something to fuck or b. something to fight

given that the most viable thing to stick my dick into was caught by her husband cheating with yours truly, and given that my recent adventures in the balkaniks have led to me being strapped for cash and thus whore-less, and given that i really don't want to get arrested again by going to start shit with people irl, i've chosen to spend the night tormenting little christian kids so the fuck what ace, at least i'm not having sex with them in a confessional booth

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:07:17 2013 No.4277138 >>4276660 >implying Kierkegaard was capable of becoming the Knight of Faith, or even a Knight of Infinite Resignation like Johannes de Silentio, and simply died a man who hated themself.

septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 23:11:18 2013 No.4277147

>>4277126

you'd be right if i wasn't so damn awesome though... and i'm way WAY WAY more fucking notorious in real life than in the interwebs, which has really caused me countless fucking problems.

also, the hilarious thing is that it's only turned into a discussion about 'the tripfag' when some vapid anon starts commenting about him rather than what he posts.

anyway, smashing psychoanalysis ace

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:15:17 2013 No.4277159

>>4277147
>. and i'm way WAY WAY more fucking notorious in real life than in the interwebs, which has really caused me countless fucking problems.

Please stop youre not impressing anyone and its a tad embarrassing.

>God doesnt need a cause
>Universe needs a cause

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:16:17 2013 No.4277160 >>4277147 Did you want us to ask you about those real life problems? Is that why you mentioned it? Tell me all about it, I won't hurt you.

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 23:18:17 2013 No.4277163 >>4277159 mild keks please love me. i need your approval now >god doesnt need a cause >herp derp derp derp thanks for playing

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:21:18 2013 No.4277171

>>4277159
Shush, just ignore it. It'll go back to its blog in time.

Anyway

>God doesnt need a cause
>Universe needs a cause

Isn't the problem here why you have to name a causeless entity "God"? I mean, we are talking about an unmoved mover here, but we will be at pains to describe it in any other way. None of the old logical proofs for the existence of god work anymore. If there is an argument, it is on aesthetic or theological grounds, not metaphysical (unless you are interested in Spinoza's god that is).

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 23:22:18 2013 No.4277173 >>4277160 well. it all started when my mommy touched me in the no no. i then touched her in the no no. now im 58 and lonely and touching myself in the no no. please help

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:28:17 2013 No.4277186 Why would anyone who wasn't a scholar of Aquinas want to read all of the Summa Theologica?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:31:18 2013 No.4277189 >>4277173 Are you really 58? Jesus Christ man.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:32:18 2013 No.4277193 >>4277189 Stan is in his early 20s and he is pure cancer. Stop replying to him

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:33:18 2013 No.4277196 >>4277147 >i'm way WAY WAY more fucking notorious in real life than in the interwebs, which has really caused me countless fucking problems. Cringed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:34:18 2013 No.4277199 >>4276743 Can someone please refute this dumb son of a bitch? It can't be that he is right.

>>	septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sat Nov 16 23:41:17 2013 No.4277211 >>4277196 typical bitch reaction. . off tae nash

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:47:18 2013 No.4277220 When will theists learn that the point of argument is to reach and agree upon a conclusion. When somebody has bested you in an argument, it's childish to flip the board.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:52:17 2013 No.4277225

>>4277199
By the sounds of it he's just parroting something his clever lecturer said once. The idea that "the cosmological argument was ever the crux of Christianity is so laughable the guy is either a troll or a legitimate idiot who skipped half his classes - could be either. It seems he was REALLY REALLY taken by that one module on the arguments for the existence of god though.

Anonymous Sat Nov 16 23:58:17 2013 No.4277235

>>4277009
>dont be coy with me you little fucking pederast, i'll bury you
You're one hardcore son of a bitch, bro. All you can bury me in is the massive pile of shit you're spewing.
>at this stage there is no way in hell you'll want to address my posts, you can't even understand them
I can't understand the ramblings of an underage idiot who throws in the occasional big word or half-formed philosophical argument? Think again you flaming faggot.
>my only advice to you is this: if you want to keep your faith steer the fuck away from philosophy, steer away from aquinas or any other theologian who attempts to use philosophic structure to defend his claims, as they're all fundamentally flawed and by exposing yourself to them, you will inevitably end up undoing what you've been trying to build.
Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to listen to the ramblings of some wannabe, desk-chair philosopher's fucked up opinions on people who are considered to be among the greatest thinkers of all time.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:07:17 2013 No.4277247

>>4277211
>>4277196
Yeah man, don't you know.
You're dealing with some badass on the level of the almighty Richard FUCKING Dawkins here.
You can't even comprehend the sheer fucking brilliance of this guy's arguments.
Like here >>4276730, here >>4276936, or >>4277009
It might look like he's just filling this thread with insults comprised of pure shit and poorly thought out arguments, but you just can't see the brilliance because we're all so fucking below his greatness.
Bow down before the great "fucking notorious" and "damn awesome" being that is septichrist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:11:18 2013 No.4277257 File: 368 KB, 1008x955, 1354750882707[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4277247 You are doing it wrong.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:13:18 2013 No.4277263

>>4276601
You need a Jeopardy! image to make that complete.

6/10 Left a decent taste in my mouth, but not glorious.

>>4276584
>>4276563

One oversimplifies Aquinas, dropping the ball on what could honestly be a refutation of his ideas out of pure laziness.
4/10 Makes me ashamed.

The other uses some fashion-based culture meme thought up to bully nerds who like dress clothes as a means by which to refute someone, not even knowing if he actually fits the stereotypes or not.

2/10. Makes me sad.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:15:17 2013 No.4277268

>>4277099

Because the universe is inherently rational and thus the product of a mind greater than our own. For every perception I also have a conception and a conception independent of perception, but I have no perception independent of a conception. Everything I see can be mathematically described. The universe is fundamentally an idea and thus must inhere in a mind to account for continuity, unity and general objectivity. Materialism is a non-sequitur.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:20:18 2013 No.4277272

>>4277268
>implying there is anything coherent about the universe at all and that it is not patently random chaos, that in places forms via certain processes into semblances of order

It is human nature to project narrative and logic onto things, to always search for patterns, even where there are none. It is how we developed tools and society, and also why we see faces in the dark and believe in gods.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:21:18 2013 No.4277275 Here, let Sam Harris explain why God exists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSGhX4ZcFAw

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:25:17 2013 No.4277280

>>4277272
Show me a percept independent of a concept. The universe is inherently rational. Many-worlds can be interpreted to deal with this problem (our universe happens to be a rational one), but that does not suffice. There is a reason why our universe is described so well by mathematics.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:26:17 2013 No.4277281

>>4277268

But that outer mind of the universe

(Implied by your post to be God, which is a misnomer, since the word has been used for everything from corporeal deities [with arbitrary forms and personalities and biases], to souls, to personifications of natural phenomena to what you're using it for right now)

must be accounted for. I mind cannot exist without material fuel to sustain its components which are collectively responsbile for its functioning. Why should God's mind be exempt from the material necessities? Perhaps the Godmind is itself nested in a larger material universe from which it cannot escape: A universe with its own God who is in turn nested in His/Her own universe, and that this is all a reflection of infinite recursion, an insurmountable generative force which is itself a God which cannot know itself.

take care

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:30:17 2013 No.4277289 >>4277280 I'm sorry, could you cash-out the precise meanings of "Perception" and "Conception" in your argument? These terms mean profoundly distinct things in the mouths of different philosophers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:31:18 2013 No.4277290 >>4277281 >take care You say this as if you've blown the minds of any who read your post.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:37:17 2013 No.4277299 >>4277275 > Here, let someone else argue my beliefs for me because I am unable to think for myself and share my own opinions because I do not fully understand them.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:42:18 2013 No.4277307

>>4277281
The God I'm referring to is the philosopher's God. Now you're assuming that matter exists. That is an unprovable positive assertion. Mind can in no way be reduced to brain because correlation is not causation. Causation is a very specific type of inference which is impossible in behavioral neuroscience (Neuroscientists use strong-weak correlation). What we call matter (objects extended in space) can be theoretically reduced to pure information. Thus it seems that the universe fundamentally consists of minds and ideas, but whence comes the objectivity of precepts? I would say that we are only self-aware substructures of a greater mind or a necessary perceiver. Now, it may be hard to think of matter as conceptual rather than as a substance, but the argument is far stronger for this line of thought.

So, I am referring to a 'philosopher's God', not necessarily a particular scriptural deity. This being would be a Platonic deity or Berkeley's God. Aquinas would have been already familiar with such philosophical views and he was trying to use Aristotelian arguments for God, which were recently re-discovered. By themselves, I think he Aristotelian/Thomistic arguments are weak.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:45:17 2013 No.4277312

>>4277299

On the contrary, I've written several posts in this thread and I thought that that video was amusing. Videos are also easier to post when one is writing on one's mobile device. Videos can also be practical when one doesn't wish to do much typing.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:48:17 2013 No.4277320

>>4277307
>Mind can in no way be reduced to brain because correlation is not causation. Causation is a very specific type of inference which is impossible in behavioral neuroscience

This part is weak. Mind-Brain causation is just a fact. Any change in mental state WILL CAUSE a change in the physical state of the brain. Likewise, the brain can be manipulated in certain ways that are guaranteed to CAUSE a mental reaction.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:52:17 2013 No.4277327 >>4277307 >Now you're assuming that matter exists. That is an unprovable positive assertion. Far more easily provable than any argument to the effect: "Minds exist". Try me, faggot.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:52:17 2013 No.4277329

>>4277289
A concept is an idea (either mathematical or natural, a priori or a posteriori) whereas a percept is external to my mental space, possessing objectivity. I'm referencing Berkeley's 'master argument' as presented in his Treatise and Three Dialogues. In any case, I'll be doing some evening reading.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 00:54:17 2013 No.4277334 >>4277329 Derp, why did I not recognize this. I am a feggot disregard me.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:01:18 2013 No.4277353

>>4277327

Any argument with you would be mindless.

>>4277320

Mind-brain causation does not exist. Neuroscience operates under a weak-strong correlation paradigm. That is to say, does combustion cause fire or is fire an image of combustion? The latter is true, fire being a mere description of the combustion process and not some separate thing. From this analogy, I will say that brain is something like an image of the mind.

And I should say that neuroscientists have probably been tweaking their stats to produce even stronger correlations (receiving more funding) in their studies. Although, that is a side issue.

http://www.edvul.com/voodoocorr.php
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/6/2/163.abstract

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:10:55 2013 No.4277369

>>4277353
Both of the posts you are responding to are me, by the way. I think we are the only two people here now. Crappy neuroscience doesn't detract from the hard fact that it is impossible to have any change in the mind without also a change in the brain. I suspect this argument is about to go one stage more technical and I'll have to concede that just which is causing the other starts to become abstract at a certain stage. I've always been a bit suspicious of the causation language in the mouths of monists, to tell the truth. We'll drop causation for now: my arguments run much better if we are just talking in terms of identity, which is the key issue here. The mind and the body are identical with each other (in that they are two different expressions of the same phenomena) and neither is more "real" than the other.

I'm not sure if you are just taking the Berekelian position for the fun of it, if not, I suspect our beliefs on this matter are probably not too far apart.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:16:56 2013 No.4277381 >>4277369 >I think we are the only two people here now. No, I'm here too, but I'm just reading along. Basically, I mostly agree with him, but I'm siding with you on the neuroscience argument.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:18:42 2013 No.4277385

>>4277320
I don't know shit about shit, but how does one define causation in terms which would be acceptable to an empiricist?

The farthest one could go in this regard would be to state that phenomena A is said to be the cause of phenomena B if B is always observed when B is observed.

Yet this does not correspond at all to the idea of cause, which can be understood as soon as one understand that there could be a phenomena C which we do not perceive yet is the cause of both A and B or is an intermediary link between A and B.

I'm saying that the concept of "cause" seems, to me, inherently metaphysical and thus cannot be talked about with any kind of certainty.

Hence to say that we know for sure that brain-mind causation is real...

Also : you a materialist or what? How can you say that activity in the brain is responsible for activity "in the mind"? A mind doesn't exist if you're arguing from a neurological perspective. The mind IS the brain, the material itself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:21:41 2013 No.4277394 >>4277381 Likewise, just lurking because I'm interested in any serious discussion that crops up instead of just trolling.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:34:41 2013 No.4277436

>>4277385
I'm a monist, but not a materialist per ce. I think it is perfectly reasonable and even useful to talk in terms of a human soul, etc, as long as it is understood as being a metaphor. I'm very fond of Aristotle's conception of the soul as the idea of the body (or, equally, the body being the material mode of the soul). The important part is not to start talking about the soul as if it were a physical object with properties, a mental divisible space, etc. An idea is as much "in" the mind as 4 is "in" the 2-times-table - it's a figure of speech.

The first part of your post seems to be channeling Hume. Hume on causation is one of the most notoriously misunderstood parts of the history of philosophy. Hume was never in the business of saying that one billiard ball had not caused another to move, he was interested in how humans could logically prove it: he was searching for the original of the _concept_ of causation. The difference is key.

Hume just wanted to show that our notion of causality was not provable via the faculty of reason. Just were it came from was something he struggled manfully with, thus the theory of constant conjunction. It's a messy ad-hoc invention that didn't convince much back then either.

It could be argued that Kant finished the challenge that Hume set out with his synthetic a priori categories.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:36:41 2013 No.4277443 >>4277436 *per se, herp derp.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:37:41 2013 No.4277446

>>4277385
> if B is always observed when B is observed.
I meant "if B is always observed when A is observed", obviously. Jesus.
>Yet this does not correspond at all to the idea of cause, which
That it does not correspond to the idea of cause can be understood as soon as [what follow].

I'm not an effective writer.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:43:57 2013 No.4277459

I'm the idealistfag, but I really am going to bed now. I'll leave this Max Tegmark quote. He's a Platonist, but he's also a many worlds theorist, thus an agnostic. Of course, he has objected to new atheism because many-universes is just as odd an idea as a great mind. I like this quote a lot though:

There are two tenable but diametrically opposed paradigms for understanding the correspondence between mathematics and physics, a dichotomy that arguably goes as far back as Plato and Aristotle. According to the Aristotelian paradigm, physical reality is fundamental and mathematical language is merely a useful approximation. According to the Platonic paradigm, the mathematical structure is the true reality and observers perceive it imperfectly. In other words, the two paradigms disagree on which is more basic, the frog perspective of the observer or the bird perspective of the physical laws. The Aristotelian paradigm prefers the frog perspective, whereas the Platonic paradigm prefers the bird perspective.

As children, long before we had even heard of mathematics, we were all indoctrinated with the Aristotelian paradigm. The Platonic view is an acquired taste. Modern theoretical physicists tend to be Platonists, suspecting that mathematics describes the universe so well because the universe is inherently mathematical. Then all of physics is ultimately a mathematics problem: a mathematician with unlimited intelligence and resources could in principle compute the frog perspective--that is, compute what self-aware observers the universe contains, what they perceive, and what languages they invent to describe their perceptions to one another.

A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime--the bird perspective--these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta--a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

1/2

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:44:57 2013 No.4277463

>>4277459

>The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: the universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality

2/2

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:49:58 2013 No.4277478

>>4277436
That's on the money when it comes to the Hume channelling.

However, the epistemological bent of Hume investigation does not invalidate my question, in that you said that we KNEW about CAUSATION (sorry for the caps, no way to emphasize otherwise) between body and mind, implying that the former was the cause of the later.

So, to me, it seemed as though there was an epistemological element at play here.

The metaphysic of "cause" was also problematic to me. An effective argument used by Poincaré more or less showed that we could, if we so wished, organize our knowledge of astrophysics as a function of the movement of Jupiter, since the determination of any given state in that area was equivalent to some other state in another area.

This however, would not seem right, not seem intuitive. But I don't really see how you justify that intuition to satisfaction.

Again, don't know shit about shit. I'm not an actual student of philosophy. Like, I haven't actually read Hume. (But did read Poincaré).

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 01:59:58 2013 No.4277497

>>4277478
The key idea here (and it is Kant's, not Hume's) is that without a certain set of basic concepts - that includes causation - it is impossible to reason or even understand the universe at all. Certain categories (size, shape, time) are hard-programmed into our minds, they are a lens we cannot help but look through. We just don't have a choice in the matter, and reason has nothing to do with it.

Back to the original point, we can establish the link between mind and body with simple scientific experiments. We know from our study of the brain that _every_ mental event corresponds to some physical change in the brain and nervous system. If I prick you with a pin, you feel pain. If you will your arm to move, it moves. Mind-body interaction has the burden of proof on its side, _providing we believe both in a mind and a body_. It is much more difficult to conceive of a human entirely in material terms, or entirely in mental ones (in fact I would argue an impossible task).

Again, I was slightly disingenuous earlier in describing the mind and the body as different _things_. Idealism does get you talking in the strangest language.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 02:45:47 2013 No.4277579 >>4276660 dude had too much guilt. plain n simple

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 02:54:46 2013 No.4277588 >>4276612 Really, to understand Augustine you have to read The Confessions. It provides necessary perspective and is a surprisingly entertaining read.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 03:00:46 2013 No.4277593 >>4276915 Obviously it's good to read the original texts, but Armstrong probably has a better understanding of them than anyone on /lit/, and her work contains original ideas that are actually rather compelling, if a tad over-simplified.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 07:00:15 2013 No.4277973 File: 11 KB, 234x234, 3ea632aa99ce6858ca0e3e61d1b4a0a8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4277009

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 09:09:24 2013 No.4278125 >>4276563 kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 09:26:26 2013 No.4278145 >>4277138 le nietzsche analogy

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 09:39:21 2013 No.4278165 >>4276543 I don´t get why someone should have that hairstyle. It´s disgusting, vulgar and obscene.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 09:51:21 2013 No.4278191 >>4277099 Because I have felt the light of God.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 10:09:20 2013 No.4278221 >>4277171 can anyone give me a brief overview of Spinoza's god or can I basically pick it up from his writings without any prior philosophical foundation?

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 10:58:40 2013 No.4278309

>>4277056
>ridiculous
Is it ridiculous because you have no counter-argument for it? Except for shitty probability objections?

>that the material world does not exist....
What makes you think it is material and not composed of mental ideas? Can you even define 'material'?

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:07:41 2013 No.4278321

>>4278221
Spinoza gives an overview of Spinoza's God. He takes it step by step, like a geometrical proof, in his work "Ethics." Start from the beginning, and he will irrefutably prove to you that his conception of god is true. His ethics are a little weird, though, as is his psychology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:10:41 2013 No.4278328 >>4278165 that's the point. they cut their hair like that as a way to humiliate themselves, to signify they had given up worldly ambition (of course, it didn't always play out that way)

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:12:41 2013 No.4278330 >>4278309 >define 'material' something that's not nothing, that can be percieved outside consciousness through the senses. How did I do?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:29:41 2013 No.4278359 >>4277130 >Paul >not James the Just, Brother of Christ

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:30:41 2013 No.4278361 >>4278330 >outside consciousness What the fuck does that mean? >through the senses But those would be your mental representations, i.e. mental ideas. So, you did badly, because you re-affirmed my initial post.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:37:47 2013 No.4278379

>>4278361
>What the fuck does that mean?
Outside the processes behind your eyes

>But those would be your mental representations, i.e. mental ideas. So, you did badly, because you re-affirmed my initial post.

Yes, but your Cartesian-skepticism can be dealt with by assuming a somewhat reality can be percieved through the senses, and through our knowledge of mind we can remedy our perceptual flaws, but objective knowledge is impossible, yes, but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be the ideal to strive for, after all, what else can we do?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:38:45 2013 No.4278380 >>4278330 >through the senses Also: not "through", but "with".

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:38:45 2013 No.4278381 >>4278379 a somewhat accurate representation of outside reality*

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:40:45 2013 No.4278385 >That fucking pear tree Never in my life have I hated reading latin more than when reading Confessions

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:46:46 2013 No.4278402

>>4278379
>your Cartesian-skepticism
How the fuck did you manage to deduce this?

>can be dealt with by assuming a somewhat reality can be percieved through the senses
Keyword: "assuming".

>, and through our knowledge of mind we can remedy our perceptual flaws,
What in the world am I reading here... What do you have in mind when you say "knowledge of mind"? That our minds are CERTAIN in some ambiguous way you have just failed to describe and therefore we can remedy our perceptual flaws? That's nonsense. Give examples.

>but objective knowledge is impossible
Ok, stopped reading here. You're just a postmodern relativist in disguise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 11:52:51 2013 No.4278416 >>4278379 Also: you're derailing; I was thinking you would re-define 'material' to my satisfaction

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 12:01:46 2013 No.4278435 >>4278321 Ok, cool. I'll try and find that at my local bookstore today. My theological views have flipped back and forth on me so much since my decision to read the Bible months ago. Hopefully he'll clear some stuff up. Thanks.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 12:03:56 2013 No.4278439

>>4278402

>your Cartesian-skepticism
How the fuck did you manage to deduce this?

From your implied statement that everything is mental representations -> only certainty is cogito ergo sum.

>Keyword: "assuming".

Everything must be based on initial assumptions, for reference read Nietzsche.

>, and through our knowledge of mind we can remedy our perceptual flaws,
What in the world am I reading here... >Give examples.
Philosophies of body and mind, psychology, neurology, physiology, biology.

>You're just a postmodern relativist in disguise.

Im a pragmatic realist, not an obscure idealist that deals in certitudes and a priori

I gave a definition of material world as the world outside our mind.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 12:15:45 2013 No.4278470

>>4278439
>From your implied statement that everything is mental representations -> only certainty is cogito ergo sum.
Except that I didn't mention Descartes' cogito anywhere; that is your projection, not mine. And for me, the idea of cogito isn't certain at all (though I will not get into this in detail).

>Everything must be based on initial assumptions
There is a difference between an assumption that is justified by a coherent argument(s) and an assumption that is justified by sloppy and ambiguous argumentation. Your belongs to the latter category.

>Philosophies of body and mind, psychology, neurology, physiology, biology.
Nearly all of them provide mere descriptions, not certain knowledge. Do you have any idea what certainty is?

>pragmatic x/y/z
You cannot get more disgusting than this. Truly.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 12:26:45 2013 No.4278487

>>4278439
>not an obscure idealist that deals in certitudes and a priori
>proudly announces that he is a "pragmatic realist", yet fails to give any sound arguments for his belief(s)
>the ones dealing with certitudes and a priori inquiries calls "obscure"
Eheheh

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 12:31:45 2013 No.4278497 >>4278470 >you have any idea what certainty is? Uncontainable. Tell me your great argument for the possibility of certainty.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 13:56:45 2013 No.4278704 >>4276745 ma nigga.jpg but he was being far to absolute. There were other great followers of christ that had lived up to his word

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 14:37:52 2013 No.4278829

He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times
- Bertrand Russell

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 15:09:39 2013 No.4278934 ITT: People whining about Stan while nobody even tries to refute his shit. Probably because he's right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 15:26:56 2013 No.4278979 >>4278934 If you mean the tripfag, there wasn't really anything to refute. He was just being obnoxious and shooting down strawmen while trying to piss off as many people as possible to garner attention.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:03:27 2013 No.4279087 >>4278829 >I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times wow that's funny I'd say the same thing about Bertrand Russell :^)

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:10:26 2013 No.4279108

>>4278979
Nope. He quite clearly mentioned fatal flaws in Aquinas' philosophy and no one countered those arguments but merely spouted some 'lele tripfag so euophirc le fedora so edgy it's so obvious ur wrong i wont even respond downvote' nonsense which is last resort shitty pseudo-rhetoric at best.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:14:26 2013 No.4279124 >>4279108 Not while I was in the thread he didn't. All I saw was random shit-slinging, ad-hominems and strawmen. He barely mentioned Aquinas.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:20:30 2013 No.4279140 >>4279108 All he said was that there were flaws, none of which he named. On top of that he insulted everyone and called himself "fucking notorious". Also, show me where he was called a fedora or euphoric.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:27:29 2013 No.4279168

>>4279140
>>4279124

>All he said was that there were flaws, none of which he named.

>you just cannot construct a synthetic foundationalism which begins in the real and ends outside the scope of the immanent. you do not have the luxury of transcending the boundaries of the material, you can't just fucking introduce a meaningless signifier, a ghost, to serve as both the conclusion and foundation of the premises.

He clearly shows here the ultimate flaw with Aquinas metaphysics, the introduction of a "synthetic foundationalism" which is the most recognizable copout in all epistemology. As he said, you cannot introduce a ghost, a transcendal signifer, to serve as the foundation for something within the material world because you do not have access to it. Reason cannot give you access to things which are beyond this material realm of being, and any attempt to end infinite regress by introducing a synthetic signifier (such as the cosmological argument tries to do) is inherently flawed. You, as a human within the world, do not have access to things outside the world, universe, etc.

And the notorious thing he said as a response to someone who had already brought it up, in hopes of rustling jimmies, which was quite successful.

Look, I don't really like the guy, don't like him with his newtrip or the old ones he used, but it just so happens that i've rarely to never seen him lose an argument in philosophy in this board. He knows his shit, though his being an asshole largely shits all over everything he says.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:27:30 2013 No.4279169

>>4279140
Actually that last one did happen, I know because it was me who said it. I was replying to one of the tripfag's comments that now in hindsight I can see was just an inflammatory piece of trolling and I fell for it hook-line-and-sinker. Not particularly proud of that one.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:36:30 2013 No.4279187

>>4277225
>was ever the crux of Christianity

The existence of god is the crux of christianity, thus the means for arriving at that belief is also a crux of christianity.
Also his comments were less about the cosmological argument as much as they were about a categorical flaw in epistemology: introduction of transcendental signifiers as means of synthetic foundationalism.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:40:30 2013 No.4279201

>>4279169

Trolling and being right are not mutually exclusive. I would hate to think that him being a total fucking asshole immediately disqualifies something which is right and proven.

This is why I fucking hate assholes in general. They really do a disservice to the body of knowledge by way of their demeanor. By combining his piece-of-shit attitude with correct and right philosophy he is in turn contributing to people remaining ignorant, because no matter how right one is, the minute he becomes a dick, people will always see him as wrong. Very counterproductive.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:41:29 2013 No.4279205

>>4279124
See: >>4276581 >>4276730 >>4276743

>>4279140
>All he said was that there were flaws, none of which he named.
See above.
>Also, show me where he was called a fedora or euphoric.
>>4277030
>>4277072
>>4276899

Red the thread completely next time, brethren.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 16:41:30 2013 No.4279202

>>4279168
It's a weak argument that fails at pretty much every point, and was dealt with at the time. He was giddy with his overstating of the importance of the cosmological argument, like it was some lynch-pin the entire scholastic tradition relied upon. It isn't.

Christian philosophers have always had a predisposition to try and find logical proofs for the existence of god, but not, as modern readers might suppose, in order to add foundation to their faith, but for precisely the opposite reason: to couch their system of logic within a theological framework.

In understanding this, Aquinas' unmoved mover is the most elegant proof ever found by a christian thinker. The idea with the cosmological argument is not to provide a foundation from where to kick-off scientific inquiry, but to find the definite point where material explanations cease, and room is left only for God. Aquinas wanted to show that an Aristotelian understanding of the universe was fully compatible with Christian theology, and in he met with almost unqualified success.

TL;DR: the tripfag shot down a meaningless strawman and then proceeded to wank all over himself until he got some attention.

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 16:56:31 2013 No.4279249 [DELETED]

>>4279201

oh lawd

>implying i give a fuck about "the greater body of knowledge"

im just here for the keks

>>4279202

despite the fact that you have the reading comprehension of mentally retarded african toddler, i'll still stoop to humor your dumb ass:

>but not in order to add foundation to their faith, but for precisely the opposite reason: to couch their system of logic within a theological framework.

you idiot that's exactly what the fuck i was saying. i wasn't talking about foundation in some kind of metaphorical saint peter rock of mah church kind of way i was precisely addressing that system of logic, ie. that you cannot couch something from the real into post-real, a theological framework inherently begins and ends by pre-supposing an arbitrary derived transcendental entity and you cannot couch any fucking system of logic into an arbitrary derived circular system

>The idea with the cosmological argument is not to provide a foundation from where to kick-off scientific inquiry, but to find the definite point where material explanations cease, and room is left only for God. Aquinas wanted to show that an Aristotelian understanding of the universe was fully compatible with Christian theology, and in he met with almost unqualified success.

>the idea is not to provide a foundation but to provide a foundation herp derp derp

such laughably circular sophistry, the act of going to the end of material explanations and then adding "god" is literally the act of constructing a synthetic foundationalism you dolt...learn to read and fuck off with you

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:00:30 2013 No.4279264

>>4279202

hahahaha really it so rare to see someone literally contradict himself within the same post in such an amateurish way

>this not a synthetic foundationalism
>goes on to constructing the very synthetic foundationalism he says isnt there

#self-wreckd
#self-euthanized
#ethered

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:07:31 2013 No.4279277

>>4279249
>>4279264
Oh god its back. Will we ever see another tripfag so full of himself as this sorry specimen? High on the smell of his own farts he gleefully types his ripostes, amazed at every turn by his own brilliance, dumbfounded by the mere idea of peons such as this trying to lock intellectual horns with Him.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:08:32 2013 No.4279282

I don´t get it, tripfag, you just find retarded that there are people that actually believe in the concrete existence of a personal God, or you are also against the idea of embracing religion as a human need, using the word God just to refer to the personification of a concept/school of thought?

>>	awesomeguy !sRg2SqGvH. Sun Nov 17 17:09:32 2013 No.4279285 Look at this tripfag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:09:32 2013 No.4279289 >>4279249 Still waiting for an actual argument, boi. >you cannot couch something from the real into post-real Okay. Why not? I'll be waiting over here while you try to get over your own brilliance. Where is the incompatibility?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:10:32 2013 No.4279294 >>4279282 More probably he finds it fun to belittle people who are both too dumb to make him shut up and too dumb to stop trying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:11:30 2013 No.4279297 >>4279282 He read a bit of Derrida at uni and now thinks he is some kind of philosophical guru, dispensing wisdom to the uninitiated out of his own kindness.

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:13:31 2013 No.4279308 >>4279277 >bla bla bla i suck giant cocks still waiting for your response so i can further this intellectual phallus down your pretty little trap, get at me ace >>4279282 at least two of those

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:13:31 2013 No.4279309 >>4279289 >teach me how logic werks on 4chins or ur wrong

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:13:31 2013 No.4279310 >>4279249 You have really, really bad reading comprehension. That anon didn't say those things at all.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:15:31 2013 No.4279317 ITT: butthurt christians getting buttowned by stangod

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:18:31 2013 No.4279328

>>4279289

fucks sake you idiot, re-read that post. at least 5 times.
>see the part where you say this isnt synthetic foundationalism
>see the part where i point out your synthetic derviation of an arbitrary transcend signifier
>see how that is precisely synthetic foundationalism and thus wrong as hell

>>4279297
this is more Wittgenstein related that derrida, dont just jump at that one buzzword you learned ace..

>>4279309
fo real yo

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:20:31 2013 No.4279334 >>4279310 haha, which things, you mean the ones i quoted verbatim from his post?

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:21:31 2013 No.4279336

>>4279249
>3. Do not post the following outside of /b/: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry"), grotesque ("guro"), post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography. Keep /pol/ in /pol/. In essence: Don't shitpost.
I guess everyone should just report him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:22:31 2013 No.4279342 >Hurrr, if I can imagine it exists then it must exist. -Saint Tommy

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:22:31 2013 No.4279344

>>4279328
the key words here are "synthetically and arbitrarily derived"

meaning that youre pulling it (the signifier) out of your ass in order to justify your system of logic. you do not have access to that signifier within the realm of material reason..thus you can't just pull it out of your ass in order to end infinite regress, which is a conceptual and purely semantic non-problem to begin with.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:23:30 2013 No.4279346

People actually still take Aquinas serious? Any argument that nigga makes rests on assumptions that only a medieval peasant maybe wouldn't laugh at if you threatened him beforehand.

>all things act towards a certain end, right?
>well-
>RIGHT!?
>o-okay thomas..
>so God.

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:23:30 2013 No.4279348 >>4279336 suck my dick

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:23:30 2013 No.4279349

>>4279328
Except number two didn't happen. If you slowed down with stroking your own e-cock every post and actually unpacked what you are trying to explain we might actually be able to talk some philosophy here, and not just exchange posts consisting of:

"HURR DURR U R SO DUMB! XD" over and over again.

Where was the "synthetic derviation of an arbitrary transcend signifier" in my post?

FiRez !!tndrCZJHE+I Sun Nov 17 17:27:31 2013 No.4279360

>>4276543
I couldn't formulate the same arguments against the existence of God that I can do now in the 13th century, back then it was even understandable to believe in a god since there were many things that humanity couldn't explain.

2/10 made me reply

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:28:31 2013 No.4279363 >>4279344 >material reason Not the one you are answering to, but please clarify/elaborate on this predication of yours

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:32:30 2013 No.4279384

>>4279344
>infinite regress, which is a conceptual and purely semantic non-problem to begin with.

Right, so nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

>youre pulling it (the signifier) out of your ass in order to justify your system of logic

The justification is a weak one; Aquinas shows that Aristotle is not _incompatible_ with Christianity. Science and mathematics is "couched" in theology in that there is a negative space left by them, containing at the very least the subject of God, irreducible to mathematical or scientific axioms. Again, you need to stop projecting modern sensibilities and criticisms of religion anachronistically onto medieval philosophy, it simply doesn't work as criticism. I've said it enough times, but _the cosmological argument is not a lynch pin in Aquinas' thought_. The existence of God most certainly _is_, but he was never in the business of doubting that, only showing a negative space where science would be unable to doubt.

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:34:30 2013 No.4279386

>>4279349t

>where was the synthetic derivation

umm..right about fucking here:

>the definite point where material explanations cease, and room is left only for God

your reasoning should end at the point where material explanations cease, at the point where you lose explanatory access. you only have access to these material explanations, even dumbass kant knew this, which is why you stop there and dont ask anymore fucking questions.
but what do you do?
you go on to add the granddaddy signfier of them all: the eternal zombie who gave birth to himself, or his dad, or both... this is the definition of an arbitrarily and synthetic foundationalism and represents the single greatest no no in epistemology. which is why you even mentioning the word "logic" while being so utterly oblivious is embarrassing. you can't just suppose god to end some kind of conceptual regress.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:39:31 2013 No.4279399 >>4277085 >plantinga Is this the guy who came up with the argument for God which could be used to prove he didn't come up with the argument for God?

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:39:31 2013 No.4279403

>>4279384

>Right, so nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

dumbass, we were talking about the cosmological argument right? weren't we talking about your stupid ass unmoved mover bullshit?
learn to read

>negative space

that you just fill up with shit pulled out of your ass...you_cant_do_that_in_epistemology_

the fact that some things haven't been able to be explained by science does not warrant the addition of some synthetic fictional entity to fill up "the negative space"...that is a stupid cop out, and the single greatest recognizable error in epistemology.

how am i not getting through to you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:44:30 2013 No.4279427 Was St. Aquinus the original non-materialist faggot because all preoccupation with the material world is detrimental the soul breathe because their transience is ultimately a manifestation of the absence of God, which is eternal?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:45:31 2013 No.4279434 This tripfag is killing you guys Hard to watch

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:50:30 2013 No.4279452

>>4279403
I think we are at least getting closer now. You fairy.

>dumbass, we were talking about the cosmological argument right? weren't we talking about your stupid ass unmoved mover bullshit?
learn to read

It is very much the point at hand: the supposed infinite regress was never a huge worry for Aquinas and the solution was a handy-stop gap, nothing more.

>that you just fill up with shit pulled out of your ass

Here we have the crux of the matter. Divine revelation, faith, God, the bible, etc, these are not "shit pulled out of your ass", nor "a stupid cop out". A cop out from what, exactly? If you project just a little bit less, you might see what Aquinas was actually trying to argue.

"God" isn't a stop-gap, it isn't a cop out and it isn't a handy way out of an epistemological regress. You seem to be putting Saint Thomas Aquinas on the opposite side of a debating table with Richard Dawkins, and are then hollering over how unsuitable his intellectual apparatus is to the task. I can't stress this enough: your thinking is completely upside down on this matter. Your placement of epistemology as the highest order of philosophy (apparently above Metaphysics, Theology and Ethics) speaks volumes. How is epistemology worthy of this role?

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:50:30 2013 No.4279454 >>4279363 the chain of material explanations

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:51:30 2013 No.4279459 >>4279427 No. >>4279434 He's just swearing more than the other guy and repeating something from Derrida again and again and again, out of context. I'm not sure who is winning, but I'm pretty sure we lose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 17:52:31 2013 No.4279463 >>4279459 No as in he's not the original?

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:57:31 2013 No.4279477

>>4279452

>nothing more

umm..cosmological argument is supposed to stop infinite regress (which is a stupid fucking concept to begin with, infinite regress if reasoning is continued should not warrant the continuing of reason, thus, but stopping thought at that point, you stop regress), it being "not a huge worry" because he pulled god out his ass so quickly =/= infinite regress being irrelevant to the discussion, which is what you said, which is why you should learn to read

>how is epistemology worthy of this role?

ahhahaahahah oh wow...i'm fuckin done with you ace.
have a great day.

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 17:59:30 2013 No.4279487

>>4279459

>repeating derrida

really points to your utter lack of being able to tie terms into broader conceptual framework bud, just because i borrowed his term (transcendental signifier) doesn't mean this has a lot to do with derrida. Wittgenstein, on the other hand...

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:00:30 2013 No.4279488 >>4279452 >Your placement of epistemology as the highest order of philosophy (apparently above Metaphysics, Theology and Ethics) speaks volumes. How is epistemology worthy of this role? Hahahahahhaha -- wow

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:00:30 2013 No.4279493 File: 123 KB, 759x400, 1380406961_Walt-Jr-Eating-Breakfast-21[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4279477 >dogma status = exposed Have an A1 Day.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:02:30 2013 No.4279502

>>4279452
>How is epistemology worthy of this role?

I was actually cheering you on up until this point. That is a most awful blunder. Epistemology is THE branch which allows for any of the others to exist. Without the rules and means of getting to knowledge, we have no knowledge.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:03:30 2013 No.4279506

>>4279487
Mixing different philosophers' conceptual jargon without properly explaining your terms and presenting your argument formally is just sloppy thinking, generally used to hide defects in your own thought you are already implicitly aware of. Expressing yourself precisely and clearly is half the game in this field, broski.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:05:31 2013 No.4279515

>>4279502
Except it isn't the central pillar of philosophy. You can't even have knowledge without meaning, and no theory of knowledge is possible without also a theory of meaning. They are reliant on eachother; epistemology is given a prior place in 20th century philosophy due to the inferiority complex re: the sciences.

Neither of the two are the central part of philosophy anyway. Everybody and his baby knows that is ethics.

spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 18:09:30 2013 No.4279531

>>4279506

just because you can't follow something doesnt warrant me spoonfeeding you definitions, fuck off with your delusions of entitlement, use google

>>4279502

really the fact that he even asked that catastrophically idiotic question makes me look terrible by virtue of engaging with him

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:10:31 2013 No.4279541 >arguing philosophy on a board where no one is going to win. god, get girlfriends.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:11:31 2013 No.4279547 >>4279541 Hey its about the journey, not the destination. And the journey is shitposting!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:11:31 2013 No.4279548 >>4279515 It's ok friend. I give you A for effort. There's always next time. If it makes you feel better I still like you way more than him.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:12:31 2013 No.4279554 >>4279541 I'm working on it. I'm tired of being lonely.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:13:31 2013 No.4279556 >>4279541 >arguing everything with a bitch where you will lose even if you win God, get shitposting.

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 18:14:30 2013 No.4279565 >>4279541 muffled keks what do girlfriends have to do with anything you insecure little projecting faggot lol >>4279547 amen

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:14:31 2013 No.4279562 >>4279541 It's not about winning you complete faggot, do you think it's some kind of fun game? Go to business school you useless kretin.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:19:31 2013 No.4279587

>>4279548
Fun what happens when you bring into question some of the dogmatic thinking of the other side of the debate. Complete shutdown and NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE. The obsession with epistemology and the anachronistic depiction of the history of philosophy as the history of epistemology is weirdly endemic in 20th century Anglo-american philosophy. It is really handy with the acadamization of philosophy into easy-to-teach and mark modules for fresh young undergrads.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:20:31 2013 No.4279591 since this seems to be a philosophy thread, does anyone here listen to The Partially Examined Life podcast? I haven't really listened to it much, anyone have an opinion on how they approach things?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:20:31 2013 No.4279593 Goddamn it. Stan wins again. Fuck this board. Fuck you Stan. I'm out. Call me when Deep&Edgy returns to put this piece of shit in his place.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:22:32 2013 No.4279606 >>4279593 stan plz.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:24:31 2013 No.4279615 >>4279591 >The Partially Examined Life podcast Literally can't get into it because of that guy with the surfer voice.

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 18:25:31 2013 No.4279618 >>4279593 >Deep&Edgy >put me in my place lel...Dude, that's only happened like, once. at least shallow&rotund wouldn't make such an awfully amateurish mistake as "but why epistemology hrhrhr?"

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:26:32 2013 No.4279624 >>4279615 HAHAHAHA! That's exactly why I haven't gotten into it either.

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 18:27:32 2013 No.4279626 >>4279606 haha, que? and to be sure, basement king aint got shit on stan christo

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:29:31 2013 No.4279633

>>4279593
I'm the anon that was arguing with him, and as far as I can see I won. He was unable to counter anything in my last post and got blown the fuck out by the suggestion that epistemology isn't the always the First Philosophy (which isn't even a very controversial claim and had little to do with my actual argument).

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 18:30:31 2013 No.4279640 >>4279633 bitch you didnt win shit, back the fuck up

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:31:31 2013 No.4279646 >>4279640 Hurts really hard when you get hit straight in the dogma, doesn't it? It's okay bro, we've all been there once.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:32:31 2013 No.4279652 >>4279640 Leave who won to us lurkers plz.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:34:22 2013 No.4279658

>>4279633
>>4279633

It had everything to do with your argument. Rather than letting fundamental constraints of epistemology guide your methods to knowledge, you chose to say, fuck epistemology I'm using my own system, which is : "God because God, I win."

We should not be having this discussion. Epistemology informs every single reasoning structure, and thus has absolute primacy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:35:22 2013 No.4279669 God is good.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:36:22 2013 No.4279671

>>4279658

Discussing the status of epistemology is amateurish. Drop the subject. If St idiot's friend wants to disregard the only method of arriving at knowledge and go his own way, fine. After all, isn't that what was wrong with Aquinas in the first place?

The answer is yes.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:37:22 2013 No.4279674 >>4279633 >making sure you're not spewing complete kack isn't necessarily important le rigor of a sea cucumber on lean (chopped and screwed).ogg

>>	spitting on the clitoris of ex(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 18:40:21 2013 No.4279681 File: 167 KB, 493x500, 1363755291508.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4279674

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:40:22 2013 No.4279687

>>4279658
Really the epistemology bit was just a side-note, not even an avenue we need to go down in order to beat the tripfag's flimsy thinking.

Metaphysics informs every single structure, as does theory of meaning and ethics, and a (certain understanding) of theology to boot. The key point here was that theology can be seen to be prior to epistemological concerns. You can go via either superstructure. But again it was a side point, the arguments runs equally well without it, I just thought throwing in something you guys might find controversial would be fun. Didn't expect everyone to wet their knickers over it. Peeps need to read some Wittgenstein and Ramsey.

>>4279671
>the only method of arriving at knowledge

I don't even, what? What is the only method of arriving at knowledge? Please don't say epistemology. Think before you type.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:42:21 2013 No.4279694 >>4279687 The methods informed by epistemology are the only methods for arriving at knowledge. Don't try to be funny.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:44:21 2013 No.4279702

>>4279687
>Metaphysics informs every single structure, as does theory of meaning and ethics, and a (certain understanding) of theology to boot.

Stop. They do not. Metaphysics and Ethics have been rendered obsolete. Stop typing. Don't reply anymore.
Going back to what Stan said, which really should have ended this god-awful thread:
It is the year 2013

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:45:21 2013 No.4279703 >>4279694 So before Plato no-one understood anything? Gotcha.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:46:21 2013 No.4279708 >>4279702 >Stop. They do not. Metaphysics and Ethics have been rendered obsolete. STEM baby please go. The adults are talking.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:47:22 2013 No.4279712 >>4279703 Haha, epistemology isn't an "invention". Awful show.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 18:51:23 2013 No.4279722 >>4279712 You are mixing your terms here. Epistemology is a field of study. We didn't need it to gain knowledge, though the whole scientific revolution thing was pretty handy.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:04:21 2013 No.4279753

>>4279722

The point here is that epistemology was used regardless before it was then made into a specific discipline. It's always used. Each time you arrive at a belief you use epistemology. Granted yours and Aquinas's is terrible epistemology, which is why when we refer to Epistemology, as people have in this thread, we mean Modern Epistemology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:04:21 2013 No.4279754 >>4279722 Define "knowledge". Oh wait that's epistemology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:05:21 2013 No.4279764 >>4279753 Regardless before after hurr durr I cant type for shit today.You know what I mean

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:06:21 2013 No.4279766

>>4279753
>Each time you arrive at a belief you use epistemology

This is interesting. I'm going to give you a chance to retract that, as I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe this. Even aside from the fact that you are still confusing the subject matter with the discipline, I don't think there are many people that would agree with what you just claimed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:07:21 2013 No.4279771 >>4279766 What is there to not agree with? You don't believe that each time you arrive at a belief you're using a method for arriving at that belief? I think you're very confused on the topic of epistemology.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:11:22 2013 No.4279784

>>4279766
Girlfriend, any time you "gain knowledge" you are thereby making implications about what knowledge is and how it works. You need espistemology to even discriminate to even form a concept of gaining knowledges as opposed to not gaining knowledge.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:13:21 2013 No.4279789

>>4279708
>I talk about "metaphysics" and "philosophy" in order to make myself feel smart and superior to others even though I have no idea what I'm talking about and I know that it's just posturing because in reality I'm a talentless fucking loser with no real understanding of anything

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:20:22 2013 No.4279809

>>4279771
Whelp, I guess not.

You are making two errors here. The first (trivial) one is confusing epistemology with its subject matter. You don't need a theory of knowledge to acquire knowledge; you "know" things long before you learn the theory behind the processes that caused to to know them. That is just a psychological fact about humans.

The second mistake (to be honest _equally_ trivial) is conflating "belief" and "knowledge". Epistemology is categorically _NOT_ the study of belief. That is a different genealogy of thought, though the two are closely related, as almost every single epistemologist would include "belief" in their definition of knowledge.

We more or less have Plato, and, in particular the Neo-Platonists to thank for the preeminence of epistemology in western philosophy, as he married it with his metaphysics (and made ethics, belief, and every other branch subservient to epistemology). But that is just one way round of looking at things.

The fact remains: you can't have a theory of knowledge without a theory of belief.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:20:22 2013 No.4279810 >>4276899 10/10

spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 19:21:21 2013 No.4279814

>>4276543
>I think you're very confused on the topic of epistemology.

>>4279771

>I think you're very confused on the topic of epistemology.

ive like, q.e.d'ed this fact nine pages ago ace, the ship has been sinking for a while, apropos of the dead weight tied around padre and friends, nothing to be done now but jump ship,

we'll return only to parade his bloated carcass together with the rest of the tea partiers and other other mythological creatures...hanging their trophied innards on me walls like decorative rococo art pieces, testaments to the final fucking triumph of Reason so brutal, so cvlt

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:23:22 2013 No.4279821 >>4279809 >you just know things >psychological facts shit's spookier than a klan rally up in here

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:30:21 2013 No.4279843

>>4279809

>The first (trivial) one is confusing epistemology with its subject matter. You don't need a theory of knowledge to acquire knowledge; you "know" things long before you learn the theory behind the processes that caused to to know them. That is just a psychological fact about humans.

Right, but the way that you are "Knowing" them is the relevant epistemic standard that you are using, regardless of the fact that you did not contemplate this second order structure, this epistemic standard.
You don't need to be aware of the method for arriving to knowledge for that method to exist, hence epistemology is able of informing us of that method regardless of the fact they no one contemplated it.

>The second mistake (to be honest _equally_ trivial) is conflating "belief" and "knowledge". Epistemology is categorically _NOT_ the study of belief. That is a different genealogy of thought, though the two are closely related, as almost every single epistemologist would include "belief" in their definition of knowledge.

Its getting sadder each time you post. Do you really think that belief and the means of arriving to them are not part of epistemology?
I should ask you, what do you think epistemology is?

Hint: you don't know what epistemology is.

>>	edgy Sun Nov 17 19:33:21 2013 No.4279853 stanlord killing shit damn

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:34:21 2013 No.4279859

>>4279843
>Right, but the way that you are "Knowing" them is the relevant epistemic standard that you are using, regardless of the fact that you did not contemplate this second order structure, this epistemic standard.
You don't need to be aware of the method for arriving to knowledge for that method to exist, hence epistemology is able of informing us of that method regardless of the fact they no one contemplated it.

We agree here. My point was you are not "using " epistemology at this point, no more than you are "using" quantum mechanics when you go for a shit. I did say it was a trivial point.

>I should ask you, what do you think epistemology is?

Let's go on a school trip to wikipedia to find the answer.

>Epistemology (Listeni/ɨˌpJstɨˈmɒlədʒi/ from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding", and λόγος, logos, meaning "study of") is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge[1][2] and is also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired.
Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

>>	spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 19:35:21 2013 No.4279863 >>4279821 like hella chirpin' spooky, for serious

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:36:21 2013 No.4279868 why are people stupid enough to get demolished by somebody like stan even posting on this board

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:37:21 2013 No.4279872 >>4279868 Stan got his shit pushed in.

>>	spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 19:43:22 2013 No.4279888 >>4279872 i got some of this longdick for you too if you want it little boy, find a pillow

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:44:22 2013 No.4279893

>>4279814
if you had to argue with an arrogant p/sci/duck claiming that philosophy (even analytic) is useless (in the sense that it is not worth thinking/pondering/contemplating on fundamental topics) and gives us no understanding of the world and its relation to ourselves-- how would you approach the annihilation of his naive worldview?

>>	spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 19:44:22 2013 No.4279897 >>4279868 stan christo run shit, get in line catpcha forced circum

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:47:21 2013 No.4279905 >>4279893 He's right.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:48:21 2013 No.4279908 >>4279905 sorry?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:50:45 2013 No.4279915 >>4279908 What part of philosophy do YOU think is worthwhile to ponder? Serious question.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:56:22 2013 No.4279926 >>4279915 any modern branch/subbranch of philosophy that has an analytic bent, but you probably wouldn't have any idea as this is /lit/

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:57:21 2013 No.4279930 >>4279926 So you think that the entire of current analytic philosophy is worthwhile? Okay, why do you think this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:58:21 2013 No.4279934 Oh god that tripfag is embarrassing. Mad mix of stupidity and arrogance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:58:21 2013 No.4279935 File: 118 KB, 625x354, 2 subs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4279926 >([p ~^ xcv 3 ] ^^ >5[3p v p]&420[s])/(x+h) >philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 19:59:21 2013 No.4279944 >>4279934 let's analyze this for tripfags side 1. cool black metal name 2. only one itt not flailing around liek a retard 3. stan for everyone else 1. nothing 2. durrrrrrrrrrr 3. ?

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:03:22 2013 No.4279954

>>4279944
I just read the thread and he seemed he threw his toys out the pram when the other guy said something about espestemology and then just sort of disappeared. I don't think I agree with the other anon but that seemed pretty retarded and childish.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:04:21 2013 No.4279957 >>4279934 >2scurred to actually try and refute his posts quit your job baby boy

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:12:58 2013 No.4279981
File: 23 KB, 207x239, 1368425333330.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4279957
He didn't have any arguments he just said that god was a "cop out" and that Aquinas couldn't do what other anon said he was doing but didntt explain why. I don't get what all the fuss is about. Are all of these other posts by anons the same tripfag? /lit/ is weird.

spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 20:13:58 2013 No.4279986

>>4279893
>>4279893
>>4279893

i'd tell him that without philosophic analysis, his "science" would be just a bunch of incoherent, non-cohesive, non-structured free floating chunks of unrecognizable data...and that's only taking into consideration Epistemology.

With regard to Ethics, science is largely useless to it as it is to science, thus the two are largely incommensurable, unless of course you base your Ethics on something which has been disproven by science.
Modern Meta-ethics for example, deals with concepts (such as Hume-an action theory) largely unanswerable by science as a discipline, because it is a contemplation of second order and third order matters and science is purely first order data.

With regard to metaphysics..a lot of it (early continental metaphysics, aquinas, epicurean metaphysics, descartes, etc) have been swept under the rug by scientific thought, which is really a product of analytically philosophic thinking. After all, science is the offspring of philosophy.
This isnt to say that all metaphysics is dead. A lot of contemporary metaphysics elaborates on the very notions of scientific discovery, how they relate to each other and what they mean to us. A lot of analytic metaphysics takes things given to us by science, (such as Libets experiments of pre-cognitive reaction), and uses them to deduce and elaborate on things which are very important to us for a long time now, such as the concept of free will. Science alone can't offer us such knowledge because, by itself, it lacks something critical, the aspect of applicability, contextualization and broader extrapolation. science would be dead in the water without philosophy. it would not even exist.

keep in mind that philosophy is primarily a method, and then only secondly a positive description.

>>	spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 20:15:58 2013 No.4279998 >>4279981 Re-read the thread you stupid little slut, Also, do you have any background in philosophy or are you just some random wee cunt trying to wrap his head around big boy stuff?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:16:57 2013 No.4280001 >>4279981 >Are all of these other posts by anons the same tripfag? A few of them are, yes. It's what he does.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:18:58 2013 No.4280009
File: 962 KB, 300x168, 1382442089286.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4279998
Y-y-you too. Why are you so angry all of the time? I don't understand why you think you "won". You just started crying at one point and then ignored the other dude. And before that you just swore and strawmanned everyone and said how awesome you were. You are a really shitty debater who just likes to make big sweeping statements all of the time. Do you act like this in real life?

spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 20:19:58 2013 No.4280016

>>4279954
>espestemology

im not going to humor some kind of primitive idiot who tells me epistemology doesn't matter.
given that you have no idea what the fuck any of it means, you should leave the thraad

for reasons why it does matter see this post by anon:

>>4279674

also see other posts by anons who actually took the time to tell the idiot why epistemology takes primacy...which is like advising someone who wants to play football that he actually has to touch the ball

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:21:58 2013 No.4280024 >>4280009 but...but...he won I don't know how or why but he won cuz muh fedora and shit

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:21:58 2013 No.4280025 >>4279986 thanks for the elaboration; makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:24:58 2013 No.4280034 >>4279981 What's weird is all you silly boys disregarding every post that goes over your head and then claiming that nothing has been said because it wasn't pre-chewed and regurgitated down your gullets mammy bird style.

spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 20:25:58 2013 No.4280041

>>4280009

dude, like, if you want to argue with me i suggest you actually read some shit first, not the least being "espestemellegie" or however the fuck your dead nigger's testicle of a brain spelled it, before coming here and trying to engage me with your petulant "stop being so mean" faggotry. literally suck my dick.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:26:57 2013 No.4280049
File: 367 KB, 499x380, 1378524261229.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4280016
>some kind of primitive idiot who tells me epistemology doesn't matter

Do you mean this bit?

>Your placement of epistemology as the highest order of philosophy (apparently above Metaphysics, Theology and Ethics) speaks volumes. How is epistemology worthy of this role?

I don't know about the other ones but plenty of philosophers put ethics above epistemology and I guess most christian ones pre Descartes would put theology right at the top too. Actually wait Descartes uses clear and distinct ideas which are known to be true outside of any epistemelogical process as well so you could sorta say he does it too, he can't do anything with his cogito without God.

I'm pretty sure there are some modern guys who do this as well. Late Wittgenstein I suppose?

>>	spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 20:27:57 2013 No.4280052 the keks are slowly waning...goat tae nash d.n.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:30:57 2013 No.4280057 File: 1.99 MB, 320x362, frosted flakes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] yfw you realize that stan is one of like two people on lit who arent retarded reddit posters

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:39:57 2013 No.4280081 >>4279515 Socrates himself only concerned himself with ethics. dem ethical quandaries.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:39:57 2013 No.4280083 >>4280016 >Getting this blown out by one small claim No offence but you didn't major in philosophy did you? You seem to have a huge problem with people contradicting your deep-held beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:44:58 2013 No.4280093 File: 163 KB, 1000x823, gadfly repellant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4280081 Must be the most important then if some ugly old gypsy monstrosity killed time with it to get away from his nasty ass wife.

spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 20:45:58 2013 No.4280095

>>4280049
>>4280081

>thinking i'm talking about "putting epistemology above" as in "its more important to humanity" or "it gels with me better than the other shit yo"

terminal step, abort life

>descartes

cue heavily distorted funeral bell,
>known to be true outside of epistemic process

what the fuck does this even mean. "knowing" literally implies epistemic process. stop the madness ace

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:47:57 2013 No.4280100 >>4280057 Stan is back? Is he septichrist now? Great, philosophy threads will forever be trolled by someone that knows their shit instead of retards than don't know shit. Not sure how I feel about that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:48:57 2013 No.4280102 Aquinas is brilliant. Maybe start with the Summa Contra Gentiles and then move onto Summa Theologiae. These are the big beauties of his works. Also, maybe read Aristotle's metaphysics and his nichomachean ethics first. Will help A LOT.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:49:57 2013 No.4280105
File: 74 KB, 188x212, wtfamireading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4280081
Ooh good call. The pre-Socratics were all physicists as well. Plato was the game-changer because he thought everything important was down to an epistemeological distance to certain facts, not non-epistemological states of affairs. I guess this tripfag agrees with Plato?!

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:51:57 2013 No.4280111 >>4280095 >what the fuck does this even mean. "knowing" literally implies epistemic process C&D ideas are just undoubtable facts implanted in the mind by gawd. You don't "come about" them they are just sorta there, you've got them, now have fun.

Anonymous Sun Nov 17 20:53:58 2013 No.4280117
File: 1.10 MB, 200x109, 1347828831613.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4280095
>thinking i'm talking about "putting epistemology above" as in "its more important to humanity" or "it gels with me better than the other shit yo"

Wait it was the ather anon who started talking about "putting above".

>yfw you realise he was arguing against himself the entire time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 21:06:00 2013 No.4280154 >>4280095 >"knowing" literally implies epistemic process. Are you sure about that? Define "epistemic".

spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 21:08:01 2013 No.4280160 [DELETED]

>>4280117

it was this >>4280111 douche. tagged ur tits by accident, dont sweat it ace

>>4280111
>C&D ideas are just undoubtable facts implanted in the mind by gawd.

le epic conclusion in form of padre honey dipper dan giving himself anilingus.mobi

slow clap

>>4280083
>deep held

implying i give eighteen shits boot any of this
immer fecking plying this isnt me stroking my opposable penis at /lit/'s deficiencies, like furtively molesting a downie because they can't tell the difference between that and pin the tail
cue heavily distorted retarded moaning,

followed by my detotant mirth, breathing in death's inebriant miasma,
nodding off,
ctrl alt delete

sweet dreams

>>	spitting into the asshole of i(...) !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 21:10:01 2013 No.4280164 >>4280154 yes im sure you dumb ass whore shut fuck up already im gonna go get some food

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 21:18:01 2013 No.4280182 >Falling for stan's aggressive trelling techniques >Eating up his abuse de verbal >Feeding le monsteur le non. le non. le tsk tsk.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 21:20:00 2013 No.4280188 >>4280182 I'm not mad, just dissapointed.

>>	le satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 21:21:00 2013 No.4280192 >>4280182 Ah, monsieur, but aren't we all masochists at heart?

>>	le satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Sun Nov 17 21:23:00 2013 No.4280201 >>4280192 some of us tip the sadist scale way the feck down but hey, hey

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 21:35:03 2013 No.4280232 >>4280188 Hello my son. This is Jesus. I am proud of your unwavering stubbornness and inability to process any kind of reasoning. The dumb ox's skeletons are breakdancing on his tombstone. It's a celebration.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 17 21:36:03 2013 No.4280238 >>4280232 Go fuck yourself Stan.

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