[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 5 KB, 250x226, 1389980485480s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4518945 No.4518945[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>tfw I may never be smart enough to grasp philosophy

Does anyone else know this feel and is there any way to fix it?

>> No.4518949

>not smart enough
Just means you aren't boring enough to sit through an essay on philosophy. Try poetry. More rewarding, methinks.

>> No.4518955

>>4518949
But I want to read through every single essay on philosophy I find. I just feel like I may never be able to get anything out of it or understand what the author is trying to get across.

>> No.4518961

Try reading it and accompanying critques instead of posting feels about it.

>> No.4518968

you just need to start slow, bro. There's a reason everyone tells you to start with the greeks. Read Plato's dialogues, they are quite easy to understand.

>> No.4518969

>>4518945
You might be picking stuff that's a bit too hard for you right now. Why don't you start with the basics? Read some introductory book first and start working your way up from the classics to nowadays philosophers.

>> No.4518980

>>4518955
How's your general reading comprehension? You might want to try to improve your reading generally before tackling the 400 pound linebacker that is philosophy.

>> No.4518985

>>4518980
How do you improve your reading comprehension?

>> No.4518987

>>4518980
Pretty good. I have an expansive vocabulary compared to everyone else I know. And I generally read books on history and physics. I tried two of Plato's dialogues and while I was able to understand what I was reading, there were definitely times where I had to go back and reread and even know I feel like I'm going to have to go back and read them again

>> No.4519009

Guys I have a question. Which is the utter point of philosophy? I don't know because I've never dealt with philosophy, but I guess that a person who is dealing with philosophy, answers questions and discovers things relative to his being and others'. But after that, which is the final point of philosophy? Do those ideas aim to improve your life? If yes, then how? Or does it help somewhere else?

>> No.4519011

>>4519009
Philosophy is a product of the inescapable human need for meaning. In other words, we do philosophy because we can't not do philosophy; we can as easily stop doing philosophy as we can stop feeling wonder.

>> No.4519026

>>4519011
Yes but does it practically contribute somewhere else, except for the act of wondering itself? Because it sounds pretty vain and meaningless put that way.

>> No.4519033

>>4519026
How is "filling an inescapable human need" not a practical contribution?

>> No.4519048

>>4519033
Because it sounds like you don't really fill that need you're trying to fill. Is philosophy trying to answer questions that can't be answered? I don't know, I'm asking. Because how can someone describe how the abyssal soul, different in every human being, works?

>> No.4519053

>>4519026
The entire course of Western Civilization and by extension the world was fundamentally shifted by the work of Descartes (for better or worse).

Philosophy matters. Philosophy is not some lofty dialog. Philosophy both responds to the world and shapes it through discourse. Theory and practice are not simple concepts of thought and application.

>> No.4519065

>>4519048
>Is philosophy trying to answer questions that can't be answered?

Yeah, more or less. Most of the questions in philosophy that can be answered got shuffled off into natural science. But the important point is that, if they're questions that can't be answered, they're also questions that we can't help ask.

>>4519053
Also this. But it's secondary.

>> No.4519070

>>4519053
I was always under the impression that philosophy is an ultimately esoterical pursuit.

>> No.4519125

>>4518987
Having to read material a second time is nothing to be ashamed of. It's good that you're interested in being thorough.

>> No.4519133

>>4519070
>esoterical
You mean esoteric.

>> No.4519170
File: 375 KB, 152x184, 1372277535177.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4519170

>>4519133
>>4519070

>> No.4519179

>>4519133
Oh yes, sorry. I'm Greek and this is english to me.

>> No.4519404

>>4518949
>Try poetry. More rewarding, methinks.
The unexamined life is not worth living.

>> No.4519415

>>4519404
>The unexamined life is not worth living.

Is it even possible to live an unexamined life unless you're in a coma or something? Doesn't everyone reflect on their life in some capacity at some point?

>> No.4519431

Feynman had an IQ of 120, but he revolutionized physics.

Unless you are severely mentally retarded (and I mean that with all due respect ... mental retardation is really a sad thing), there is no excuse.

Of course you may also have a talent in some other field. So keep on searching.

Unrelated, but I was sitting in my bathtub yesterday and mulling over Hegel when it occurred to me ... maybe this is just all meaningless gibberish. I got over it -- but it was an extremely depressing feeling.

>> No.4519432

>>4519431
And please let's not turn this into a war over Hegel.

>> No.4519452

>>4519404
Lots of philosopher's extol the value within poetry and even draw some of their most fundamental concepts from it. Heidegger and Nietzsche for example. and they are the only worthwhile ones anyways

>> No.4519465

And you reached that conclusion after reading philosophy for how long?
Also if you started with Heidegger, Critique of Pure Reason or post-modernists you're not exactly making this easy for yourself.

>> No.4519471
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4519471

How the fuck can you be too dumb for philosophy? Every toddler can into philosophy. Philosophy is for those people who are too unintelligent for science and math.

>> No.4519488

>>4519465
Yup. If anything check out Durant's "Story of Philosophy." Also heard "Sophie's World" was good but haven't checked it out.

>> No.4519693
File: 369 KB, 200x100, 1379899384456.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4519693

>>4519471
oh look it's this post again

>> No.4519698

>>4518945
simple.wikipedia.org

>> No.4519700

Sophie's World
Kenny's History of Wes. Phil.
historyofphilosophy.net

If you still don't get it you're hopeless.

>> No.4519703

>>4518945
Google Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Great (wiki-esque) source of seccondary lit on anyone you're interested in.

>> No.4519715

Philosophy is one of those things like being In a dark room you find the door and the next room has more doors and so on and on

>> No.4519771

>>4519471
philosophy found the scientific method

>> No.4519792

>>4519771
yes, but his (troll)point is that philosphy in doing so made itself obsolete. the anon, however, doesn't realize that philosophy employs that scientific method as well - though in a different form, as per the demands of the object of its research.

>> No.4519802

>>4518945
philosophy is shit anyway, it's just a way to sound rational and intellectual on places like 4chan and shit.

>> No.4519810

>>4519802
It's an obsession like everything else. There are actually people out there, obsessed with thought and knowing.

>> No.4519815

>>4519810
>There are actually people out there, obsessed with thought and knowing.
these are called scientists

>> No.4519821

>>4519815
Your mom was called a scientist, she called me "the cavity explore", based on the empirical fact, of my behavior towards her.

>> No.4519822
File: 50 KB, 500x129, 1385671781617.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4519822

>>4519821

>> No.4519836

>>4519821
top lel
never change /lit/, I love you guys

>> No.4519841

>>4519792
One of the main object of research within philosophy is the scientific method itself, so it continues to hone and refine it to this day.

>> No.4519869

I just can't into dostoevsky, something about pages and pages of a person's seemingly random thoughts hasn;t held me. I've read the meek girl and notes from underground so far and ehhh.

C+P is so huge and I hear it's his best work...it's just so huge. I can't force myself through it I don't think

>> No.4519892

>>4519869
not a philosopher though

>> No.4519896
File: 442 KB, 441x270, 1389968809435.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4519896

>>4519892

>> No.4519899

>>4519179
heh

>> No.4519903
File: 2.60 MB, 225x124, 1387017200842.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4519903

>>4519896

>> No.4519905

>>4519892
Dostojevskij is just as much a philosopher as Camus.

>> No.4519910

>>4519905
two wrongs don't make a right

>> No.4519919

>>4519910
A bird in the hand is better than ten on the roof.

>> No.4519937

>>4519919
better to have loved once, than to never know love at all

>> No.4519942

>>4519937
Do unto others as you would have them do unto others so they will do unto you

>> No.4519957

>trying to read Whitehead

HO HO HO THIS TIME HE'S MEGA-COCK

>> No.4519961

>>4519942
A drowning man will clutch at straws

>> No.4519967

That's probably because you are grappling with stupid german(ic) and french philosophers.

Stick to the ancient greeks and the english.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck

>> No.4519970

>>4519053
A scientist who is not a philosopher is not a profound man, he's a laboratory man.

>> No.4519973

>>4519967
>not realizing contemporary Anglophone philosophy is indebted to Descartes, Kant and Wittgenstein to its core

>> No.4519976

>>4519431
>Feynman had an IQ of 120,

No he did not. He took an IQ test from his high school that said 120, who knows how accurate it was

>> No.4519979

>>4519910
>>4519919
>>4519937
>>4519942
>>4519961

Oh, God's curse upon thee, Sancho! sixty thousand devils fly away with thee and thy proverbs! For the last hour thou hast been stringing them together and inflicting the pangs of torture on me with every one of them. Those proverbs will bring thee to the gallows one day, I promise thee; thy subjects will take the government from thee, or there will be revolts among them. Tell me, where dost thou pick them up, thou booby? How dost thou apply them, thou blockhead? For with me, to utter one and make it apply properly, I have to sweat and labour as if I were digging.

>> No.4519988

>>4519976
Which just goes to show how inaccurate the field of psychometrics is to begin with. The human brain is so complex that to think we can begin to unravel it with a simple test is absurd.

>> No.4519999

>>4519979
what can't be cured, must be endured

>> No.4520002

>>4519988
Well, not exactly, it's much more probable that there was serious factors messing up the test results

Do you really, genuinely think IQ tests are all bullshit? Because they arent

>> No.4520006

>>4520002

>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html

>>>/pol/

>> No.4520008

>>4520006
>/pol/
This should be elevated to the status of the argumentum ad hitlerum

>> No.4520012

>>4519979
talk of the devil and he's bound to appear

>> No.4520016

>>4520002
IQ tests are on par with Briggs Meyers tests, good indicators, but really not sufficient.

>> No.4520018

>>4520006
>telegraph
>serious reporting

Yes, IQ tests DO capture a general level of intelligence, BUT THEY ARE NOT PERFECT.

>> No.4520024
File: 6 KB, 225x225, frown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520024

>>4520008
I'm really sorry about that. Got caught up in the spur of the moment ... forgive me father for I have sinned.

>> No.4520027
File: 14 KB, 194x231, 234324242432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520027

>>4519973
>Kant and Wittgenstein
Is that what your prof told you to think?

>> No.4520034

>>4520027
Well, that as well. Multiple of them. It is also quite blatantly obvious when you actually read contemporary analytic Anglophone philosophy, instead of pretending that you do. Also, I gorgot to put Frege in that list. As well as Carnap of course.

Instead of posting reaction faces, though, you might try to come up with an actual refutation.

>> No.4520045

>>4520024
get on your knees and prove it, my child

>> No.4520049

>>4520045
W..will it make me like Wittgenstein?

>> No.4520059

Kant is a boob. Categorical imperative my ass. >"Ethics should be based on doing what you're supposed to do--what is good and what is bad is intrinsically good and bad--just because. Fuck you, I don't have to explain shit, God does nigga"

Don't even get me started on his numina world. Fuck that ass hat.

Wittgenstein masturbates on his own chest--not worth mentioning any further.

Anything else?

Hegel said some interesting stuff about historical consciousness, but that's about it. Needlessly overcomplicated and a useless ass hat.

Nietzche is style over substance (though I do like his comparison of fighting Nihilism to the Greek heros of old).

Philosophy should be useful to people, not a masturbatory hokus pokus mumbo jumbo that can't easily and simply explained.

Decartes is actually bretty good because he was clear as fuck (despite using circular reasoning to assert god exists).

Satre and Derrida can eat shit and die.

Anything else kiddo?

>> No.4520062

>>4520059
This was meant for you>>4520034

>> No.4520066

>>4520059
Well, maybe read self-help manuals rather than philosophy?

>> No.4520072

>>4520059
so much ad hominem argumentation it is not even funny anymore. besides that, you include people I have not mentioned.

Kant's relevance to analytic anglophone philosophy comes primarily from his first and third Critique, not the second. Formal logic (of any order) is predicated on the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgements and the possibility of a priori syntheti judgements.

I don't know how to respond to your dismissal of Wittgenstein's influence on analytic anglophone philosophy, though. It's simply retarded. I'll mention a few crucial concepts: language game, lebensform, use/mention, certainty, "here are two hands"

>> No.4520073
File: 780 KB, 325x203, tumblr_m0izxoB0w51qfczas.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520073

>>4520066
Or...you know? The Ancient Greeks and the English?

Hume=Boss
Jon Stuart Mills (Utilitarianism)=Boss
Aristotle (NIomachean ethics)=Boss
Plato=Boss
Malthus
Darwin (natural philosophy fuck you)

>> No.4520075

>>4520059
>Philosophy should be useful to people
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

>> No.4520078

>>4520059
Just because you don't understand how to read Kant, Derrida or Nietzsche because it's in conflict with your petty aesthetic preferences, doesn't mean no one else can put them to use. The only asshat in your post is you.

>> No.4520079

>>4520072
Are you trying to assert Kant brought logic to "anglophone philosophy".

You've lost the argument quite badly I'm afraid.

>> No.4520081

>>4520073
Oh, I get it. TYou do't read contemporary philosophy. Just 18th century stuff. >>4520073
'Aight, still Descartes to account for then.

>> No.4520082

>>4520075
>psychiatry

>> No.4520083

>>4520079
Nope. I'm saying that formal logic was developed through the use of Kantian concepts

>> No.4520085

>>4520082
>arts and crafts

>> No.4520086

>>4520018
biologists and neuroscientists still don't agree on a clear definition of intelligence
psychologists do but who ever listens to them anyway

>> No.4520087

>>4520081
Never attacked Descartes (just all french philosophers who came after). He was pretty astute, despite his insatiable desire for distributing the D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN78AExnJsY

>> No.4520090
File: 498 KB, 255x235, 1381901453932.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520090

>>4520083
*Squawk*
>I'm saying that formal logic was developed through the use of Kantian concepts
*Squawk whistle*

Good my little COCKatiel. Have a cracker for never questioning the validity of the prof.

>> No.4520092

>>4519179
I lol'd

>> No.4520095

>>4520087
nice backpeddling

>>4520090
such persuasive power,
wow, so sound

>> No.4520096

>>4519698
kek

Anyways: OP do a line of speed, start reading, read some comments on the main work and repeat.

>> No.4520097

>>4520073
>Jon Stuart Mills (Utilitarianism)=Boss
kek

>> No.4520101

>>4520096
Or smoke cigarettes and drink a lot of coffee if you don't want to be like Tao Lin.

>> No.4520143 [DELETED] 
File: 9 KB, 252x159, 1390701140945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520143

>>4520073
>dat filename

>> No.4520148

>>4520085
Now that's the shit I like. I am currently working on a postmodern rendition of Whitman and Dostoevsky using glue and coloring paper.

And loving it.

>> No.4520160

>>4520148
pics. NOAW.

>> No.4520163

>>4520160
seconded

>> No.4520165
File: 73 KB, 350x457, 1391092657218.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520165

>>4520148
Fuck me is it fun and a great way to jump start and enhance the creative process.
Everyone should keep a creative journal, especially non creative people.

>> No.4520167

>>4520160
No camera (not lying either; my cellphone can't send pictures). And tbh it is kinda shitty.

>> No.4520171
File: 57 KB, 500x461, i know that feel bro.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4520171

Philosophy lost me at, "Is it pious because it pleases the gods, or does it please the gods because it is pious?".

>> No.4520179

>>4519976
>>4519970
>>4519431
Was Feynman profound? Was he a philosopher in addition to being a scientist, and if so then what's his school? How about Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers?

>> No.4520189

Oh god I feel this.

To me it all appears to be just useless nit picking when I read into it and I just lose all of my interest to it.

I can't even understand the point of it.

>> No.4520195 [DELETED] 

>>4520143
>muh cultural ownership of stupid memes
>>>/b/

>> No.4521073

>>4518985
reading simpler texts carefully for a long time

>> No.4521084

>>4519009
philosopher means(philos is the greek word for a kind of love involved in sharing interests) interested in wisdom or a friend of wisdom,

>> No.4521100

>>4519404
>poetry
>not self-examination
Have you even poetried?

>> No.4521115

Philosophy is the last resort for pseudo-intellectual teenagers who are lacking the education to talk about science and math where their baseless opinions would be objectively disproved.

>> No.4521130
File: 22 KB, 250x338, quine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4521130

>>4521115
ok. you sure showed us how thourough you have grounded your beliefs in sound argument and observed fact.

>> No.4521133

>>4521130
Indeed. I could of hardly posted a better argument than a FACT.

>> No.4521142

>>4521133
"Fact," from lat. "facere," "something made" or "something done."

>> No.4521144

>>4521142
Cool story, wikipedia bot.

>> No.4521153

>>4518987
I think you're probably a lot further along than you think you are. Especially compared to many of the armchair philosophers you may meet in life. Just keep reading (and rereading) and soon enough you'll find yourself in conversations touching on the subjects you've studied, and suddenly things start to fall into place.

>> No.4521155

>>4521144
"Story," from lat. "historia," compare "storey" (floor)

>> No.4521167

>>4521133
but anon, facts are not arguments, they may be used in arguments but they are not arguments in and of themselves. it is like you don't know how to have clear and distinct thoughts. how do you even maths or science?

>> No.4521172

>>4521167
Facts are the best arguments.

>> No.4521176

>>4521172
And how will you argue that?

Facts are not arguments, they may be used in arguments but they are not arguments in and of themselves.

>> No.4521178

>>4521176
>irrelevant semantics babble

Stop being autistic.

>> No.4521182

>>4521178
>no argument but ad hominem

>> No.4521187

>>4521182
A benevolent advice isn't an ad hominem.

>> No.4521193

>>4521187
still no argument for your claim

>> No.4521197

>>4521193
*claims

>> No.4521198

>>4521193
I did not make any claims. I only posted facts.

>> No.4521208

>>4521198
No, you are confuse, empty claims, facts, and justifications. You would know this, had you read... anything really.

>> No.4521210

>>4521208
*-confuse

>> No.4521236

Here Op.

Read the Illiad, understand Freud. Now the world is yours, don't succumb to it, change it.

Philosophy is important, but it for the common man to argue about, a creed of the common folk and a creed that the common folk no longer care for. Poll have shown that the amount of people who have a philosophy of life or follow one has decreased by 50% not to mention the population of Earth has increase by 700%

>> No.4521240

>>4521210
I mean *-are and the omma behind confuse

>> No.4521244

>>4521208
Your post makes no sense at all. Are you schizophrenic?

>> No.4521250

>>4518945
Yes ;_;

>> No.4521251

>>4521249
Take your meds.

>> No.4521249

>>4521244
no, just tired. warranted assertibility is fighting over the primacy of embodied interaction with a truth that wants to be out there in the world, inside my head. has been doing that for seven days.

>> No.4521253

>>4521251
first I'll have to finish this paper, then I can smoke a jay

>> No.4521256

>tfw you read all of plato, all of aristotle, all the greek socratic schools, all the neoplatonists, have thoroughly read aquinas and medieval scholastics, plenty of modern philosophers and the more you read the less you fucking understand

Truly a horible feel.

>> No.4521268

>>4521256
Well yeah, philosophy is just the original internet argument. People spent their lives trying to disprove each others work with no basis on then "i think so"

>> No.4521269

>>4521249
I want to know this guy and fight over the primacy over embodied interaction inside his head.

>> No.4521278

just watch videos and shorts documentaries on the different subjects.

>> No.4521293

>>4521268
>Well yeah, video games is just the original pastime. People spent their lives trying to beat each other's high-scores with no basis on then "i want to".

Welcome to humanity friend.

>> No.4521316

>>4518945
Philosophy is retarded

>> No.4521319

>>4520179

Scientists are Natural Philosophers. That's the original term for scientist. That's Feynman's school of philosophy: science. It's a school primarily focused on epistemology: what do I know, how do I know it, how certain am I, how can I know more.

As a school, it outperforms other schools of philosophy in the "changing the world" department. I mean, it's not like Platonists can alter reality by using their knowledge of the Forms, but scientists can eradicate diseases and go to the moon.

This has led some to claim that other branches of philosophy are obsolete. If philosophy is the search for truth, well, we've got a method that seems to actually WORK, it finds truths, so all the undergrads arguing in circles about other philosophies are basically just wanking. This is a bit premature, though, as an understanding of various philosophies can still make you a more well-rounded and moral person. And there are many philosophical questions which we have yet to find scientific answers too. Though that's not to say we WON'T find answers to them. We used to think morality was outside science's realm, and then we invented game theory and it turns out our ideas of good and evil map very closely to mathematical descriptions of optimal or sub-optimal group survival strategies.

>> No.4521332

>>4518987
No one can get away with reading an academic paper once and understanding it. At university we were taught that a paper can take upwards of two reads to truly understand it. If you want to be knowledgeable on a subject you need to revise it somehow.

>> No.4521339

>>4521293

Yeah that is certainly one of them, but major sports are likely the original mass pastimes. Everyone wanted to be x athlete. Not only did it bring fame and jealousy on a large scale, but fortune as well.

Philosophy however is just a high score list from ancient times till now

>> No.4521596

>>4521256
Damn son, that's a lot of reading.

>> No.4521727

>>4519009
The point is to posture yourself as an intellectual and to look smarter and more sophistacated and sensitive than your friends so that you get pussy and they don't. Hold your wittgenstein in front of your face on the bus, make sure the passengers have a good view and you're bound to get laid, bro.

>> No.4521814

>>4519836
Seriously this
/lit/ is the best damn board

>> No.4522550
File: 980 KB, 500x282, 1384106092607.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4522550

>>4521319

>> No.4522564

>>4520179
Um yeah, have you ever heard of Feynman diagrams, kiddo?

>> No.4524556

Don't give up!

>> No.4524584

>>4522564
>implying Feynman diagrams are profound

Any child can draw some squiggles.

>> No.4524618

>>4521319
Ten points for Ravenclaw.

>> No.4524630

most posters here do not grasp philosophy as philosophers, but rather as historians or essayists of philosophy, which is considerably easier and requires much less critical thought. so you're not without lots of company.

>> No.4524636

>I wanted very much to learn to draw, for a reason that I kept to myself: I wanted to convey an emotion I have about the beauty of the world. It's difficult to describe because it's an emotion. It's analogous to the feeling one has in religion that has to do with a god that controls everything in the whole universe: there's a generality aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear so different and behave so differently are all run "behind the scenes" by the same organization, the same physical laws. It's an appreciation of the mathematical beauty of nature, of how she works inside; a realization that the phenomena we see result from the complexity of the inner workings between atoms; a feeling of how dramatic and wonderful it is. It's a feeling of awe — of scientific awe — which I felt could be communicated through a drawing to someone who had also had this emotion. It could remind him, for a moment, of this feeling about the glories of the universe.

>> No.4524808
File: 32 KB, 500x361, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4524808

Some great starter books are Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, and Think by Simon Blackburn. SW goes further back (pre-Socratic) but Think is much more thorough. Both are very accessible and great as springboards to further learning