>that one faggot in your philosophy class who thinks he's a genius because he read Gödel Escher Bach

File: 51 KB, 453x604, 1365564688639.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:27:57 2014 No.4546608 [DELETED]

>that one faggot in your philosophy class who thinks he's a genius because he read Gödel Escher Bach

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:29:57 2014 No.4546609 >philosophy class what did you expect?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:29:57 2014 No.4546610 File: 159 KB, 380x390, owlstanza.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >that one faggot who dismisses all philosophy because "Wittgenstein solved it anyway"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:34:32 2014 No.4546621 All from same guy >Everything is just a footnote of plato's Republic >Everything is based upon philosophy >Scientists should consult philosophers to determine whether their experiments and discoveries are ethical

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:35:32 2014 No.4546624 >>4546621 >ethical jesus, what a pleb

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:36:32 2014 No.4546626 >>4546608 >that one guy that cannot stop using the word 'dialetical'

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:37:32 2014 No.4546629 >>4546621 >>Everything is based upon philosophy It took me so friggin' long to get out of this phase.

Occult Fascist Sat Feb 8 01:38:32 2014 No.4546630

>>4546621
These are also all from the same guy (he also is basically OPs faggot as well)
>That one faggot who says everything equals zero and "it's all nothing guys"
>That one faggot who reads books like "The Tao of Physics" and talks about it at parties
>That one faggot who says "My name is yon yonson..."

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:39:32 2014 No.4546632

>>4546629
philosophy is defined as either

the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. when considered as an academic discipline.

or

a theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:40:32 2014 No.4546634 >>4546608 Whats wrong with that guy's head? It's like someone squished it sideways and moved the flesh into his upper body

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:42:32 2014 No.4546636

>>4546632

I'm aware of that. My point is that there is so much contingency in a culture and cultural achievements that to claim "it's all based on philosophy" is incorrect. Philosophy is not the master discourse, even if it has always wanted to be since at least Ion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:44:33 2014 No.4546638 >>4546630 Well, in the grand scheme of things nothing really matters, so there's that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:46:32 2014 No.4546640 >>4546638 Only if you don't know what it means for something to "matter".

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 01:57:34 2014 No.4546652 >>4546640 That's just escapism. Anything you do won't have any significance in a couple years, centuries or millennia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:00:34 2014 No.4546658 >>4546652 It isn't escapism. Your argument doesn't make sense because you're implying significance has to be independent of a human subject. Which is ridiculous.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:09:34 2014 No.4546663

>>4546658
Let me put it this way:
In a million years it won't have mattered whether you became a heroin addict or the most renowned scientist; it won't matter what lifestyle you chose or what decisions you made.

We live in a fraction of a second of the lifetime of the universe and so do our actions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:11:34 2014 No.4546666 >that one guy who talks about nietzsche and slave morality >that one guy who believes in marxism and material history >that one guy who thinks Christianity is a philosophy

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:12:34 2014 No.4546669

>>4546663

And neither you nor I will be around then. I am aware of the consequences of my actions now though.

Your argument is self-defeating. You think nothing is "significant" a priori, so why should anybody give a fuck about your arbitrary sense of what significance is? Actions matter to people while they're alive. Your "muh million years from now" is philosophically irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:15:34 2014 No.4546673 >>4546669 It's not self-defeating, because I said in the grand scheme of things (>>4546638) Now, tomorrow and a century from now aren't part of it

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:17:34 2014 No.4546674

>>4546669
I think it's about goals. Some people think we should expand endlessly and capitalisticly in the dreams of some star-dwelling future utopia. Because that would "matter". Others think we should retreat into nomadic tribal existence. Who knows what the comparative lifespan of each future morality entails. But the forms the basic debate between left and right wing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:17:34 2014 No.4546675 >>4546673 And you, a finite and ignorant human being, have access to the "grand scheme of things" do you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:19:34 2014 No.4546680 >>4546674 You're both missing my point. Significance is a property of language and cognition, and to speak of "significance" without a human subject, and therefore to care about what the significance in "the grand scheme of things" is, is retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:19:34 2014 No.4546681 >>4546636 >implying there's anything else of equal discourse >inb4 material science >inb4 socioloy

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:21:34 2014 No.4546686 >>4546681 Still missing the point. How are you measuring which discourses are "equal"? Oh, right, It's a metaphorical extension that you're taking seriously for some bizarre reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:21:34 2014 No.4546687 >>4546675 When did I claim that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:23:34 2014 No.4546690 >>4546687 If you don't have access to it why are you talking about it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:26:34 2014 No.4546697 >>4546680 The grand scheme of humanity is the radical subject. That's why you have to be an anti-natalist lest you force one to live who didn't wish it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:26:34 2014 No.4546698 >>4546690 You only talk about things you have access to? PS nice job changing the subject, it almost wasn't painfully obvious

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:28:34 2014 No.4546700 >>4546698 I didn't change the subject at all. I'm pointing out why your notion of significance is philosophically irrelevant. >>4546697 >the grand scheme of humanity is the radical subject Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:31:35 2014 No.4546704 File: 455 KB, 1579x1600, Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4546675 of course he does, hes living in it right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:32:35 2014 No.4546706 >>4546700 Yours is the only insignificant notion in any case. The idea that one needs access to something in order to talk about it is plain stupid. If it were true, talking about the past or 30 seconds into the future would be 'irrelevant'

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:34:34 2014 No.4546710

>>4546706

No, because we know what the past, future and God are. We have access to their meanings and we can talk about them. You don't know what the grand scheme of things is, so you don't get to appeal to it in support of your half-baked nihilism.

Things have significance if they matter to a particular person. To talk of significance in a transcendental sense is ridiculous unless you want to bring religion into it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:38:34 2014 No.4546717 >>4546710 So you know the future and God? You can't expect people to take you seriously after claiming such nonsense

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:40:34 2014 No.4546719

>>4546717
I know those concepts. You don't have access to the grand scheme of things, though (unless you define it arbitrarily to suit your argument, in which case significance leads right back to the human subject, ho ho ho).

Nice shitty debating tactics though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:40:34 2014 No.4546720 >>4546717 knowing the future is knowing god.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:42:34 2014 No.4546722

>>4546700
Well I was joking about antinatalism. Cause it couldn't matter if nothing mattered. But nothing really matters because all things are dependent upon the subject to matter. And in the grand scheme of things the individual is not even a subject. The subject was the goal of modernity but slowly we retreat from the edge of the limit of that equation and realize we were meant to be animal. So in some senses, it matters more to be a heroin addict than a scientist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:43:34 2014 No.4546723 >>4546722 >So in some senses, it matters more to be a heroin addict than a scientist. Yeah nah. I really hope you aren't a junkie and use this shitty reasoning to defend your lifestyle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:43:34 2014 No.4546724 >>4546719 Yeah no, claiming to know the concept of god is a great one Please, enlighten me with a non-arbitrary definition of god

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:46:34 2014 No.4546729 >>4546723 Would you rather live thirty years doing blow and fucking strippers or seventy in a frustrated petty bourgeoisie existence? The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long. I smoke weed all day, every day. Come at me, bro.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:46:35 2014 No.4546730 >>4546724 The original creator and/or supreme moral authority, outside of space and time and immortal. Not religious, but the idea of what god is is pretty universally recognised, dickwad.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:48:34 2014 No.4546732 >>4546730 That fits into one or two religions, not all of them, so it still is arbitrary. You agreeing with it doesn't make it less so, dickwad

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:48:35 2014 No.4546731 >>4546730 How do you know that there aren't tiers of gods and multiplicities thereof as in gnostic systems and hinduism and so forth?

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:49:34 2014 No.4546733

>>4546729
>Would you rather live thirty years doing blow and fucking strippers or seventy in a frustrated petty bourgeoisie existence?

False dichotomy, you fucking retard.

>>4546731

There could be, as long as we both understand what the concept itself means we can talk about it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:50:34 2014 No.4546734 >>4546732 Name a religion where god/s don't fall into any of those criteria?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:55:34 2014 No.4546736 >>4546733 Well deities might exist in different times and spaces as in higher realms and may or may not be immortal and some may create while others don't or even do the opposite and moral decree still seems arbitrary including them. Plato's Euthyphro.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:55:34 2014 No.4546737

>>4546734
My newly made religion (still as valid as every other because of lack of proof) in which god is not the original creator nor a supreme moral authority, inside space and time and mortal.
He is also a peanut butter sandwich that flies and fights crime.

There probably are better examples I don't know about because I never cared about world religions; but trying to define god is only something a pretty dense person would attempt to do.
It takes a much more dense person to try to claim that his definition applies to every god ever created by every human, tho

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 02:58:34 2014 No.4546739

>>4546737

So you think the word god has no meaning?

Alright, fine. It isn't essential to my argument anyway. You still don't have access to the "grand scheme of things", and it's not your place to tell anybody else what absolutely matters and what doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:01:34 2014 No.4546741 >>4546739 The grand scheme is just as meaningful as far as value is concerned as God or the future or even the radical subject. QED nothing matters because all are contingent.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:02:35 2014 No.4546746 >>4546741 Actually it means whatever you want matters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:03:35 2014 No.4546747 >>4546739 Do you have access to the future or the past?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:04:34 2014 No.4546748 >>4546746 What if we want to embrace the vacuum? The nothingness of correct form?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:05:34 2014 No.4546749 >>4546747 I know what the future and the past mean, yes. You don't know what the grand scheme of things means. You are finite and ignorant, faggot. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:07:34 2014 No.4546752 >>4546739 Not in the religious sense it doesn't

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:07:34 2014 No.4546753 >>4546749 The grand scheme is nothing. The formless form. The void. Sunyata.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:09:34 2014 No.4546756 >>4546753 And why should we give a fuck about it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:10:34 2014 No.4546757 >>4546752 If it has no meaning, how are you predicating meaninglessness of it? You're in effect saying nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:11:34 2014 No.4546758 >>4546756 i dunno, maybe if you want a creepy non-reciprocal relationship with something, but that's probably easier to do with some chick on the bus tbh

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:11:34 2014 No.4546759 >>4546749 How do you know it's not you that's ignorant?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:14:34 2014 No.4546761 >>4546758 If you do it with a chick on the bus it's creepy. If you do it with reality it's romantic and you're a philosopher. Duh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:16:34 2014 No.4546763 >>4546759 We're both ignorant. You're the one relying on a fallacious 'grand scheme of things' though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:18:35 2014 No.4546768 >>4546757 It's just going the extra step. Relativism is nihilism for pussies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:19:34 2014 No.4546771 >>4546768 If this is your idea of a good argument, I'm not even going to bother you. juvenile. fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:30:34 2014 No.4546782 >>4546608 >that guy whose body language, intonation, and words choice are 1-1 copies of Zizek's not the ticks though, thank god and so on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:47:34 2014 No.4546801 >>4546782 >that same guy who, when you call him out on his shit, complains that you "undermine his authority"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 03:51:34 2014 No.4546808 >>4546801 >that same guy, who complains about capitalism and claims to be an actual Marxists, sits in class using an imac, ipad, and iphone, trying to organize a Baroque chamberconcert

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:00:34 2014 No.4546819

>>4546629
um what?
anything that attempts to explain anything is philosophy. I don't give a fuck about what the 'master discourse' is but you have to have a, well plain stupid view of what philosophy is to think all fields of inquiry aren't built on philosophical presuppositions

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:04:34 2014 No.4546824 >>4546801 a guy working at mcdonalds claimed that when i picked up the food i just paid for from his desk that is 5cm lower than the main desk

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:04:34 2014 No.4546825 >wasting money on a philosophy class instead of an actual useful degree and not just reading it in your spare time Nice job neetard

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:08:41 2014 No.4546831 >>4546819 fields of inquiry =/= everything

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:08:41 2014 No.4546832 >>4546825 nofunallowed.jpg

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:09:40 2014 No.4546837 >>4546825 OP here. This is why I switched to neuroscience actually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:13:40 2014 No.4546844 >>4546825 >not being the best of your class >not getting a phd position >not being paid to study >being this jealous.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:14:40 2014 No.4546845 >>4546831 oh ok

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:16:40 2014 No.4546847 File: 62 KB, 500x619, IMG_18329491807609.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4546844 >exerting you intellect >having no money you're doing it wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:21:40 2014 No.4546857 >>4546847 >exerts his intellect to tell others not to exert their intellect Dat passive aggressivity. >>4546845 This guy too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:28:40 2014 No.4546864 >>4546857 >what is a joke

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:28:41 2014 No.4546862 >>4546847 But I do have money. What you mean is: >not having disgusting amounts of money

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:30:40 2014 No.4546867 >>4546864 Apology accepted

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:30:40 2014 No.4546868 >>4546857 how is 'oh ok' passive aggressive?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:31:40 2014 No.4546870 File: 80 KB, 626x792, stirn2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >the one guy whose answer to anything is 'read Stirner' >mfw when that is me

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:31:40 2014 No.4546871 >>4546867 ; )

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:34:40 2014 No.4546876 >>4546868 Get real.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:35:40 2014 No.4546877

>>4546870
> friend talking about nietzsche
> he is in a philosophy major
> he says how he loves him and whatnot
> he says how his professor that's teaching nietzsche this semester is great
> he complains that nietzsche is misunderstood, his not in favor of tyranny nor anything bad, he's a good guy
> keep going on and on about that, about how his great professor agrees, how I should go to his classes to see how I don't know nothing about nietzsche

> reaches a point where the only argument that pops my mind it's "dude, you gotta read Stirner"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:37:40 2014 No.4546879 >>4546877 But stirner isn't Nietzsche?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:39:40 2014 No.4546882 >>4546879 Nietzsche is a spook.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:39:40 2014 No.4546884 File: 150 KB, 245x320, spooky.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4546870 Stirner is love, Stirner is life

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:40:40 2014 No.4546886 >>4546882 2spoopy4u

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:40:41 2014 No.4546887 >>4546879 Nietzsche is a Stirner wannabe whose insecurity got in the way of actually writing something good

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:44:40 2014 No.4546890 >>4546876 it doesn't matter to me if it is i'm just curious

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:45:40 2014 No.4546893 >>4546887 this Stirner > fuccboi Nietzsche

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:46:40 2014 No.4546898 >>4546870 >>4546877 >>4546882 >>4546884 holy fuck, this makes me want to read Stirner for the sole purpose of having more ways to tell you guys you are cunts

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:53:40 2014 No.4546907 >that entire department who hasn't studied the pre-socratics I don't know why they don't offer this stuff at my uni. but even worse >has read kant and or wittgenstein >hasn't read hume kill it the self

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:53:40 2014 No.4546908 This is just hypothetical but if someone knew most of current philosophy from learning it themselves without reading a book would he have potential in philosophy? What if that person knew what qualia is when he was 5? hypothetically speaking

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:54:40 2014 No.4546909

>>4546898
sorry that the critique of your autistic beta male hero is upsetting you, go masturbate while gently assuring yourself that you are ubermensch as your tears drip on the semen stained portrait of Nietzsche, right on top of his hairy twat of a mustache.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:54:40 2014 No.4546910 >>4546908 the fact that you asked this question makes you sound like a retard

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:56:41 2014 No.4546911 >>4546908 >with out reading a book you mean like the Wikipedia article, you fucking pleb?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 04:58:40 2014 No.4546914 >>4546909 I'm not a fan of Nietzsche. I just really hate the general Stirner omgspooks thing that's been springing around here

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:01:40 2014 No.4546918 >>4546910 >>4546911 Your anger has answered my question you guys always get butthurt when I say you all should have been able figure out most philosophy by your self

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:01:40 2014 No.4546919 File: 422 KB, 960x1359, 1378702291068.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >that kid who thinks taking LSD makes them a better philosopher >mfw that's me

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:01:40 2014 No.4546920 >>4546911 There is like millions of books of describing philosophy and its famous representatives. Before I read any book by these representives, authors, I read about five of those general works to get the big frame.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:03:40 2014 No.4546923 >>4546918 Are you planning on becoming a philosopher? I think that might be difficult as an autodidact but praytell. Set out your axioms for us to digest. What do you understand?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:05:40 2014 No.4546925 >>4546908 Probably would not stand a chance. You can explain them all you like, in academic philosophy (of today at least) the rule is: "citation needed"

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:05:40 2014 No.4546926

>>4546918
>implying I didn't already figure all this out by myself
>implying reading the book does not give you new point of view on the already known schools of thought
>implying reading Wikipedia articles is the same as reading the book

>anger
kiddo, please stop projecting

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:08:13 2014 No.4546932

>>4546923
I do not I told you it was a hypothetical question.

there is nothing I can do in philosophy that would not have been done before also since I'm not very educated I have trouble verbalizing what I think I don't know the words needed to say what I want to say. I actually only learned the word for qualia a few days ago

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:09:13 2014 No.4546933

>>4546925
Which is to say, you have to be able to find the passages in other people's work that correspond (so to say) to the ideas you express in your own.

You cannot simply say something along the lines of "the scholastics believed all knowledge to be analytic" without being able to back that statement up with some evidence. Even if that evidence is known to most of your readers. Besides that you'd have to realize from where that use of the word "analytic" stems from.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:10:13 2014 No.4546934 >>4546918 nah not even mad. you can definitely do it (become a good philobro) I just think the question you asked is a dumb one to ask

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:10:13 2014 No.4546935

>>4546932
>I don't know the words needed
And this would be exactly the problem of your hypothetical philosophical savant. The medium of philosophy is words, semantics or syntax depending on who you ask. If you can't properly handle the medium, you cannot practice philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:12:13 2014 No.4546937 >>4546932 Make a laypersons guide to philosophy. Explain what you "know" in terms the average person so could understand how you "know" all of current philosophy without reading a book. It would be a hit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:12:13 2014 No.4546939 >>4546932 >there is nothing I can do in philosophy that would not have been done before >nothing I can do >I I really don't see why people mistake a return to themes, for a reitteration of ideas without novelty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:13:14 2014 No.4546943 >>4546932 soz for being a dick in the first reply seriously. I'll just say yes. if you want to do phil by yourself i suggsst when you have gone as far as you can on your own pick up some books to get the ball rolling again

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:18:13 2014 No.4546948

>>4546934
I thought till very recently everyone that was a normal human being figured all this stuff out just growing up and philosophers where just the people who could articulate it really good.

>>4546935
Can it be learned though? How does one go about learning what is needed to properly express philosophy? Do I open a dictionary to a random page and start memorizing words? Should I go to uni for it?

>>4546937
>Make a laypersons guide to philosophy

I think I can do that. Part of the problem is I don't know what is obvious to people. As I said above I thought everyone just learned it themselves over childhood and their teens and that's what "being and adult" meant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:22:13 2014 No.4546956 >>4546948 >Should I go to uni for it? Yes. Either that or get a private tutor who really knows his shit (i.e. who studied philosophy). You know who thought she could be an autodidact? Nietzsche's sister.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:26:13 2014 No.4546958 >>4546956 Also, opening up that dictionary will be usefull. Get an etymological one though.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:28:13 2014 No.4546962

>>4546948
Actually I'll try and say some of the topics I would talk about I didn't want to because I know I won't be able to defend my points against you guys if you felt like tearing them apart.

Lifes value
Languages effect(affect?) on the way you think and how it influences how you think
human languages limits
Meaning of words I don't really know how to describe what I mean by this I think it's epistemology?
truth
morality
ethics
free will

I know there are others but like I said I don't really know the words for it. I actually don't have a solid definition for ethics or morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:29:13 2014 No.4546963 >>4546932 > I think I don't know the words needed to say what I want to say Then just do it Kant style and invent them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:32:13 2014 No.4546973 >>4546962 good luck, kid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:33:13 2014 No.4546979 >>4546963 B-but Kant did not invent words out of the blue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:36:13 2014 No.4546986 >>4546962 how old are you? my guess is 14.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:40:13 2014 No.4546994 >>4546962 >Meaning of words That's semantics >I think it's epistemology? No, that's about the limits and conditions of knowledge. Really, if this is the level that you're at, you are far from the level that hypothetical person you put on stage is at.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:42:14 2014 No.4546999 >>4546608 >paying to attend an indoctrination mill >calling others stupid You haven't even read GEB:AEGB, have you? I bet you haven't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:43:13 2014 No.4547003 >>4546999 >indoctrination mill dat anti intellectualism

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:46:13 2014 No.4547009 >>4547003 academy is the dream >tfw not admitted to école normale supérieure

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:47:13 2014 No.4547012 >>4547003 It's the opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:48:13 2014 No.4547014 >>4547003 a default radical distrust of educational institutions is the same as intellectualism? I never realized how anti-intellectual all those intellectuals who went to school and uni actually were.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:51:13 2014 No.4547023

>>4546963
Speaking of Kant I have heard of him around here but I'm curious what is he all about? He made a system or something? Actually if it isn't too much trouble I can just google it after all but can you guys give me a very brief rundown of the big players? All I know is Nietzsche is the life has no meaning guy and the word ubermench, plato is government stuff I think.

>>4546973
you guys have made me happy I didn't think anyone would believe me so I have never talked about it before.

If I write a book can you guys give me something to write in it to tip you off that it's me?

had to cut out the rest of this post too long

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:54:13 2014 No.4547029 File: 18 KB, 724x588, 1388897356499.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4547023 >tfw I wasn being a cynic

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 05:58:14 2014 No.4547034

>>4546994
I fucked up in explaining
>meaning of words

is off or maybe what I think semantics is is off but I believe I was referring to a part of epistemology. I know no one will believe this but I will come back in a few years when I'm better educated.
Just keep an open mind about what I'm saying next

oh I remember something I think others haven't touched on before but I'm not sure if counts as philosophy. I have figured out a way in using the mind to shape your personality, likes and dislikes at will. Also how to control your stress and aid mental illness' possibly limited physical change. For physical change as far as I can see I just programmed a machine in my head to trigger the placebo effect to the point where if I say "I wish I wasn't fat" or "I wish I would lose weight" I would experience increased weight loss while having no change in my physical activity or diet. I strongly believe everyone does it to some extent they just don't know it. For the likes and dislikes the process is like making things you don't like an acquired taste by using your mind. I'm not sure how to communicate the exact process but you have to learn how to think in symbols and metaphors till you subconsciously do it. For example I did it just a little bit ago there was an image of a shield that popped into my mind this represented my extreme defensiveness hold the mental image and change it. The shield was bigger than my entire body I shrunk it down to only cover my forearm and my super defensiveness is mostly gone and my self esteem since then has been higher. It's the only reason I could post what I'm posting now. I would have been too afraid.
it doesn't matter if this works only because I think it will work because I can trigger these changes any time I want. Possibly it's harassing placebo effect at will. Or maybe how I think of it is the symbols are linked to your subconcious mind so basically you developed a language in your head to speak with your subconcious mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:00:13 2014 No.4547040 >>4547034 Ohhh, you want to write a self-help book. This makes a lot more sense now.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:04:31 2014 No.4547051
File: 3 KB, 209x215, 1388885421767.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4547023
>Speaking of Kant I have heard of him around here but I'm curious what is he all about? He made a system or something? Actually if it isn't too much trouble I can just google it after all but can you guys give me a very brief rundown of the big players? All I know is Nietzsche is the life has no meaning guy and the word ubermench, plato is government stuff I think
7/10

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:07:31 2014 No.4547055

>>4547034
oh another example. When there where voices in my head I Imagined there was a two way transceiver in my head and the person who was listening to my thoughts and saying things in my head I destroyed the transceivers and the voices are gone and haven't returned.
>>4547040
that may be it

>>4547051
I'm very serious

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:09:32 2014 No.4547058 File: 118 KB, 1032x1023, 1388274310395.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4547055 >I'm very serious

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:10:31 2014 No.4547061 >>4547055 >that may be it Self-help books are rarely - if ever - philosophically sound, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:11:31 2014 No.4547064 >>4547055 >When there where voices in my head Did they tell you you could be a philosopher?

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:13:31 2014 No.4547069

>>4546994
oh to add to what there is no point in continuing this I cannot back up what I say in anyway that would be meaningful to you all for if I say just tell me things in philosophy I would say oh yeah I know that but that would prove nothing. It could just be lies and waiting for you to say whatever it is and I would say oh yeah I know that regardless of what you say. There is really nothing I can do right now to back up what I say besides expecting all of you to believe a random person on an imageboard who claims he may be a savant in philosophy and I don't think anyone could really believe that without backing of some form.

I cannot really do anything but ask you to keep it in the back of your head and just go about your business until I return in a few years with a better education

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:15:31 2014 No.4547074

>>4547061
If that's what it is than that may be what I should try doing. I know I have ideas in that area that haven't been done yet while in philosophy I don't think I can add anything that hasn't been done.

>>4547064
no they only commit on my social standing with others

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:21:31 2014 No.4547088

>>4547023
basic run down of philosophy
pythagoras: made up some magic bean cult about math
heraclitus: was some weeping western buddha
thales: fell down a well
democritus: figured out everything was atoms
parmenides: became an eternal one
empedocles: evolved within a sphere
plato: drank wine, talked about love and had gay fascist buttsex
diogenes: was a hobo
aristotle: scientist god
pyyrho: troll
epicurus: degenerate
zeno: became stoic
plotinus: figured out the monad
augustine: made christianity hip
boethius: talked to lady philosophy
aquinas: laid down the medieval discourse
machiavelli: evil renaissance man
descartes: dualism and rationalism
hobbes: behemoth
pascal: gambler
spinoza: einstein
locke: empirical liberal
berkeley: the matrix
hume: tested the limits
voltaire: questioned the norms
kant: was believed to be a robot by his butler
schelling: had sleepovers with Hegel
hegel: created the greatest joke of all time
schopenhauer: was always bitchy
kierkegaard: wanted to believe
marx: used to worship satan
freud: is a sex guru
jung: invented new age-ism
russel: og atheism
wittgenstein: the word master
heidegger: dat ass is dasein
goedel: completed philosophy
strauss: esoteric philosopher king
lacan: taught us that women don't exist
deleuze: is everything wrong about the sixties
foucault: died of aids
zizek: is the first marxist clown

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:23:32 2014 No.4547090 >>4547088 >kant: was believed to be a robot by his butler Is that serious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:26:31 2014 No.4547097 >>4547088 confirmed being 100% accurate, put this in your self help book >>4547055 (do not edit it)

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:35:31 2014 No.4547103

>>4547069
the thing is, sport, that as long as you CAN [look up etym.] not adequately put things into words, you have not only demonstrated your knowledge [look up etym.] you actually do not know [look up etym.] the subject you claim to have a grasp on.

In the beginning was the deed and all that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:37:32 2014 No.4547105 >>4547088 >thales: fell down a well this is the best

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:37:32 2014 No.4547106 >>4547103 *not demonstrated

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:38:32 2014 No.4547107 >>4546673 >in the grand scheme of things No such thing, literally nothing exists outside of what we (by which I mean I) observe think and feel in this moment .

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:39:31 2014 No.4547109 >>4547107 Take your meds, your sollipsism is acting up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:40:31 2014 No.4547110 >>4546979 You are right, he created new terms out of the blue using already existing words, my mistake.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:40:31 2014 No.4547111 >>4546724 >Please, enlighten me with a non-arbitrary definition of god A feeling you edgy faggot.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:44:31 2014 No.4547117

>>4546729
I plan on living to 80 smoking weed and drinking wine in moderation each day and keeping a strong regime of excercice and study while sleeping with beautiful intelectually stimulating women I have feelings for. Maybe even have 8 kids and settle down in a small town and contribute to society.

If you really think doing blow and fucking hookers is better than that I would propose that you are immature and don't actually have the life experience to compare the various options in life. In fact, I'd highly doubt you've ever fucked a stripper or done blow, but simply find the image appealing and offensive.

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:48:31 2014 No.4547129

>>4547110
Which he created in response to already existing terms, as such incorporating those terms into his system of thought. Without some understanding of, say, scholastic tradition and empirical idealism, one can't really understand what the fuck Kant's words mean. Especially if this one is Kant himself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:51:31 2014 No.4547134 >>4547109 >implying im not objectively right when we consider life from a subjective prespective. and i dont need medication because im god

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 06:52:31 2014 No.4547143 >>4547134 Ok, Fichte.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 08:37:40 2014 No.4547268 >>4547034 Philosophy is not the career you want. "Bulshittery" is possibly a degree you would be interested in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 11:12:40 2014 No.4547486 that one faggot who is OP

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 12:28:07 2014 No.4547672 File: 17 KB, 255x352, 1362656490430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4546652 Like the Greek philosophers, right?

Anonymous Sat Feb 8 12:31:06 2014 No.4547677

>>4547109
It doesn't have to be sollipism, there really is no grand scheme of things. The universe just is. It came up, we came up, then we'll die, and it will die.

Not trying to be edgy, it's just silly to believe that there is a "scheme of things" or built-in meaning.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 12:57:06 2014 No.4547742 >>4547677 there's a bit of a leap between stating that there is no purpose to the totality of being and stating that there is "literally nothing that exists outside our observation"

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 13:19:10 2014 No.4547787 >>4547742 Which is exactly why I said that it doesn't have to be solipism

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 13:40:09 2014 No.4547821 >>4547672 #TOLD

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 13:54:09 2014 No.4547846 >>4546919 I hate you

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 14:20:57 2014 No.4547935 >>4547787 you do realize that in the post to which the post you reacted to reacted to it was stated that " literally nothing exists outside of what we [...] observe" that pretty much constitutes sollipsism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 14:38:56 2014 No.4547986 >>4546837 Dyllan???

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 14:59:57 2014 No.4548028 >>4546808 >HUR HUR YOU CAN'T BUY ANYTHING IF YOU BELIEVE IN A SOCIAL ORDER HUUUUUUUFRFFFRRRD people like you are literally retarded

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 15:23:57 2014 No.4548111 >>4546608 >godel escher bach >philosophy class i agree with you op thats pathetic

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 22:51:32 2014 No.4549356 >>4546722 >joking >on a serious /lit/ debate >it couldn't matter if nothing mattered >tries to sound clever by using syntactical contradictions >plz leave high school studnt

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 23:03:32 2014 No.4549375 >>4546847 >having money is the way to know if you are exerting your intellect the right way dat protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism tough

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 8 23:14:33 2014 No.4549397 >>4546632 >that faggot that thinks dictionaries settle arguments

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 04:37:54 2014 No.4550020 >>4548028 Nice strawman. >what is a performative contradiction? three fucking, interchangeable Apple products, while ranting about evil corporations destroying African wealth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 04:41:54 2014 No.4550024 >>4546610 But he did solve everything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 07:59:28 2014 No.4550304 >>4549375 >Being poor

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 08:20:21 2014 No.4550332 >that one faggot who actually studies philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 08:53:39 2014 No.4550379 >>4550304 fucking poor, they've got to be the goddamn worst

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 09:23:00 2014 No.4550428 >>4546666 >that one guy who believes in marxism and material history The joke's on you though.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 09:34:00 2014 No.4550446

>>4548028
You do realize that it's pretty fucking bourgious to go to a fucking chamberconcert, let alone a Baroque one? You do realize that Apple is one of the biggest successes of contemporary capitalism? Or are you blinded by their slick product design and marketing campaigns. It's like you don't know ideology when it is staring you in the face.

Also, yes, if you are a true Marxist I should think you ought to refrain, as much as possible, from purchasing capitalist produced goods. Instead of an iPhone, for example, why not buy a FairPhone?

People like you are fucking hypocrites.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 12:15:26 2014 No.4550814 >>4550446 YOU DO REALIZE IT'S PRETTY FUCKING HARD TO ACQUIRE A TABLET OF ANY FORM THAT WASN'T PRODUCED BY AN ASIAN SWEATSHOP FOR A CAPITALIST COMPANY? GEE HE'S SUCH A CRIMINAL FOR USING A FUCKING TABLET DURR I'M A FUCKING RETARD

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 12:18:26 2014 No.4550820 >>4546666 >that one guy who talks about nietzsche and slave morality Only if he clearly hasn't actually read Nietzsche because he believes Nietzsche advocated some sort of amoral hedonistic attitude.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 12:21:26 2014 No.4550823 >>4550020 >you have to live your life as a technophobic hippy if you hate capitalism Name me one electronics company that doesn't abuse poor labor, and I'll show you a company with an amazing PR branch

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 12:21:26 2014 No.4550824 >>4550814 >my principles only last until they are slightly inconvenient to me

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 12:27:12 2014 No.4550834 >>4550824 >you have to live your life as a technophobic hippy if you dislike capitalism Moron

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 12:33:12 2014 No.4550841 File: 43 KB, 316x475, Ride_the_Tiger_Cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If you want to advance after reading Stirner you should read Evola

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 14:08:12 2014 No.4551034

>>4550814
Wow, is that cruise control? You're cool.It's like you actually need a tablet of any form to live your life

>>4550823
fairphone. Also, you don't have to be a technohippie, I never said that. I just think that if there is a choice between a brandspanking new Apple thing or a second hand fix'er up'er, a Marxist should buy the latter. Else he'd be a bit of a hypocrite.

Educate yourself. Make sure you are as independent as possible.

Fuckbag.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 14:12:12 2014 No.4551048 >>4550814 >HE'S SUCH A CRIMINAL FOR USING A FUCKING TABLET This is correct.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 14:16:04 2014 No.4551057 >>4550834 So you're a whiney hypocritical bitch who holds opinions for the sake of doing so. You're walking talking cancer you dumb bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 14:18:03 2014 No.4551062 >>4550841 the entire premise of Evola is believing in random crap some indians wrote 3000 years ago just 'cause it's hip aka retarded

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 20:40:49 2014 No.4552171 >>4546663 Yeah but who gives a fuck about a million years from now? It matters to me right now what I'm doing so it matters. Even a 14 year old edgelord like you can understand that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 20:44:49 2014 No.4552181 >>4546608 more like >that one faggot in your philosophy class who thinks he's a genius >for no reason

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 20:47:49 2014 No.4552189 >>4551034 And there it is: validation _on the internet_ for my practice of buying used tech. None of MY money to evil corps.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 20:48:50 2014 No.4552195

>>4546919

Well taking hallucinogens introduces to, some people at least, something like

1. The ability of perception to change our relation to our world
2. The idea that there is a "sense" of "correctness"/"validity"/"probability" we assign to propositions and that such a sense can be altered by changing neurological functioning
3. Wider range of emotional and visual metaphorics to wrestle various ideas with

What you don't get are
1. Space elves
2. The meaning of life

Those two are for twats who shouldn't even bother thinking seriously about anything.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 20:52:49 2014 No.4552207

>>4552195

Well to go along with number 2 in the first set, there is a loosening of the unconscious assumptions which lets you play around with more bizarre ideas.

The danger is thinking that such a state is a gateway to a plane of truth and taking everything as is.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:08:49 2014 No.4552250

>>4552195
>the LSD kiddies still trying to defend their patent delusional mysticism as DEEP SCIENCE

I think the thing that irritates me the most is how philosophy as a whole gets cheapened into a intoxicated parlour game where coherency and conscious effort is considered completely irrelevant. Where psuedomystic trash with no real merit other than the fact it validates the same degeneracy that bore it gets shored up solely on the basis of being "drug culture" by highly impressionable retards like yourself.

You're not deep
You're not producing anything worth more than a cursory glance
You're a goddamn tumor of edgy drug kiddies that mistakenly believes screwing around in altered emotional states necessarily connotates genius level intelligence with deep philosophic repercussions (it doesn't)

>>>/b/
I think this is the board you're looking for

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:11:49 2014 No.4552254 >>4552250 Where in my posts did I advocate any form of "delusional mysticism"? You're a retard dude.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:12:27 2014 No.4552255 >>4552254 AHAHAHHAHAHA

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:14:25 2014 No.4552261

>>4552255

Okay tell me where I said "Yeah man you should totally base the entirety of your thoughts and means off of hallucinogenic states".

As opposed to saying something along the lines of "They can be useful tools. Just don't fall into the mystic bullshit".

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:18:25 2014 No.4552269
File: 225 KB, 320x480, Teenager-Drug-Rehab.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4552261
Yes, tell me all about how McKenna was right about Timewave zero while you're at it. 'cause ALTERED EXPERIENCE!! isn't the exact psuedomystic shit I was cracking at

pic related: you

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:19:25 2014 No.4552271 >>4552269 I wish I looked that good

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:21:25 2014 No.4552276 >>4552269 >projecting this hard I haven't even READ McKenna. I clearly stated out reasonable assertions from my experiences, not broad metaphysical concepts. Of course I'm probably taking some bait but fuck it, I'm biting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:27:42 2014 No.4552292 >>4552276 You still haven't proven to us that you're not into quantum mystical garbage.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:32:41 2014 No.4552305

>>4552292

I don't "have" to prove it. I never asserted anything like it in the first place.

Prove you're not an Chinese nationalist social media agent. Prove you're not a devotee of Phrenology. Prove you're not a scientologist.

It's a retarded game. I don't even know how you could get QUANTUM shit from hallucinogenic experience unless you were an actual physicist and could explore certain conceptions more freely. But I wouldn't trust a lay person's totalizing metaphysics of the world of mechanics on the basis of jack shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:37:41 2014 No.4552314 File: 78 KB, 500x639, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Hey why did my thread get deleted It was completely on topic and there was nary a hint of shitposting Does some janitor have it out for psychedelic literature or something

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:38:41 2014 No.4552315 >>4552305 let's just see how deep the pseudointellectual drugposter hole goes...

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:40:41 2014 No.4552319

>>4552305

Like for example.

During one trip on some synthetic substance, I FELT immersed in some dream-like state where I was an insect drone in an insect civilization working with controls in some pod and looking out beyond a red oval "window" onto the vast expanse of my hive-like civilization for the glory of my queen.

It wasn't like "Oh this is cool", it was like being switched to an entirely different psychology. Then it switched.

Was it because I actually accessed a different dimension or went to some other spacetime coordinate? I'm gambling on not

Is it a testament to the power of neurology to simulate fantastical scenarios and to "boot" up with different psychological orientations? I'm gambling on "yeah"

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:42:41 2014 No.4552323 >>4552314 You talked about MKULTRA

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:43:42 2014 No.4552329 >>4552319 It's nothing "mystical". The only semi-mystical thing you could draw would be the power of certain imagery to "hit the gut" at a subconscious level. But that's the same shit movies and other arts do as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:43:42 2014 No.4552333 >>4552323 Ah so it's a government conspiracy

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:43:42 2014 No.4552334 >>4552319 >drawing metaphysical conclusions from acid trips how stupid can you be at most you should draw some kind of statement about the nature of truth and its dependence on neurological factors

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:44:41 2014 No.4552338 >>4552329 >"mystical" Who are you quoting?

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:45:41 2014 No.4552339

To be fair, Godel Escher Bach really helped me think analytically, especially concerning things like systems and formal logic. It's much easier to make sense of things if you can formalize it into a system and then work with it like that.

However, in that respect it's much more of an entry-level book than anything else, and believing that you're a genius because you read it is really stupid.

I read the damn thing freshman year of high school, and it wasn't a huge challenge then, so tell your Philosophy friend to fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:45:41 2014 No.4552340 >>4552334 Where in the jesus fuck did I draw a metaphysical conclusion? I even spelled it out. "Is it a testament to the power of neurology..." That's not "metaphysical".

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:45:41 2014 No.4552342 >>4552333 Or the pedophilic jews http://pastebin.com/0WkLeLkh

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:46:03 2014 No.4552350 >>4552342 HOW DEEP DOES IT GO

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:46:41 2014 No.4552345 >>4552340 i was talking in a general sense, not specifically to you

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:47:02 2014 No.4552354 >>4552334 lol you're an idiot

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:48:02 2014 No.4552357 >>4552354 >not understanding typical English vernacular what are you some kind of europoor i mean what are you really going to believe

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:50:59 2014 No.4552365 >>4552350 Read it Also Programmed to Kill is a great book on MKULTRA, should be on scribd

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:53:14 2014 No.4552372

DMT demonstrates that consciousness operates on a wavelength and when the vibratory frequency of this is raised, consciousness can travel through time, space and even what some might call somewhat of another dimension.

Of course, I wouldn't except skepdicks and plebs spooked by the war on drugs to recognize this sublime truth of reality.

I recommend reading the works of philosophy written by Drunvalo Melchizedek if one wishes to discover more. Then, when you are ready, smoke 100mg of n,n-dmt from a bong in a dark room by yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:54:12 2014 No.4552379 >>4552372 No one ITT believes this, I don't know who you're mocking

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 21:58:12 2014 No.4552386 dmt: the spirit molecule

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:01:12 2014 No.4552397

>>4552379
I dunno why you can't come up with an epistemology of mystical claims. If one repeats the experiments and experiences the same results via DMT or whatever then QED >>4552386 teaches us that spirit reigns supreme over matter.

But I guess edgy ex-christians prefer to be materialists.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:12:59 2014 No.4552425

Why would someone believe that drugs like DMT or LSD (substances that literally just fuck with your brain and your senses) have magical properties? Like, we know that they fuck with your head. Why would them fucking with your head make them magical?

It's like saying a gun is actually a permanent teleporter to the spirit realm.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:12:59 2014 No.4552426 >>4552372 Melchizedek is a New Age hack. Smoke the DMT Don't come in with any preconceptions

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:12:59 2014 No.4552428 >modern philosophy Much wisdom. So refined >Thomist master race

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:15:59 2014 No.4552436

>>4546608
The ones I hate are those that basically throw Marx and Engels in the dustbin because "duuur the USSR failed duuur", or even worse, those in my economics course who believed learning anything about sociology (or Marx's contribution to economic theory, you know, the complete definition of what Capitalism is as a system) was a waste of time for the same reason.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:17:59 2014 No.4552443

>>4552386

DMT is not "the spirit molecule".

Jesus you dumb motherfuckers have just put a cretinous shadow over any lay person discussion of hallucinogens and neurology.

Like instead of pointing to neurological research and saying "Hey, isn't it neat how much shit actually goes on?", you jumped on the most retarded simplistic explanation "DMT = consciousness". I mean it probably has regulative effects but it's simply a component of the cybernetic machinery of neurology.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:18:59 2014 No.4552453

>>4552425
The mind is more than the brain. By shocking the system with chemicals or extreme experiences or mystical practices one can see the shape of the mind-at-large no longer fettered by the familiar shape of the everyday embodied brain.
>>4552426
True that. One should really read Aleister Crowley's Liber Aba. But I thought it might be too advanced a text.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:19:59 2014 No.4552458 File: 9 KB, 300x168, Evoker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4552425 >It's like saying a gun is actually a permanent teleporter to the spirit realm That made me laugh.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:20:59 2014 No.4552462 >>4552443 >takes the term "spirit molecule" literally >calls other people dumb cretinous motherfuckers You'd think a literature board would appreciate metaphor.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:23:00 2014 No.4552470

>>4552453

Of course the mind is "more than the brain". We are primate bodies with the unspoken assumptions and cybernetics inherent in having our particular sensory equipment.

But to say that extraordinary experiences are proof of "spirit" is to ignore the power of our neurology to radically shift functioning and to shift back.

Like would you be willing to be lobotomized for the sake of your belief in the relative unimportance of "the brain" as you say?

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:24:00 2014 No.4552474

>>4552453

>the mind is more than the brain

No it isn't. The mind is more than the most frequently used neural pathways, which you call "the brain".

It's all in the brain regardless. And if it helps you realize the limits of your brain, then good, I think that has some merit.

But I still don't think it's magic.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:25:59 2014 No.4552477
File: 125 KB, 1099x1035, CYBERNATOR.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4552443
>cybernetic machinery of neurology

it's like all the abstract buzzwords in the kingdom to put humpty-gurudumpty back together again

>>4552453
The Crowley kiddie-cult was the 1930's equivalent of the Manson family. Please clear the room before you refer to a raging tardwad like that one.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:26:59 2014 No.4552480

>>4552462

I appreciate metaphors that make sense. Calling it the "spirit" molecule doesn't make sense.

And I have every right to bad mouth those people as "dumb cretinous motherfuckers". They literally retard understanding and discussion with their uneducated bullshit. It's the same idiotic impulse to dominate a series of very complex, and still relatively unknown, mechanics as a simplistic image so they can lay claim to "knowledge" and "power" over something they have no understanding of.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:28:59 2014 No.4552482 >>4552477 Cybernetics isn't an abstract. It's simply the study of feedback loops and relationship between chemical levels, synaptical messaging, and down/up regulation are perfect examples of "cybernetic" systems.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:30:59 2014 No.4552486 >>4551062 This.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:32:59 2014 No.4552492 >>4552482 Did you even check my image? I know exactly what you're talking about, it just happens to be applied as a largely redundant form of mysticism in most discussions, as you've aptly demonstrated

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:36:59 2014 No.4552500

>>4552492

>mysticism

There goes that word again. And yeah cybernetics can be part of nonsense ad copy. As can "scientific", "doctor approved", "most popular", "best", and any number of terms.

But cybernetics is used becau-

oh my god. A lot of people don't really have any conception of what feedback loops are. Holy shit. I can't use cybernetics. Or can I? I don't know man.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:39:00 2014 No.4552508

>>4552480
Many religions have mythologies of spiritual realms. One of the core features of all shamanic religions is the ability to access these higher and lower realms through techniques of ecstasy. One common method of gaining this insight is through entheogens. Insofar as the so-called "spirit molecule" enables you to see past the material and into a "spiritual realm", I think it is an apt metaphor.
>>4552477
I think Wittgenstein's thoughts on private language games and their relationship to religion make sense within the context of understanding "new age hacks" and other "raging tardwards".

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:40:00 2014 No.4552511 >>4552500 Ah. You're right, it's weird rediscovering cybernetics when at the time it was made out to be everything but over the years seems to have faded out to almost nothing.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:46:59 2014 No.4552520

>>4552508

Goddammit, that's actually a reasonable point. It's just when I think of majority conceptions of spirituality, it's like "This is how everything works" as opposed to the child who just has fun discovering new realms. You know, like people use such ideas as a club against more complex ideas about reality or have some emotional attachment to the "permanent truth" about such visions. Like it would kill them if they were in error, as if they were afraid to be able to laugh at themselves and move on.

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:56:59 2014 No.4552555
File: 32 KB, 240x164, JulesetJim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

may i derail the conversation by asking what in the hell foucault meant by this:
juridico-philosophical discourse conceals historico-political antagonism.
what is this discourse and what is the antagonism, thank you.
here you go, a picture unrelated of some diehard french people

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:58:59 2014 No.4552560 >>4552555 Reading it at face value: "talking about philosophy of law hides a dislike of certain politics" so whatever that means in context

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 22:58:59 2014 No.4552562

>>4552500
>oh my god. A lot of people don't really have any conception of what feedback loops are. Holy shit. I can't use cybernetics. Or can I? I don't know man.

i have no idea what this thread is about and just happened to see this post but what the hell are you acting so whiny about. fucking kill yourself little bitch.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:00:59 2014 No.4552567 File: 484 KB, 500x249, 3566565.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4546621 >Scientists should consult philosophers to determine whether their experiments and discoveries are ethical

Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:03:59 2014 No.4552574

>>4552555

Without having read foucault I'll take a stab.

Juridico-philosophical - Discourses based on a standpoint as coming from a "rational" or "transcendent" understanding of law and philosophy, as mixed with conceptions of justice, fairness, and all that.

Now of course such discourses were promulgated by members of certain classes that did not represent the majority of the population of any civilization.

Thus the historico-political antagonism, the imposition of the view of limited forms of production applied as guides for all forms of production involved in civilized societies and against members of "lower" classes and opposing political parties who might utter different discourses.

If it's an apt analogy, think of the morality of the priests who espouse a highly "spiritual" existence. Meanwhile you have peasants who perform backbreaking labor on a consistent basis with the majority of their profit being siphoned off to redistribution by an elite class. Do you think "disinterested" discourses would flourish in such an environment or would the average human tendency to justify one's position as part of a "plan" take over?

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:06:59 2014 No.4552585 >>4552574 >"rational" or "transcendent" these words aren't quite interchangeable. not sure if you were implying that or not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:06:59 2014 No.4552586 >>4552562 Oh I'm not acting "whiny". Just a conscious realization that the use-value of a term I'm used to using in my private language might be near-useless in public. I don't think realization of an "error" is whiny.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:08:59 2014 No.4552591 >>4552586 >oh my god >Holy shit you sound like a little bitch i bet your mom is hot tho

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:11:59 2014 No.4552600 >>4552591 I was in the military. Such terms become like ordinary flavorings to the social use of language. And my mom is literally a former crack addict/alcoholic with AIDs, Not hot at all. When she was 18 but well you can figure the rest.

>>	Anonymous Sun Feb 9 23:40:59 2014 No.4552709 >>4552574 much thanks kind comrade

Anonymous Mon Feb 10 02:41:42 2014 No.4553251

>>4552555

saying that juridico-philosophical discourse is divorced from the reality of certain historico-political relations, almost as if by design.

that is, the exploration of certain ideals of what ought to be (juridico-philosophical discourse) tends to blind itself, and those who consume this discourse, to the nasty nuances (historico-political antagonism) behind the events that brought about a need to have this sort of discourse

just a guess though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 02:58:45 2014 No.4553281 >>4546608 that one faggot who reads and bitches about other people on 4chan

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 03:04:45 2014 No.4553290 >>4553281 is that you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 03:36:45 2014 No.4553343 File: 89 KB, 960x447, filenames are spooks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4546898 ONE SELF ONE EUSART

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 03:54:03 2014 No.4553384 >>4552189 Can I still be a vegetarian if I only eat the meat of carnivores?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 04:20:37 2014 No.4553419 >>4546994 What is the difference between orthology and semantics?

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 04:40:22 2014 No.4553453 >>4553419 correct use vs. use

>>	Anonymous Mon Feb 10 04:47:09 2014 No.4553469 >>4553453 Thank you, Anon.

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