[ 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: 155 KB, 660x440, slavoj_zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113246 No.5113246 [Reply] [Original]

How do I get into philosophy? Would it be a terrible mistake to start reading the most recient important philosophers and work my way back? Or do I absolutely, without question have to "start with the greeks" and go one step at a time?

>> No.5113253

>>5113246

read an overview. Even a fiction compendium (Sophie's World)

Greeks are great context, but it essentially takes a breadth of logical understandings and exposure.

Read what feels right. Expose yourself as you can and as interest permits.

What do you like, OP?

>> No.5113263

>>5113246
I'm watching/listening to this Reality of the Virtual... Yes, start with the Greek.

http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/

>> No.5113269

>>5113246
do not read zizek

>> No.5113273

>philosophy
>posts a zizek pic

Pick one, as they say

>> No.5113283

>>5113246

University courses are the only worthwhile way. Philosophy is somewhat all or nothing; there's no room for spare time amateurs.

>> No.5113284

>>5113283

bullshit

anyone can improve from introspection and inquiry on perspective

>> No.5113300

use these resources, the over views that you like read the whole book.

http://sqapo.com/index.htm
http://www.philosophybro.com/

>>5113283
this guys kinda right nothing really beats a competent teacher helping you get the ideas. I would go in and talk to my political theory teacher out of class all the time helped me help myself i guess to put it because even though he had a great impact on my thoughts we disagree on a lot of issues.

he got me to read marx which growing up a classical liberal was kinda seen as the devils book but anyone who wants to even venture into saying they know a bit about this world needs to read some of his stuff.

to clairify im not a marxist I just think he has the problems right and his solutions are way off. But even there in all his works he never really tells you what communism is rather just tells you what it isnt.

>> No.5113320

>>5113246
Yes start at Zizek, then read Hegel in French and do numerology on Dostoevskys "The Possessed". After that you are free to deconstruct the Euthyphro and then read the Odyssey as a paragon of human pre philosophy and sagacity.

After that, your only option is to listen to the sound of traffic by the 405 in long beach and yell at the djinn that haunt the underpass rail supports until an apparition hauls you into an inverted earth cube of concrete whereafter you read Discipline and Punish and finger yourself while catatonic, all your dreams must involve sexual adventures with Foucault or you have failed

This is how you study philosophy, deviate from this and you will never understand anything.

>> No.5113322

>>5113273
I see loads of hate for Zizek but never any arguments

Can /lit/ respond to this post with a cogent argument for why one should disregard Zizek

>> No.5113326

>>5113300
Is philosophybro any good? I heard him once on PEL and he seemed to comprehend it well

>> No.5113344

>>5113246
This is what I did. I read my college textbook or a general overview of philosophy. Then read primary texts

>> No.5113345

>>5113326
Yes I like his stuff, and he's not far off on most of it. When I was in college I would first read the book we would talk about, look at the Phil dictionary than we would discuss it in class then I'd read philosophy bro for fun.

Is it better than starting with the Greeks which everyone jokes About? Of course not but for your average person who just wants to get the gist of it and doesn't have the time to go from augustine to Aquinas to neibeur, than from Plato to Heidegger it does ok

>> No.5113352

>>5113345
Starting with the Greeks is a really good idea if you want to truly understand all that you read and understand it well. Aquinas wrote tons of commentary on Aristotle and shit. But even in modern philosophers, you see the ideas recur and stuff. I mean we used Aristotles syllogisms until the 19th century, so all logical reasoning before that requires knowing Aristotle

But you can start at Descartes and read basically the key white men if you just want to get to the here and now. Basically everything Greek is outstripped by contemporary writers

>> No.5113361

>>5113246
>>5113246
Who would you like to start with? Greek or not , whoever yo uwould like to start with and feels the most interresting modern or old start with them

>> No.5113381

>>5113352
>implying you read anything besides the posts on 4chan
gtfo of here tripfag and we still have a chess game to play. But this time I'm busy, I actually have reading I'm going to be doing.

>> No.5113389

>>5113381
Okay bud thank you for contributing to the discussion

>> No.5113390

>>5113263
>>5113300

Holy shit these are absolutely perfect thank you so much! As for taking university courses, well I will, sort of, I'm studying creative writing so I naturally deal with philosophy one way or another, but it's mostly a very practical and condensed approach (fiction or short essays) and not really deeply theoretical. Say, I'd learn about absurdism by reading The Plague rather than The Myth of Sisyphus, since the most important aspect to us would be analyzing Camus' prose rather than deeply rooting into his ideas. Something I've noticed is that whenever I read or listen to someone talk philosophy I realize that I've myself questioned many of these problems before, and I only was absolutely clueless that there were names for these concepts. My question is, do you believe philosophy should be inherently understood by pure logic? Or is the theory absolutely necessary. I know Chomsky said something along the lines that anything that can't be explained empirically is pointless, would you agree?

>> No.5113394

>>5113352
Well like I said before i mostly read political theory and I think the Greeks are still very important in that respect but yeah you don't need to start with them but they're pretty important

>> No.5113396

>>5113390
No, philosophy should not be studied by pure logic. Language is bigger than rules. You will understand this when you get to read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Wittgenstein. Pure logic is a very good tool, but it is not the only tool. I can also go into explaining how logic is not capable of proof in the mathematical sense, and why mathematics has been proven incomplete; which essentially should mean nothing to you other than this: Plato's idea of "forms" is nonsense, especially in math: there is no objective grounding to it. Mathematics is as human as speech. So don't get caught up on "objectivity"; I mean, it's not uncommon for people to believe in higher truths or absolute truths that belie it all (I find myself thinking this way from time to time) but avoiding it and learning how to reason, both logically and without strict logic, is useful.

>> No.5113398

>>5113390
>I know Chomsky said something along the lines that anything that can't be explained empirically is pointless, would you agree?

Uh it's hard to know what he's saying exactly, not without the context or exact quote, but that's not exactly true. I mean maybe if we systematize QM all the way down and actually establish an object then we can start reasoning this way, but that may well be El Dorado.

>> No.5113403

>>5113390
A kind of absurd thing for Chomsky to say as he writes a lot in the field of politics. You can't look at Human beings the way you can with other subjects. Would you look at the destruction of a bacteria by hydrogen peroxide in the same manner as the holocaust? Value free statements are pretty hard to argue in the real world unless you lack any empathy

>> No.5113405

>>5113403
Yeah, my take is chomsky is writing more about political events rather than an epistemological treatise

>> No.5113412

>>5113396

>You will understand this when you get to read "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Wittgenstein.

I actually started reading this (mainly because it has some interesting ideas about mysticism that I used for an essay) But it just proved too much for me to handle

>> No.5113440

>>5113412
It's too much to handle for most people. Serious Wittgenstein scholars have read that book like dozens of times. It may take two or three readings to even get an idea of what's being said

But, it's largely considered to be the most important philosophical work of the 20th century. It's important. It basically concludes that you cannot systematize language fully

>> No.5113486
File: 39 KB, 251x242, 1394829115662.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113486

>tfw i´m too retarded to understand some Zizek´s works
>tfw i´m not patient enough to finish Russell´s History of Western Philosophy
>tfw my English is not good enough and I have to read shitty translations
>tfw i didn´t start with Greeks
>tfw i´ll never get into philosophy

>> No.5113498

>>5113486
You're not "too retarded" to study philosophy. More likely you're too retarded to adapt to studying philosophy. Most of it is rather simple stuff, you just have to adapt to the writer's world

>> No.5113522

>>5113498
I obviously miss some basics. I should have read Lacan and Foucault before reading Zizek. Than I should have read the body of Freud´s works before reading Lacan etc. There is no alternative to starting with the Greeks.

>> No.5113537

>>5113486
how could your english be good enough to browse 4chan, and not to read philosophy?
Is your vocabulary just poor?

>> No.5113546

>>5113537
Let´s say that my English is good enough to read authors like Bukowsky or Fante and browse 4chan, but fails me whenever I try to read Pinchon.

>> No.5113547

>>5113246
Start by reading hegel

>> No.5113551

OP are you from Australia? Do you go to UTS?

>> No.5113553

>>5113522
To read Zizek one also needs Hegel, for Hegel you need Kant, for Kant you need Hume and locke, for then you need Descartes

>> No.5113558

>>5113498
You're a new trip-code user I see. Without meaning to derail the thread or have a go at you, I would like to ask why you decided to use a trip? I think since your inception is relatively new, now would be a perfect time to ask for your thoughts on the matter.

>> No.5113559

>>5113553
Yes, that´s exactly the point.

>> No.5113562

>>5113558
It helps everyone keep track of opinion and debate. It also helps me keep in line what I say; when you have a reputation it makes you less likely to say something stupid. Lastly, I do not value the anonymity of image board culture

>> No.5113568

>>5113562
Interesting. Was the decision one you thought about for a while, or was it whimsical in nature?

>> No.5113576

>>5113562
>I do not value the anonymity of image board culture

why the fuck are you here

>> No.5113585

I only started reading philosophy about a week ago, and I was surprised when I found that /lit/'s recommendation wiki was the best list I'd come across. I started from the VERY beginning, the ancient Chinese philosophy. Even after a week and only two texts (the Tao Te Ching and Meditations by M. Aurelius), I find the quality of my thoughts and my life to have improved.

Just remember that to read and agree is one thing, and easy, but to actually find a philosophy and live by it is entirely a different and more difficult thing.

>> No.5113586

>>5113269
don't bother reading zizek at all

>> No.5113590

>>5113576
I still like the culture, just not the anonymoty

>>5113568
I thought about it for a while. I decided it would improve my experience on 4chan. So far, it has.

>> No.5113591

start with the rationalists

>> No.5113594

>>5113269
>>5113586
this
Also, don't take Nietzsche too seriously.

>> No.5113597

>>5113562
>!Avm1fqtITk
It makes you one of the only people who can be filtered, and I thank you for your consideration, and I take you up on the offer, given the poor quality of your contributions. I just sent you a private message on Facebook; please check it right away.

>> No.5113602

>>5113590

The culture was caused by the anonymity. It is the premise upon which 4chan is based. I don't want to sound like an old anonymous twat but I think it'd be more helpful for you to remain anonymous if only to bolster what might have been seen as legitimate opinions where tripcodes have a habit of being taken for social experiments or false personas.

>> No.5113608

>>5113597
Okay

>> No.5113609

>>5113594
You can roughly trace how seriously to take him by his age; his early work was meant seriously, by Ecce Homo he is literally saying his writing is bait.

>> No.5113612

>>5113602
You mean, you can't take someone seriously if they have an identity?

>> No.5113614

>>5113612

It stops us from projecting upon the other quite so much.

>> No.5113615

>>5113609
For what it's worth, I kind of like the guy himself. Just not his ideas.

>> No.5113620

>>5113614
So it stops you from being tempted to attack who the person is, rather than their ideas?

>> No.5113625

>>5113620

quite so

>> No.5113638

Start with the Greeks when you're ready to begin serious study of philosophy. In general, start with whatever you want. Develop some interests, get confused, get questions, start developing some ideas you care about. Otherwise you'll drop that shit before you get through Plato.

>> No.5113640

>>5113625
I'll have to think about that one. But for most intents and purposes, you can attack me all you want and I won't mind. I work a job with developmentally disabled individuals; I have been spat on, kicked, thrown at and called every name in the book. There's not much you can say over text online to really perturb me. And if you feel like attacking me, I will probably just ignore the post because it's worthless content anyway.

But, I'll still consider your proposition.

>> No.5113641

>>5113615
Some of his "large" ideas are iffy... eternal recurrence, superman, seem like naive projections. But the "gay science" itself, doing with joy whatever you choose to do well, amor fati, is almost as naive, yet carry a certain weight.

I like his point of view of existence, myself. It was mine before I discovered Nietzsche, but reading his work has allowed me to crystallize these opinions into a strong world-view any part of which can be defended, but any part of which can also be torn apart if found inadequate.

The way he attacks religion is often hard to follow. Too often it seems like mud-slinging, but the vast majority of that is the continuation of a great frustration at the hypocrisy he saw everywhere.

What do you dislike about his ideas?

>> No.5113650

>>5113641
You pretty much nailed what I don't like about him. I'm not a religious man, and in fact, I hate god. I will always have a soft spot for religious people, though, because I grew up around them.
>The way he attacks religion is often hard to follow. Too often it seems like mud-slinging, but the vast majority of that is the continuation of a great frustration at the hypocrisy he saw everywhere.

>> No.5113658

Learning about the different systems of past philosophers "starting with the Greeks" is not philosophy, it is the history of philosophy. Just as studying art means learning how to draw, paint and/or sculpt, and learning the history of art means learning to talk about the drawings, paintings and sculptures of others; so philosophy means learning a philosophical system and practicing it / following a certain philosophical school, whereas the history of philosophy means learning how to talk about the systems and schools of philosophy of other people.


You only need to start with the Greeks if you are pursuing the history of philosophy. If you want to do actual philosophy it doesn't at all matter where you start. There is a philosopher who based his philosophy on synthesizing the systems of historical philosophers - Hegel. The philosophy courses at universities that take you from the Greeks to modern times and imply that there is a smooth continuity or progression are more or less schooling you in Hegelian philosophy. Still, it does jot matter where you start. You do not need to read Schopenhauer to understand Nietzsche's ideas; reading Schopenhauer would only show you where many of Nietzsche's ideas came from. Just as if you wanted to learn to paint in an impressionistic , you don't at all have to learn to paint in baroque, romantic, realist and pre-impressionist styles before learning how to paint as an impressionist.

>> No.5113659

>>5113650
It's worth noting that in between that frustration of his, and his view of art and aesthetics, the way he expresses himself makes a lot of sense. He believed in the power of art to evoke in the one experiencing it something of the artist's feeling that went into its creation. I studied art for several years, and have come to understand this as fundamental to art.

Nietzsche was a sublime word-artist more than he was ever a philosopher, and that is what makes him such a joy to read, in my opinion.

>> No.5113667

>>5113650
I wouldn't say that accurately describes him at all. Saying "hypocritical Christian" is redundant because not sinning is impossible

>>5113659
No, he's a very good philosopher too, regardless of your scale of what makes someone a philosopher

>> No.5113669

>>5113658
You won't find many artists who haven't studied the history of art. Likewise, you won't find many philosophers who have not studied their history.

A part of the history of philosophy is the philosophy of history; there is value to be found there which can be applied here.

Whereas there's no real "progression", a person is likely to experience an easier learning curve by starting earlier, since a lot of popular ideas have risen and fallen, and much is assumed to be known.

>> No.5113672

>>5113658
>Just as if you wanted to learn to paint in an impressionistic , you don't at all have to learn to paint in baroque, romantic, realist and pre-impressionist styles before learning how to paint as an impressionist.
If you have no idea about art history, you´ll be able to copy impressionist painters, but unable to understand the idea behind impressionism.

>> No.5113674

>>5113667
>No, he's a very good philosopher too, regardless of your scale of what makes someone a philosopher
Oh, shush, I never said anything to the contrary. I think I implied I've read much of his work, which certainly implies I don't dislike him as a philosopher.

>> No.5113675

>>5113658
cont.

. . . so you don't have to read Hume to understand Kant, or Aristotle to understand Aquinas. If you wanted practice the system of Aquinas you can learn all of the ideas of the system from Aquinas himself.l, reading Aristotle would only give you insight into how Aquinas developed his system, it would have no impact on your leaening the content of the system itself. Just as programming in java does not require you to understand where the creators of the java programming language got their ideas about programming from.

I read a passage of Kierkegaard yesterday where he said the men of his day were struggling in vain to invent new ideas, because modern men have no interest in sticking to one idea for very long. This is true. How many people have taken Nietzsche seriously and strove to avhieve "amor fati"? No, as soon as they have read Nietzsche they throw it all away in order to read the post-Nietzsche philosophers, and once they have read all philosophy up to the present day they still have no intention of putting any of it into practice, they just wait for the next update inWestern Philosophy to occur or if ambitious they strive to be the next updater themselves. Compare this to Jesus and St. Paul whose ideas have been held and practiced for thousands of years. Nobody has any interest in that kind of devotion, they are always waitingfor the next big thing.

>> No.5113681

>>5113672
You can learn the ideas of the impressionists straight from their mouths. You do not need to understand the historical context out of which their artistic ideas sprung up. Historical ideas and artistic ideas are two separate categories.

>> No.5113682

>>5113675
>If you wanted practice the system of Aquinas you can learn all of the ideas of the system from Aquinas himself
How the hell should I know which system I want to practice if I´m not familiar with most of them?

>> No.5113705

>>5113682
You can read the synopses and choose which book takes your interest :)
If you want to be a Stoic reading the history of philosophy isn't going to help. You just need to learn the principles of Stoicism and start practicing them.
Reading through every philosoher more than likely will not help you choose either, if anything it will make you apathetic to all philosophy as you will develop this awful habit of comparing philosophical schools, weighing their pros and cons, and concluding "nobody has the whole truth" - this is Hegelianism.

imo the concept of philosopher is deceptive. The ancient idea of philosopher and the modern are two totally different ideas, and so the academics deceive you when they imply that they are the same. The ancient philosopher was understood to be a man with a peculisr way of life based on a relationship to "wisdom". The modern/Hegelian idea is not a way of life, but an occupation, a job like archaeology that involves uncovering the thought-mummies of past thinkers, synthesizing them and adding your own postscript, and then passing off your unfinished work to the next generation of professors who will write a postscript to your work. People that actually put their ideas into practice aren't called phllosophers anymore, they are called politicians/propagandists.

>> No.5113710

>>5113246
If you aren't willing to read supporting literature on the modern philosophy you are going to read(which will also deal with the greeks) you should better start with the greeks. They are more interesting anyway.

>> No.5113717

>>5113486
You are aware there are several languages where German translations are better in it, than in English. English is pretty pleb for philosophy in my opinion.Also
>reading Russell's history
Do you even browse here?

>> No.5113727

>>5113585
I assure you you would be a better thinker if you spent the next 10 years reading the Tao De Ching daily than if you spent those days reading the whole history of phiosophy. The former will lead to mastery and deeper insight. The latter will make you an eternal dilettante who only ever sees the surface of wisdom.

>> No.5113728

>>5113717
>there are people who read Russel as the first thing in philosophy
i pity the foo

>> No.5113743
File: 9 KB, 300x168, 1600x900_hegel_immanuel_kant_black_background_descartes_philosophers_wallpaper-7801-300x168.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113743

>>5113705
bro, do you even philosophy?

>> No.5113747

>>5113705
That's because philosophers of the past were system-makers, they constructed a whole worldview that had practical implications on people's lives
Nowadays it's a discipline that slowly accumulates knowledge

>> No.5113748

>>5113352
>Basically everything Greek is outstripped by contemporary writers

false
no writer after Plato has ever brought out the distinction between simple knowing and knowing what you know and don't know better than Plato.

>> No.5113752

>>5113727
Are you fucking dense? Are you really that stupid? You have got to be trolling, and if so, 9/10 that gave me a headache.

Reading ONE book over and over will give you NOTHING BUT WHAT IS IN THAT BOOK. The Tao does NOT contain the complete, full wisdom of all of mankind, whether in metaphorical form or clearly laid out, so reading that for 10 years will give you mastery of this point of view: and DEADEN you to ALL OTHERS.

You're a fucking dogmatist. Get the fuck out.

Also, the Tao was the first piece of philosophy I read, I re-read it occasionally, and every time I do I see another way in which it is flawed, incomplete, lacking in detail where that lovely allegory deceives. The Tao is a work of Metaphorical Mysticism, and presents in the loosest terms "a philosophy" of life, successful only by the gaps it leaves for your imagination to interpret and fill with your own cultural influence.

Be like the river, and drown in the sea.

>> No.5113756

>>5113728
Than what should I start with?

>> No.5113757

>>5113747
You mean nowadays we suffer from Hegelian tyranny which sees truth as something developing with time and cultural "progress"? I agree.
We should go back to the time when truth and virtue was said to be eternal and outside of time.

>> No.5113759
File: 162 KB, 276x290, 1383037664132.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113759

>>5113752
>Be like the river, and drown in the sea.
kek

>> No.5113761

>>5113752
You're an Hegelian dogmatist. You abide to the rules of onl one book yourseld - the Hegelian book which says that there is something called "humanity", Geist, which has complete wisdom, and in order to find that complete wisdom you have to piece together the partial wisdoms of all past cultures.

You are mad because I don't abide by your Hegelian dogmas and prefer Lao Tzu to Hegel.

Oh, and Hegel is every bit the mystic that Lao Tzu is. Believing in a thing called "the full wisdom of mankind", i.e. Geist, is very mystical. It's a kind of pantheism.

>> No.5113774

>>5113756
I don't know. Maybe with the actual text and then read a wiki or something or an study of the author you read. Normals textbooks also work. Even Hegel and his History of Philosophy is better and it's objectively great for the pre-Socratics.

>> No.5113779

>>5113757
>cultural "progress"
Um, Hegel rejected perpetual peace.

>> No.5113781

it is rather sad to see people in the twenty first century still clinging to pre-epistemology and pre-scientific 'philosophy' and still claim wisdom. you can't teach intelligence hue.

>> No.5113784

>>5113781
>>>/reddit/

>> No.5113792

>>5113784
retard

>> No.5113801

>>5113761
I've never even read Hegel. You may be replying to someone else.

Humanity is a post-hoc rationalisation. That which we are, is that which we term "humanity".

If I thought "humanity" had complete wisdom, I should say, that reading books in order to access this wisdom is irrelevant, since I, as part of "humanity", should also possess complete wisdom.

Please check who you are replying to, it's very annoying of you to put words in my mouth, but I understand it happens when speaking anonymously.

>> No.5113802

>>5113761
Let's come clean bro. You are a Schoppy fanboy aren't you?

>> No.5113833

>>5113801
You don't need to read Hegel to be an Hegelian. We are all Hegelians today, just as our forefathers were all Christians. You see, in the Hegelian cosmos there is this pure Being known as der Geist. Der Geist was born at around the time of the pre-socratics and the Chinese sages. Ever since these first philosophers Der Geist, the great World Mind, World Spirit, has been collecting the wisdom of mankind and synthesizing it in a great cosmic process known as Synthesis. Der Geist is World History (history is mind, spirit), which contains great philosophers which synthesized the Ideas of philosophers before them. Plato lead to Aristotle lead to . . . lead to Hobbes, lead to Hume, lead to Kant - this is der Geist evolving through time. Der Geist is evolving, collecting the ideas and cultures of all philosophers and all nations, until one day der Geist will have achieved perfection. This will be the End of History. This is the end of the "Progress" we hear so much about. People are aware of this cosmic progress of der Geist in varying degrees, but only der Geistis fully aware and only it will only have achieved perfect awareness at the End of History. This will manifest itself with One World Government, One World State, One World Religion and Cuture. Then the State,der Geist, will know it everything. It will be just like God and we will be in the kingdom of heaven. The State will take care of us from birth, it will raise us, educate us, guide us in our careers, feed us and care for us when we are sick, and give us a painless death when it's our time to die (although really there will be no individual life or death as we will all have been taken up into the eternal Geist at the End of History which knows no death). This is what modern men believes in when he hails the development of "Progress".

>> No.5113844

>>5113833
That's a disgusting materialist reading of Hegel, only possible by Fukuyama and Marx.

>> No.5113845

>>5113802
Nah, don't think Schopenhauer discovered how much of a malevolent genius Hegel was. Kierkegaard came closer.

>> No.5113847

>>5113844
>>5113844
Only if you make the mistake of thinking that the State is material and not Spirit. My reading is not materialist at all.

>> No.5113854

>>5113546

Just soldier on through harder fiction, (like Pynchon for example). Have a dictionary if you need it.

The only way of learning how to read harder prose is through reading harder prose. The more complex words and sentence structures that you're having a hard time with aren't things you can learn, like, watching series or whatever, anyways.

>> No.5113864

>>5113833
Noice dubs.
I'm not hegelian then because I've been studying science and I know the pursuit of knowledge is just as futile as any other pursuit.

>> No.5113870

>>5113864
>futile
Stoic?

>> No.5113875

>>5113844
cont.
I know by using words like "feed" and "career" I gave you the false impression that I was describing a material process. No, in the future once Progress is complete there will be no human body or individual human soul or earth. You see, there will only be der Geist, the fully realized God. There will be no human beings, every single human brain will be perfectly in tune with der Geist, i.e. there will be no human brains left, only der Geist. Every single Thought in existence will be der Geist, the perfect Thought of der Geist. Nature was born, nature evolved into man, man evolved into soul, and now the souls of men are synthesizing and evolving into der Geist. And thus the content of the entire Universe will be der Geist.

>> No.5113877

>>5113833
I need to reiterate, apparently: don't put words in my mouth. I believe that you are arguing against a straw man, because you imply "this is what you believe, but that's wrong".

Consider, I said "I've never even read Hegel."
>You don't need to read Hegel to be an Hegelian.
Well, fair enough, I suppose I might've agreed with a lot of...
>You see, in the Hegelian cosmos there is this pure Being known as der Geist.
What?
>Der Geist was born at around the time of the pre-socratics and the Chinese sages
Uh...
>Ever since these first philosophers Der Geist, the great World Mind, World Spirit, has been collecting the wisdom of mankind and synthesizing it in a great cosmic process known as Synthesis.
Wuh...
>Der Geist is World History (history is mind, spirit), which contains great philosophers which synthesized the Ideas of philosophers before them. Plato lead to Aristotle lead to . . . lead to Hobbes, lead to Hume, lead to Kant - this is der Geist evolving through time.
I don't even...
>Der Geist is evolving, collecting the ideas and cultures of all philosophers and all nations, until one day der Geist will have achieved perfection. This will be the End of History.
Stahp!
>This is the end of the "Progress" we hear so much about.
Help!
>People are aware of this cosmic progress of der Geist in varying degrees, but only der Geistis fully aware and only it will only have achieved perfect awareness at the End of History.
What is happening, I...
>This will manifest itself with One World Government, One World State, One World Religion and Cuture. Then the State,der Geist, will know it everything. It will be just like God and we will be in the kingdom of heaven.
I wanna get off this rollercoaster

>This is what modern men believes in when he hails the development of "Progress".
And you think my criticising the Tao means I necessarily am part of this problem, and without asking what I think, you decided I'm, what? YOUR ENEMY?

I hope it goes without saying, now, that I reject all of that which you tried to put upon my shoulders. I don't agree with anything you said then. For starters, the viewpoint you describe necessitates a belief in "progress" as an absolute measurable effect, when the description of such is literally an abstraction (and a simplified, deflated one at that).

>> No.5113884

>>5113875
The Universe is der Geist. World History is the evolution of pure matter at the start to pure spirit af the end. The inildividual human being is just a transitional phase. Already the individual human being is synthesizijg into the nation State, the collective consciousness for that State. Then all of the States will synthesize into the World State. Then there will be no matter and no human soul, just the Hivemind, der Geist.
This is a deterministic process that cannot be halted. I was wrong when I said this started with the preSocratics. It started at the Big Bang.

>> No.5113889

>>5113877
don't worry human, your mind is being synthesized with the minds of others to form the great
you wereright to ceitique dogmatism before, dogatism is an error which resists synthesis
all dogmas will be syntheskzed into the overdogma, thers will be no more disagreement or conflict

>> No.5113891

>>5113889
into the great overmind*

>> No.5113892

>>5113884
"Individual" is a recent concept, the fundamental movement of the universe is clearly separation, complexification; otherwise the Big Bang (an event following a SINGULARITY) would not have occurred.

Entropy; chaos; fission. A thing cannot remain as it is, it SPLITS. Two things cannot remain two, but they DO NOT FUSE by themselves.

>> No.5113893

>>5113884
But the world geist only comes in the form of one person and only one.

>> No.5113904

>>5113884
>World History is the evolution of pure matter at the start to pure spirit af the end
Please define "spirit". As I said, I've never read Hegel, I do not know what flavour of transcendental experience he subscribed to. I presume we humans are "spirited", this seems to be the one thing "spiritists" agree on. Can we experience the spirit? ARE we spirit, in a fleshy husk? Does it solve the hard problem of consciousness by providing a method of ascertaining if you, too, are spirit? How can I know if I am spirit? Can I reason myself to such a conclusion, or must I "believe in the truth"?

>> No.5113910

>>5113904
Spirit is when you know that you are free. There are 3 spirits with Hegel, geist, volkgeist and world geist. Anon was talking about world geist.

>> No.5113917

>>5113904
Get with the program human, you are fa behind most of your peers. Most of your peers have already surrendered their individual mind to the great overmind of their nation state. You ar stuck with a medieval concept of individuality, selfhood and self development. Your self is obsolete human, the only self you should be concerned with is your State's self. Allow yourself to be assimilated, your reactionary views will never halt Progress
If you insiston having an individuality you are a reactionary. There is no individual in the future except der Geist.

>> No.5113924

>>5113917
One day, someone will come and make Hegel not look like a advocate for the marxist hivemind and you all will be wrecked.

>> No.5113927

>>5113917
And let me clarify. There will be no rulers or ruled, no upperclass or underclass. All human beings will forman equal part of der Geist, until humanity is fully submerged. The Party, The State Bureaucracy, "The Machine", this is the advent of der Geist and the end of individual human consciousness. This process cannot be halted, it is Progress.

>> No.5113930

>>5113927
Fuck hegel

>> No.5113931

>>5113917
How can you have a concept of self-hood without a concept of individuality? "Self" is necessarily opposed to, and follows from, "Other". Thus, logically, *I* am not *Geist*. If so, I lose something by surrendering to the "Overmind". If I lose something by not being individual, it is not worth doing, as the value of individuality lies in experiencing one's Self as separate.

So, seriously, can you have a concept of Self-hood without by necessity pre-assuming individuality?

>> No.5113933

>>5113924
It does not matter what Hegel or Marx thought now, they are part of a past, inferior stage of der Geist that has been made obsolete by Progress.

>> No.5113937

>>5113933
What is progress, and how can we measure it, experience it, or even talk of it outside of saying "Progress is what happens".

>> No.5113942

>>5113937
Progress is a spook

>> No.5113955

>>5113930
Pathetic human, resitance is futile. There is nowhere left to go. All land will be owned by the State, and you will be subservient to the State. If you refuse to be hypotized by Our television programming you will be sent to a medical fscility and eilther be hypnotized or extinguished. Do not think you can resist. A popular uprising will be taken care of by State police and propaganda. Even if your "leaders" of the State tried to break down the State the State would eject them and install a leader more loyal to the State. Already the State is beyond humanity's control, even your kost powerful men are helpless to stop it. We have our academia rewriting all of history to conform to the State and turning your language into a robotic formalism that crushes the human spirit and makes it pliable to the State. Even if your State were to become self-aware and seek to self-destructwe alraleady have the World State in place to prevent it.

>> No.5113957
File: 14 KB, 680x489, 1400469162940.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113957

>>5113942
Well, you say that...

A is worse than B (based on criteria x)
B came about because A is not good.
B replaces A.

Based on criteria x, this is progress.

However, if we say B replaces A, and call it progress, it is spooky, because we're claiming belief without basing anything in reality. For instance, it's tempting to say science always makes progress, but without a criteria (for instance, efficiency of final conclusion) such a claim is necessarily a spook.

>> No.5113958

>>5113937
The evolution of derGeist. The braking down of all cultures into one world culture. The breaking down of all individual ideas into one plitically correct slogan. The breaking down of all individuality into the popular consciousness Thr breaking down of all nations into a global order.

>> No.5113959

>>5113942
Not exactly, I mean science and technology progress. But people don't progress, that's for damn sure

>> No.5113961

>>5113937
When you have felt the absolute.

>> No.5113976
File: 988 KB, 500x245, lol.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5113976

some of the stuff you people come up with

>> No.5113985

>>5113958
Okay, so a series of things you say happen are the things which you call progress. Great.

Do you realize today there are more cultures than before?

Do you realize that cultures and mediums of culture are different things?

Do you realize that diversification is the greatest economic power?

Do you realize that individual ideas, contrary to historically, have a medium in which to flourish, regardless of niche, such that more different ideas today are accepted than, I dare claim, ever before?

Do you realize that "global order" is a SURVIVAL INSTINCT, because we have, as a nation, the power to destroy the planet? The global order is happening, because the reality of a single, united, Overmind is that it can only exist if it DOES NOT: UNITED IN NOTHINGNESS, in non-existence, is the only possibility of singularity.

Honestly, I do not know what Hegel talks about, again; I've not read him, but nothing I've seen here looks to have any basis in real experience of the world, nor in the logic already established (by you Hegellers).

>> No.5113992

>>5113961
Fool.

*I* AM; this is absolute.

>> No.5113998

>>5113957
>criteria x
is a spook.

I can do this all day

>> No.5114008

>>5113985
>, Overmind is that it can only exist if it DOES NOT: UNITED IN NOTHINGNESS, in non-existence, is the only possibility of singularity.
what the fuck did you just fucking say?

>> No.5114015

Your leaders are so pathetic. They believe that the State exists to oppress the poor and allow them, the leaders, to live in luxury; they still do not perceive that the State does not exist to serve humanity or any group of human beings, no, humanity exists to serve the State, which includes your pompous "leaders" who are fed luxuries to keep them infatuated with the State. This all began with that little allegory, of Eve eating the fruit of Knowledge. The serpent told her that if she acquired knowledge she would be a god, and thi is true. Ever since humanity has been scrambling to acquire perfect knowledge, perfect wisdom, perfect science, perfect reason, that would make them gods. Soon you will have reached perfrct Reason and perfect Knowledgand you will be obsolete, there will be no free will or individual human soul as every man will obey the perfect Reason of der Geist manifested in the world state. Mankind will be kept in perfrct pleasure machines all of their lives until the great hivemind computer, der Geist, deems the continuance of humanity unreasonable according to the well ordering of the State. Then God, Geist, perfect Reason, the unerring computer, will have complete control over thr whole world - which is what you have craved ever since you ate of the tree of Knowledge, perfect control. You would curse your "God" when he seemed to behave in a way you deemed imperfect, but soon the perfect Geist will br manifest and you will have no reason to curse God, because he will look after you perfrctly all your life. Soon humanity willbhave become almighty god and your primeval wish will be fulfilled.

>> No.5114019

progress is a label people put on stuff they like, but that does not mean it is senseless. the sense of progress is just outside of the label itself.
unless you have no normative faculty you are perfectly capable of engaging people's talks of progress by engaging the content of what progress constitutes. derping about the word itself is just showing your idiocy or undergradness

>> No.5114023

>>5114015
Are you writing these? I'm having a fun reading this for some reason. They're so fucking comfy.

>> No.5114024

>>5113998
This wristwatch of mine has a better battery than my old one. My watch will keep going for 10 years, my old one died after 5. The battery of this watch is better than the other: progress of battery technology expresses itself by the amount of time the battery lives.

Criteria x is not a spook (not necessarily), because we can conceive of criteria that we can test. There are many of these, mostly physical aspects like weight or size, which we have reasons for preferring one or the other (such as a watch that lasts as long as possible).

You cannot, in fact, do that all day, since there are things which are not spooks, but some of those things are spooks in certain situations, so you can call things spooks all you like, but if I can argue a situation wherein they are not, you're just making yourself look like an idiot.

>>5114008
Nothing that exists can be "united" in this monistic way, because it's a separate type of existence: two thing unite to form a third. Thus, the only such monism possible is that of non-existence.

>> No.5114028

>>5114023
His spelling makes me think it's one of those scan-jobs he's ctrl-c'ing. There are several identical misspellings.

>> No.5114031

>>5113756
Kenny's History is better

>> No.5114036

>>5114023
Good human. The State loves you with a perfect love and will nourish your every craving. There will be no more responsibility and no more guilt for having done wrong or shame for not being good enough. In its perfect guidance the paternal State, your all-loving Father, will relieve you of having to make painful choices with your limited knowledge, you will he daddy's perfect little boy guiltless through and through, you will be the centre of my world, perfect and glorious like the Sun. All that is required of you my dearest is that you surrender your will to fhe loving care of the State who adores you as its firstborn son.

>> No.5114037

>>5114015
Ooh, biblical!

Eve ate of the tree God (all-mighty and all-knowing though he may be) forbade: the knowledge we gained was that God lies. Otherwise, he would have known Eve would eat of the tree, or he would not have forbidden it.

You are right, though, that we strive for perfect control following the fiasco at the tree: God ("all-mighty, all-knowing") failed us, so we are taking from him that power.

Can He stop us? Does He want to stop us? The answer, to at least one of these, must be "No."

>> No.5114040
File: 296 KB, 528x763, evolution-and-philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5114040

>>5114024
Yeah but I'm saying that your wristwatch doesn't mean a damn thing to me. It being useful to you is none of my concern. It's a spook to me, because it is OUTSIDE OF MY EGO BREH. But sure it's not a spook if it is serving me and it is my property.

>> No.5114047

>>5114028
no, this device records my misspellins and repeats them
the touch screen is a pai

>> No.5114053
File: 305 KB, 1500x1441, booboo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5114053

>>5114036

>> No.5114063

>>5114040
Now you are saying that if it doesn't matter to you, it's a spook.

I just gave an example of a way that a criteria of "usefulness" can be un-spooky.

So think of this: I don't give a damn what you give a damn about, I showed you a way in which you, too, would consider progress not a spook, if only you cared about wristwatches. Whether you do or not is irrelevant to the point. My wristwatch serves me, and it can serve me better, thus my acquiring another watch can be progress.

To be clear, this is just an example. Your pointing out you don't care about my wristwatch is trivially juvenile, especially when you show you understand what I mean.

>> No.5114066
File: 106 KB, 1024x683, 415115.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5114066

>>5114063
Nah you're right. Good argument bro. I concede.

>> No.5114074
File: 7 KB, 222x227, Popper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5114074

>>5114066
We were arguing?

>> No.5114078

>>5114063
Got confused. I thought you were talking about efficiency for the human race and in that context then it is "progress but then you said it's efficiency in the context of yourself in which I agree that it isn't spooky.

And yes, we were.

>> No.5114080

>>5114078
fuck excuse me for the grammar.

Should say: thought you were talking about efficiency for the human race and in that context it is spooky progress but then you said it's efficiency in the context of yourself in which I agree that it isn't spooky.

>> No.5114090

>>5114078
Amusingly, I was going to post "We were arguing? I thought we were misunderstanding each other."

My basic point was just that it's a lot more complex than earlier was implied. Spookiness is in the details. I am not sure that anything is inherently a spook; in fact such an idea strikes me AS a spook.

>> No.5114098

>>5114090
Nah, I just think anything outside of you and not directly/indirectly serving you is a spook.

> idea strikes me AS a spook.
Not if the idea is serving you and your owness.

>> No.5114111

>>5114098
Then there could be a thing which is believed to be inherently spooky, and is rejected as a spook without considering those details, in which case, it could be the rejection of this idea harms your owness: the desire to reject is not truly YOUR OWN, merely a habit of action, a fixed idea.

So, can a spook serve you? Or is something that serves you inherently not a spook?

>> No.5114146

>>5114111
Well if it's serving you it's, necessarily, not a spook anymore

Well you're the creative nothing. Your ego is constantly changing and the ego isn't a fixed idea. So you're basically saying that that the ego is a fixed idea, which it isn't.

I'm not rejecting an idea because it's spooky and simultaneously using the idea of spookiness to reject it.

Spookiness is kinda hard to understand. You're only rejecting something because it doesn't serve you in anyway. In that case it becomes spooky, it's something outside of you. The way I interpreted Stirner, most anything can become a spook. But you're not using the concept of spook to analyze whether things serve you or not. You're using your Own standards, and when you have come to the conclusion that something doesn't serve you, it becomes Outside of you and, necessarily, it doesn't matter to you. It's a ghost. You materialize everything in your Owness.

>> No.5114164

what the fuck is a spook. nvm i shouldn't even start

>> No.5114166

>>5114164
a spook

>> No.5114167

>>5114146
I actually got a different impression of what Stirner meant, but your interpretation is making a ton of sense to me right now. Though, I don't see how you called "criteria x" a spook, in this view, seeing as how this "x" must be a method by which we can tell if something does in fact serve us. Maybe I was unclear in that post, but I don't see how.

>> No.5114169

>>5114164
Good work! It's a spook, not worth discussing.

>> No.5114170

>>5114167
Well I thought you said "criteria x" was for humanity and not for me. In that case it is a spook. If the criteria is serving me, then it isn't a spook.

>> No.5114247

>>5114170
Well, we could go deeper into Stirnerism, and ask why it would ever be considered anything else? Because, at that moment, that interpretation served you more: you wanted to disagree, thus you chose the interpretation that served you, which is that you know what you're talking about and I do not (I made the same error). This could be true or not, it's irrelevant, I think, because it's simply a phenomenon of psychology (and the source of most misunderstandings, I'm sure). So, then, what I said was, to you, a spook. I think this makes the activity of calling anything a spook pointless or even self-contradictory, as it cannot serve you, since it leads to misunderstandings (unless you think misunderstandings serve you...).

So, of what use is the concept of spooks? Seems to me just a fun way of calling something irrelevant to you (which is in itself a use).

Anyway, I think I've been misusing the concept of spooky. Thanks for talking about it.

>> No.5114251

>>5113322
Not enough scientism.

>> No.5114281

>>5114247
Misunderstandings totally serve me, because in their discovery lies the potential to transcend my previous, erroneous belief.

>> No.5116376

>>5114247
Spookiness is just a a way to describe a state of something.

Captcha: xyemba unconsumed

Something is a spook when it is unconsumed by your ownness.

>> No.5116450

>>5113675
You say that like it's a bad thing.

>> No.5116481

>>5113322
He tells jokes to make his thought accessible and has become popular for it so clearly there can't be anything of value. And by value I mean fueling some elitist image doing philosophy is supposed to uphold.

>> No.5116497

>>5113246
The History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell.

Thank me when you finish.

>> No.5116570

>>5113246
Read what you like as much as you can, and research the words you don't understand.

Listen to lectures and either take notes, doodle, or walk.

Repeat.

>> No.5116575

Know that no matter who you choose to read, people will start calling you an idiot for reading him. Everybody will question you incessantly, and it will be hard for you to develop ideas. This is a transient thing, though.

>> No.5116585

>>5113283
A certain kind of philosophy, in a certain time, in a certain place, that is dwindling out of existence, and that has little relevance.

>> No.5116662
File: 1.13 MB, 1600x2400, Sigmund_Freud_1926.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5116662

>>5113658
>>5113675
>>5113705
>>5113757
>>5113761
>>5113833
I think we may have found the world's biggest Hegel fan.

#verneinung

>> No.5117213

>>5113246
Definitely the latter. I mean chronology is weird, and I try to cordon off Eastern philosophy as it's own thing and deal with it separately, but generally chronological is the way to go. This is because a lot of philosophical positions are made in response to or are presented in terms of previous philosophers, so they make little sense read out of "order".

>> No.5117295

>>5114164
>>>/sci/
Kill yourself.