/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5116577]

philosopher here (no really)

a little buzzed on oxy at the moment

ask me anything

[Anonymous No.5116588]

OP is a sophist.

[Anonymous No.5116591]

Do you hold a Master's or PhD in Philosophy?

[Anonymous No.5116597]

>>5116591

seeing as either of those would almost certainly prevent my being an actual philosopher, I do not

(background on this painting)

>The error of imaginary causes. To begin with dreams: a cause is slipped after the fact under a particular sensation (for example, the sensation following a far-off cannon shot) — often a whole little novel is fabricated in which the dreamer appears as the protagonist who experiences the stimulus. The sensation endures meanwhile as a kind of resonance: it waits, so to speak, until the causal interpretation permits it to step into the foreground — not as a random occurrence but as a "meaningful event." The cannon shot appears in a causal mode, in an apparent reversal of time. What is really later (the causal interpretation) is experienced first — often with a hundred details that pass like lightning before the shot is heard. What has happened? The representations which were produced in reaction to certain stimulus have been misinterpreted as its causes.

The 'subject' in this painting is lying asleep somewhere. She has just been stung by a bee and her brain is in the process of waking up in response to the stimuli. However, right before this can happen, the brain is still locked into its dream-state, where causes for exterior sensations must be furnished with a ground by the imagination. Therefore the pomegranate which she was a moment ago observing suddenly breaks forth into a chain of fish and tigers, concluding with a bayoneted rifle which finally becomes the 'cause' as it were for the actual contact to her skin made by the bee's stinger. The two tigers represent the body of the bee (yellow with black stripes) and the bayonet its stinger.

[Anonymous No.5116606]

>>5116597

the effect arrives first; the cause follows

etc etc

looking for a nasty rebuttal i wrote to some shit magazine awhile back on the subject of free will, hang on

[Anonymous No.5116607]

Given that there is no inherent meaning to life (at least none that are agreed upon by consensus as you likely know, being a philosopher) we are to assume that our experiences are what gives life its meaning, however shallow/fleeting they are. Now what if your life experiences are marred by depression that is only lifted by the use of psychoactive chemicals/self destructive actions (like, say, huffing gasoline).

Given that one owes nothing to society at large (considering that the idea of a "social contract" is misguided at best due to the fact that this supposed "contract" is 'signed', as it were, without your consent) is it then ethical to be a drug addict "drain on society"?

[Anonymous No.5116617]

>>5116607
Do ethics even matter if it's possible to answer "yes" to that question?

[Anonymous No.5116630]

>>5116577
What is the most suitable profession one should have in life if they want to live the philosophical good life?

[Anonymous No.5116632]

>>5116607

Leonardo commented on the subject of painting that an artist generally learns to paint anatomically correct figures and faces by studying himself in the mirror, because his own face and figure are always at hand.

Supposing that a painter is a very ugly fellow however, who can doubt his own unseemliness will show through to some degree in every person he paints?

this is true also with respect to psychological studies. Freud for example transposed all his assorted neuroses onto his patients. The whole Oedipus complex is a prime example.

And for the record, I am not an addict of any kind. I don't even drink.

[Anonymous No.5116635]

Why are we still reproducing?

[Anonymous No.5116640]

>>5116630

Anyone not answering with educator is fucking up.

[Anonymous No.5116641]

>>5116630

Ideally it would be something that pays well enough to live comfortably without being too physically or mentally demanding.

No matter what you do in life, it burns the same finite quantity of nervous energy. Not to the same extent, but it is very difficult physiologically to come home from a long day of work and apply yourself seriously to studying or writing on any complex subject.

[Anonymous No.5116652]

>>5116635

An individual is a servant of the species, and the species always wants numbers.

If you're asking about the sexual drive, that is something else. Only women really feel the pangs that are associated with wanting a child. Men have a more abstract relationship with the idea of becoming a parent.

[Anonymous No.5116668]

>>5116606

i found it

this is older than i remember

[Anonymous No.5116686]

posting miscellaneous philosophy sections to pass the time

[Anonymous No.5116692]

this isn't mine but outstanding nonetheless

[Anonymous No.5116701]

>>5116640
No, they aren't/wouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.5116702]

>>5116668

related I suppose

[Anonymous No.5116714]

>>5116652
I think you severely misunderstood my question.

[Anonymous No.5116719]

>>5116714

i think you asked a vague question

[Anonymous No.5116727]

slow tonight

[Anonymous No.5116731]

>>5116607
>the idea of a "social contract" is misguided at best due to the fact that this supposed "contract" is 'signed', as it were, without your consent

You consent to it involuntarily. The moment you accept anything from the goverment, you are consenting to a social contract with it.

[Japicx No.5116732]

How do you define "common sense"? How much can people rely on it?

[Anonymous No.5116739]

>>5116732

Common sense would be something that simple experience seems to confirm. Generally the people who are accused of lacking common sense are people who engage in highly abstract thinking. The term also includes something like 'intuition' that is much harder to define.

Common sense would tell you that the sun goes around the Earth, so I'm not sure it's all that reliable.

[Anonymous No.5116741]

>>5116719
You listed some factors that may contribute to the desire to reproduce, I am asking you why we continue to do it.We're the first players ever to see the rules of the game. The rules are unjust. Yet we continue to play?

[Anonymous No.5116752]

>>5116741


>The rules are unjust
says you

[Anonymous No.5116763]

>>5116739

common sense is also often contrasted with politically correct thinking

>>5116741

>The rules are unjust

according to what authority? from what I can judge, we get no worse than the rest of nature, or if we do, there are trade-offs that compensate us for it

reproduction is a common outcome of sexual intercourse. things like sexual attraction and romantic love are considered 'irrational' not because they make no sense but because reason usually cannot prevail against them.

see also: a teenage girl trying to talk herself out of liking that one asshole dude in her class

[Anonymous No.5116777]

>>5116763

man is with respect to reason and all the higher faculties something of an amphibian: he doesn't live entirely in the 'human world' as we might call it, but neither is he completely an animal. the balance between brute and man is really different in every individual

Schopenhauer speaking on the subject of sculpture pointed out that the most noble figures are depicted with the head set at noticeable elevation above the body, signifying man's separation from the desires and impulses of the body, which he shares with all animal species

[Anonymous No.5116783]

>>5116686
do you consider that this assertion is susteinable when talking about the laughter that happens due to other people laughing (lets call it 2nd degree laughter)? the similitude between it and alarm calls in the natural world seem very attractive, namely that both are highly contagious. wouldnt you suppose that at least 2nd degree laughter arises from stimuli that causes automatic arousal but no contradiction at all? also, was schopenhauer never tickled?

[Japicx No.5116784]

>>5116739
It's true that common sense has limited (if any) use in natural science, but what about in, say, interpersonal situations? Most of the time when I hear about "common sense", it's about things like etiquette.

[Anonymous No.5116797]

>>5116783

I'm not sure it's a complete explanation. I do think that there is more than one kind of laughter, and that certain kinds are more the product of mirroring the attitude of those around you. The laugh track for example exploits this propensity in a way that often has the opposite effect. On the other hand, the presence of laughter in the absence of something sufficiently humorous to merit it does create something like annoyance and contempt

[Anonymous No.5116804]

>>5116784

etiquette is something that you learn or have drilled into you. but apart from that there is also the ability to emphasize and conduct yourself in such a way that others find pleasing or at any rate not displeasing.

making a bad joke at a funeral would be an example of getting this wrong.

part of the reason people with aspergers suck at social interaction is they cannot gauge the audience around them and adjust their delivery to jive well with it

[Anonymous No.5116806]

>>5116763
>according to what authority?

Me. I am more intelligent than everyone I have met or heard about or read in my life so far, and as such only I may speak to the injustice of existence with any authority.

>we get no worse than the rest of nature

Self-awareness is most definitely a negative.

>there are trade-offs that compensate us for it

There can be no compensation for existence. Nothing you can experience in life is worth being alive for. Everyone learns this in the end; the only difference between optimists and pessimists is time.

[Japicx No.5116808]

>>5116804
But what does this have to do with common sense? Is common sense different from empathy?

[Anonymous No.5116809]

Even better philosopher here.

Over the course of a day your consciousness is rend into oblivion due to the impermanent nature of sensory perception.

By the time you read this, the man you were at the start of the paragraph has died and you have taken his place.

And so on and so forth. The illusion is forever controlling the cells that compose your body and brain.

[Anonymous No.5116814]

>>5116806

seeing as you have it all figured out, I can't understand why you're asking questions

but this:

>There can be no compensation for existence. Nothing you can experience in life is worth being alive for. Everyone learns this in the end; the only difference between optimists and pessimists is time.

sounds like the value-judgment of someone who has grown sick with life

>A living man cannot [estimate the value of life], because he is a contending party, or rather the very object in the dispute, and not a judge; nor can a dead man estimate it—for other reasons. For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life, is almost an objection against himself, a note of interrogation set against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom.

>In order even to approach the problem of the value of life, a man would need to be placed outside life, and moreover know it as well as one, as many, as all in fact, who have lived it. These are reasons enough to prove to us that this problem is an inaccessible one to us. When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, and through the optics of life… life itself values through us when we determine values. From which it follows that even that morality which is antagonistic to life, and which conceives God as the opposite and the condemnation of life, is only a valuation of life—of what life?

[Anonymous No.5116818]

>>5116808

I think the ability to emphasize is essential to exercising what people call 'common sense'.

Then again, 'common' generally does not mean 'sense'

[Anonymous No.5116819]

>>5116692
this is a work of art.

its fucking beautiful.

[Anonymous No.5116823]

>>5116806
>Everyone learns this in the end; the only difference between optimists and pessimists is time.

Optimists generally have not experienced the depths to which existence can sink. They hear about it all the time, sure, but it never actually sinks in how badly things can go. As long as they have their meaningless pursuits they are content. Case in point: whoever responds to this with a flimsy attempt at justifying their existence.

[Anonymous No.5116825]

>>5116809
Now teach me something I didn't realise when I was still in elementary school.

[Anonymous No.5116842]

>>5116797
>>5116797
on the annoyance and contempt caused by laughter in the abscence of something sufficiently humorous. i somewhat agree but i doubt that this happens consistently (the contagion can happen even when you're aware of the causes of the 1st degree laughter and find it non-humorous). o think it is still besides the point though since schopenhaur says the laughter arises in all cases from the contradiction and we can see that in some cases the contradiction is only circumstantial, particularly if the contagion does work in the level that alarm calls do

[Anonymous No.5116844]

>>5116825
You're a faggot?

[Anonymous No.5116849]

>>5116814
>seeing as you have it all figured out, I can't understand why you're asking questions

It's my ethical duty to prevent as many harmable entities from coming into existence as possible. If I can stop just one human from perpetuating suffering for no reason then I will be satisfied that I did my duty. Ideally, all conceptions would be destroyed instantaneously and the rest of us would run out the clock with a sense of accomplishment, but I would confidently state that the intelligence of the species as a whole will never reach a pinnacle where this can occur.

[Anonymous No.5116851]

>>5116842

I agree that it is more complicated than he makes it out to be, but our laughter may not necessarily have had the same social cues as theirs back then

[Anonymous No.5116853]

>>5116814
not that guy, but the logic in those paragraphs can be applied to anything, hence the subjective/objective dichotomy. what you're effectively saying is "don't think about anything, let God handle that."

[Anonymous No.5116861]

>>5116823
I like my computer and my money and my food, fuck everyone else and their suffering.

Existence justified.

[Anonymous No.5116864]

>>5116809
>he thinks he's being profound

/lit/ is a genuinely laughable place the majority of the time

[Anonymous No.5116868]

What are your views on?

Liberalism

Marxism

Fascism

[Anonymous No.5116872]

>>5116861
>le first-world face

[Anonymous No.5116874]

>>5116853

One cannot arrive at an objective judgment regarding the whole of life of which he is but a single part. And there's nothing about limiting the scope of inquiry; you inferred that yourself.

[Anonymous No.5116875]

>>5116864
Tell me something more profound than the knowledge that we die over the course of a day.

[Anonymous No.5116878]

>>5116868

honestly as a philosopher I find everything related to politics contemptible

I'm really not familiar enough with those things to offer any meaningful commentary on them

[Anonymous No.5116884]

>>5116577
where are all the literature related discussions?

[Anonymous No.5116890]

>>5116874
>the point
>your head

read my post again, think, THEN respond

[Anonymous No.5116893]

>>5116878
Well how do you think society should be ideally structured then? What is your republic?

[Anonymous No.5116899]

>>5116597
>seeing as either of those would almost certainly prevent my being an actual philosopher, I do not

top kek

[Anonymous No.5116900]

>>5116875
You never lived

[Anonymous No.5116901]

>>5116849

You're never going to convince an ordinary person to give up and deny the will to life. The only people who will be amenable to your perspective are those who have already reached the same conclusion.

[Anonymous No.5116902]

>>5116900
But i did, retard.

[Anonymous No.5116903]

>>5116893
I don't think we should have society.

[Anonymous No.5116906]

>>5116893

I'm actually a great admirer of antique monarchies

The issue, of course, is with the monarchs themselves

[Anonymous No.5116907]

>>5116902
>2deep4u

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5116910]

>>5116903
So what would a world of completely autonomous individuals look like? What is the appeal and what are the problems with such a system?

[Anonymous No.5116917]

>>5116910

that wasn't me lol

[Anonymous No.5116933]

It's a shame all the painters today are such loathsome hacks

Dali was not only a master, he had an incredible personality

[Anonymous No.5116934]

>>5116901
Only because the ordinary person isn't intelligent and because a whole lot of innate shit is telling them to shut of the rational part of their brain while I explain the situation. I've always known it was an uphill battle. I feel like the opposite of a mother trying to talk their confused kid out of suicide. Also, I have been successful in the past. Not online, of course, because nobody here gives a fuck what anyone else has to say. I use the internet to hone my skills of anathematization.

[Anonymous No.5116939]

>>5116917
One of the joys of anonymity. Have any rulers or individuals of the past 100 or so struck you as being able to be one of these great monarchs?

Is it an impossible standard

[Anonymous No.5116940]

>>5116910
No appeal, lots of problems. Same as everything else. Shut it down, people.

[Anonymous No.5116943]

>>5116934

Well good luck with that.

Meanwhile I'll be trying to make humanity as strong and beautiful and stubbornly fastened to life as I can.

[Anonymous No.5116944]

>>5116890
i'm waiting. the concepts we're discussing aren't complex enough to take you this long to understand what I was saying

[Anonymous No.5116945]

>>5116851
are you implying that contagion would be a recent phenomena though, because disregarding public behaviour they still have private lives and the contagion factor would already be there in the first humans. as stated above there is a laughter that rises spontanously (namely the one that we dont consciously cause for politeness or other reasons) and only through inhibitory behaviour do we battle it but even in schopenhauer's time there are all sort of narrations that include a failure in inhibitory behaviour. meaning a failure to conform to social rules either because of a misreading of social cues or just a failure to follow them. so the social cues for laughter at the time and place are not relevant to the nature of laughter only to schopenhauers interpretation and his interpretation would be then less accurate because he fails to take in account instances that would directly contradict his concept

[Anonymous No.5116952]

>>5116943
A truly reprehensible crime. If I knew you personally I would murder you. Yes, I am serious.

[Anonymous No.5116955]

>>5116577
What do you think about Kierkegaard's concept of the knight of faith and the knight of infinite resignation? Does this model only have value in Kierkegaard's thought or do you apply it outside of his work?

[Anonymous No.5116958]

Do you think Zappffe was right about intelligence?

[Anonymous No.5116960]

>>5116939

Napoleon is the best I can think of, but he's more than 100 years old.

I think a healthier and somewhat less neurotic Adolf Hitler had the makings of greatness in him, actually. He put himself in one impossible situation after another and came through intact. But time and intrigue caught up with him. Such is life.

I'm reminded of a passage in Nietzsche where he talks about higher men being the most susceptible to degeneration and failure to thrive. Or something like that

[Anonymous No.5116965]

>>5116944

I'm not sure what part of that was a question. Try to clarify.

[Anonymous No.5116967]

>>5116960
Currently reading a riveting as fuck biography of Napoleon (written in free-indirect discourse styled narration).

Shit is the bomb.

Holy shit! My book is from 1924. It's by Emil Ludwig.

[Anonymous No.5116970]

>>5116945

not contagion, that is about as hardwired as behavior gets. vomiting is also contagious

When you laugh by proximity to someone laughing, I think that has something of a twofold cause, insofar as the sight and sound of others responding with laughter reduces your inhibition to do the same. But the original cause, the joke or gag, still has to have some effect in the way of what Schopenhauer described; otherwise the person laughing appears unintelligent or deranged to others around him.

[Anonymous No.5116976]

>>5116960
I suggest you look into Huey Long, with the book by T. Harry Williams on the matter being the starting point.

[Anonymous No.5116977]

>>5116952

I'm pretty handy with a gun; I wouldn't recommend you trying.

>>5116955

Not familiar with Kekregard, sorry

>>5116958

You mean Peter Zappffe? What is his general thesis? That intelligence is a curse or something?

[Anonymous No.5116988]

>>5116977
>What is his general thesis? That intelligence is a curse or something?

More or less.

"The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.

In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground."

[Anonymous No.5116995]

>>5116977
>I'm pretty handy with a gun; I wouldn't recommend you trying.

Can't tell if you're serious or not. Do you think you having a gun would stop someone who wanted to murder you from doing so?

[Anonymous No.5116996]

>>5116988

On the other hand, if you get a deer that can still cut it with those horns, it's bound to be one hell of a deer.

If the aliens came tomorrow, I think the Pyramids would give them more pause than a modern city. Not sure why, just a feeling.

[Anonymous No.5117004]

>>5116965
I want a rebuttal to >>5116853 that actually addresses the point that was made and not something loosely related. I am beginning to fear that the point was indeed beyond your understanding.

[Anonymous No.5117005]

>>5116995

I think it wouldn't hurt.

Neither would the fact that I'm in great physical shape. One has to stack the odds in one's favor as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.5117014]

>>5117004

They cannot be applied to anything; it's a very particular argument regarding the question of life trying to judge life.

What part of the objective/subjective dichotomy are you referring to? Because that dichotomy has many different implications depending on whether it is meant from a psychological, metaphysical or metalogical perspective.

[Anonymous No.5117015]

>>5116996
Had a feeling you'd say that. I suppose Zappffe did, too.

"Why, then, has mankind not long ago gone extinct during great epidemics of madness? Why do only a fairly minor number of individuals perish because they fail to endure the strain of living – because cognition gives them more than they can carry?

Cultural history, as well as observation of ourselves and others, allow the following answer: Most people learn to save themselves by artificially limiting the content of consciousness.

If the giant deer, at suitable intervals, had broken off the outer spears of its antlers, it might have kept going for some while longer. Yet in fever and constant pain, indeed, in betrayal of its central idea, the core of its peculiarity, for it was vocated by creation’s hand to be the horn bearer of wild animals. What it gained in continuance, it would lose in significance, in grandness of life, in other words a continuance without hope, a march not up to affirmation, but forth across its ever recreated ruins, a self-destructive race against the sacred will of blood."

[Anonymous No.5117019]

>>5117005
Right, but you concede that if I knew you and I wanted to murder you I would definitely accomplish it.

[Anonymous No.5117028]

>>5117015

I think this is more a condition that highly sensitive, introspective individuals suffer from. For most of our history, we've been struggling to keep base life afoot. It's only relatively recently that ease and security have advanced to the point where we can lay around wondering why we have all this brainpower in the first place.

Then again, I doubt if someone like Alexander ever suffered from quibbles of conscience like these. If someone were to ask him whether intelligence is a boon or a curse, he would probably say both.

And then go right on being Alexander.

>>5117019

I believe that if someone is truly adamant about murdering you then it's impossible to foresee all possibilities, but that doesn't mean you should not give yourself a fighting chance.

[Anonymous No.5117036]

>>5117028
>I believe that if someone is truly adamant about murdering you then it's impossible to foresee all possibilities, but that doesn't mean you should not give yourself a fighting chance.

Glad we got that sorted out. See you soon.

[Anonymous No.5117039]

>>5117036

I'll be waiting

[Anonymous No.5117043]

>>5116977
Ok fair enough. No worries. Do you think Wittgenstein's concern with most or all of philosophical problems being inherently linguistic is reductive and wrongheaded, or it at least a partially correct viewpoint of the problem? Do you apply this linguistic model to questions that you have philosophically, or do you view linguistic treatment of philosophical issues as ineffective?

[Anonymous No.5117045]

>>5117028
>highly sensitive, introspective individuals

You mean intelligent people. Intelligent people are the ones who realise life isn't worth living. Stupid people, like those you describe, continue to procreate because they aren't smart enough to realise it's a bad idea. It's the exact same thing as flies or worms reproducing. No thought, just action.

[Anonymous No.5117046]

>>5117039


i'm from /k/ too and i'm laughing so hard right now .

[Anonymous No.5117049]

>>5117039
How's that gun going to help you when I stalk you from your home, come up behind you in the street and shoot you in the back of the head before you even know I am there?

[Anonymous No.5117050]

>>5116970

but that is once more irrelevant. i offered tickling as an example because laughter doesnt require contradiction at all, and no concept in fact, neither does its contagion (there can be a concept in your mind of why the event is funny but there need not be one and the fact that there is doesnt mean it is a cause, its presence may very well be circumstantial. and since you admit the unimportance of the social aspect in the automatic responce in 2nd degree laughter and since we can agree that tickling cajses no conceptual contradiction, and since tickling existed in schopenhauers time we are back in the beginning: his concept of laughter is a faulty concept caused by schopenhauer's lack of a gf or at the very least affective parents that tickled him.

[Anonymous No.5117053]

>>5117039
Cheers for the exif data. See you real soon.

[Anonymous No.5117064]

O wise philosopher, will I ever get a gf?
Also can you heal my bald spot?

[Anonymous No.5117067]

>>5117043

I have a real problem with the reduction of metaphysics and the whole of philosophy to matters of linguistics or mathematics. The evolution of language was certainly important to the development of complex thought, but I don't believe that all philosophical questions are fundamentally logomachic quarrels. I think if that position has any ground to stand on, it's that the rules of grammar impose certain restrictions and conditions upon thought. But it is by no means demonstrated that that grammar or linguistics contain the solution or means of solving problems which arise through the use of language.

The laws of physics are explained in terms of mathematics, but matter itself is not reducible to simple numbers. Likewise, the propositions and axioms of thought are expressed through linguistics, but that does not mean their whole content is linguistic.

This is not really my strong suit as far as philosophy goes.

[Anonymous No.5117077]

>>5117050

Tickling belongs to its own class in that it is chiefly physiological, whereas normal laughter requires cognitive involvement.

The reflex is the same in both cases, but in the former case we could have something like the photic sneeze reflex, where stimulation of one of the cranial nerves by bright light triggers the sneeze reflex purely by neural proximity.

In support of this I would cite the fact that ticklishness fluctuates. My sister used to have very sensitive ribs, but today tickling her there has next to no effect.

[Anonymous No.5117083]

>>5117067
Thank you for your response, I found it level headed. It's hard to appreciate Wittgenstein's restrictions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater and you seem to have done that well. Do you think the Hegelian concept of the world historical soul has any real philosophical merit, or do you think it's just one of his ideas that we throw out with his main point being synthesis as transcendence? Thank you for the thread by the way.

[Anonymous No.5117091]

>>5117045
>bad idea
thats a risky calification. for starters because we dont seem to define intelligence by having the right idea/ knowing the truth, but by perceptual, analytical, retentive and other capabilities i may be missing in relation to information. basically intelligence is efficiency in information processing and it refers to a tendency not to a single fact. assuming you are right about such a thing being a bad idea an intelligent person may hold that bad idea anfd still be intelligence as evidenced by his tendency to process information efficiently

[Anonymous No.5117108]

>>5116731
What if I am consenting to the terms of their surrender?

[Anonymous No.5117109]

>>5117077
even if i was to concede that such a laughter was "abnormal" whatever you mean by that it is still laughter and doesnt apply to the conditions schopenhauer gives to laughter making schopenhauer's concept indefensible. i really dont understant how you use the word normal here. laughing from getting tickled is the norm, its the normal effect. the variation in sensibility may as well be the norm too, that doesnt negate in any way the qualification of such an effect as laughter. you seem to be unable to let go of schopenhauer. he missed one, no big deal, even the greatest baseball players miss a lot

[Anonymous No.5117110]

>>5117083

To be perfectly honest I have never been able to make heads or tails of anything Hegel said. Kant is obscure enough, and I trust his merit in a way that I do not trust Hegel's.

Hegel bothers me a great deal because on the one hand, it's difficult not to group him in with Fichte and all the other windbags that followed on the heels of Kant without really understanding him. On the other hand, I recognize that I have never really made a real effort to read him or study him, because what I have been able to gather makes me believe that I'd be walking straight into a mire.

Synthesis as transcendence: what does this mean?

[Anonymous No.5117118]

>>5117109

I'm saying that this physiological response has two kind of triggers (one anatomical and one intellectual), and it's not clear if he's referring exclusively to the latter. It is called 'a theory of the ludicrous', so I would assume he was leaving tickling out of the question; in much the same way, a discussion of lacrimation might leave out the note that being struck in the eye also causes tears to flow, in favor of focusing on sorrow and other emotions.

[Anonymous No.5117133]

>>5117110
Uh well I didn't understand Hegel until I read him in German. He's a genuinely poor writer too so that doesn't help. So his idea ( as I understood it) is that two opposing concepts or ideas or entities must face each other. Then this facing each other quasi-historically or martially produces a third idea which is like the synthesis of the first two ideas but transcends what we would commonly understand as like the sum of the two ideas, in a kind of like better than the sum of it's constituent parts type of situation. Then two ideas or concepts or forces ( he's never terrifically consistent with what these things are) must in turn face each other and create more superior transcendent ideas until like history or man or ideas are perfected and transcend the need for the synthesis in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5117142]

>>5117118
there's a difference between leaving something out/focusing on something else and declaring that something is not part of it.

if you were to discuss lacrimation and focuse on one type of causes you wouldnt be in error. if you asserted that the secretion caused when recieving the impact in the eye is not lacrimation you would be wrong. schopenhauer does the latter. observing our previous posts you and i seemed to agree that schopenhauer effectively put the contradiction as sole cause. at least we started the conversation on that agreement. seems to me that you're changing your position now though

[Anonymous No.5117145]

>>5117133

I suppose I can understand that, but if he's talking about forces or concepts on an historical timescale, for instance autonomy against slavery, then I think there's entirely too much cultural and frankly chaotic variance to take into the equation. And let's say you have a particular instance of this transcendent synthesis; how is it guaranteed to translate correctly over time, from one generation to another, without alteration? It's like an heirloom sword that gets more beat up and corroded every generation. You take it into battle one day and it breaks in two with the first swing.

[Anonymous No.5117162]

>>5117142

I'm saying that, if you want to take tickling into the bargain, then yes, he left that out. But as he wrote it, it might have been understood (again this is a translation, German is a tricky language) more as a reflex to the ludicrous that does not include tickling. There is nothing ludicrous or cognitive about tickling, obviously.

Having reread the passage and the entire chapter in Volume II, he does not mention tickling at all. So yes, he is wrong to claim that 'All' laughter arises from this intellectual contradiction.

[Anonymous No.5117168]

>>5117162

But even though the outward appearance is similar in both cases, you do have to concede that not all laughter is identical. The laughter from tickling is often highly unpleasant as well, whereas intellectual laughter usually does not bring about pain unless you cannot control yourself.

[Anonymous No.5117212]

Well it was a great heap of fun, but my buzz has faded and I'm falling asleep.

Maybe we can continue this tomorrow if the thread survives until then.

[Anonymous No.5117523]

Can you prove that philosophy exists?

[Anonymous No.5117539]

>>5116588
underrated post

[Anonymous No.5117543]

>>5116933
Dali was the hack of hacks and his personality was a tacky charade with no substance.

[Anonymous No.5117615]

>>5116577

Was Lacan really a fraud? What about Derrida?

[Anonymous No.5118643]

>>5117543

Kindly eat shit

[GiordanoBruno !ANN2LNg0i2 No.5119341]

>>5117615
They are frauds in some school of thought, you should define your position and then ask the question again
>>5117523
yes
I have philosophy books in my bedroom
philosophy books exist if and only if philosophy exists
philosophy exists

[Anonymous No.5120230]

>>5116577
>>5117067
>This is not really my strong suit as far as philosophy goes.

What is?

I was going to shit on you but you seem decent enough. If I'm going to ask you a question, I'd prefer it to be about something you're passionate about.

If you will.

[Anonymous No.5120241]

>>5119341
Can you prove that you exist?

[Anonymous No.5120264]

I like how I made a thread asking the difference between two words and got banned, but this /x/-tier "ask a wizard anything" shit is still up.

You're a fucking faggot mod, whoever you are.

[Anonymous No.5121566]

Alright so seeing as this thread has survived an entire day without my helping it, I suppose the dialog can continue.

Be advised however that I am sober tonight and therefore probably in a worse mood than before.

[Anonymous No.5121593]

>>5116577
feelings on logical positivism?

[Anonymous No.5121698]

>>5121593
>starting in the late 1920's

Outside my knowledge. A cursory glance over the wiki gives me the impression of an[other] anti-metaphysical movement.

sorry for the delay; 4chan keeps eating my captcha input

[Anonymous No.5121787]

>>5120241

Can you prove that I don't?

[Anonymous No.5121857]

Wondering if I have any more relevant material in these folders

[Anonymous No.5121869]

What exactly have you contributed to the field?

[Anonymous No.5121886]

>>5121869

Nothing yet. All good things take time. But I have written two books. I am in the process of getting one of them fit for publication.

but I'd prefer not to go into detail because it inevitably becomes a tedious discussion

[Anonymous No.5121898]

>>5121886

I was very fortunate to not have fallen for the lures of academia when I was younger. I really do not believe my enthusiasm for philosophy would have amounted to anything worthwhile had I chosen to pursue it at a university.

[Anonymous No.5122002]

Even though you might consider philosophy your career, do you have a day job to make ends meet?

Do you have a college education? I know you stated that you don't have a degree in the subject, but did you study something else at university?

Finally, would you consider yourself consequentialist ethically, like a utilitarian, or do hold to a more deontological interpretation of ethics?

[Anonymous No.5122009]

>>5122002
What about virtue ethics? Or relativism?

[Anonymous No.5122010]

What is your favorite horror story?

[Anonymous No.5122093]

>>5122010

Never been a fan of the horror genre. I don't know that I've read anything that would be considered a serious piece of horror literature.

My taste in books is pretty diverse, but horror has never sparked my interest unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.5122094]

>>5122009
I didn't mean to imply that consequentialism or deontology are the only categories of ethical thought. I'm most familiar with the aforementioned, however, and wanted to hear OP's thoughts on these two types of ethical thought.

However, if OP is an adherent of virtue ethics (wouldn't you consider consequentialism a form of relativism though, as it inherently rejects moral standards and replaces them with a focus on outcomes, and not actions [although, my definitions might be off--I've only recently begun studying ethics]?) I'd love to hear his or her thoughts on it.

[Anonymous No.5122181]

>>5122002

I don't consider it a career and I seriously doubt it will ever make me a dime. I life partially off an inheritance and partially off an easy job in the finance sector.

I never even applied to college. I saw that it was something that everyone else was committing themselves to without much thought, and thought better.

5 years later, these people are all graduated and grown. And I must say, they're even stupider than they were before.

One of the nice things about avoiding all university philosophy is that you don't have to take the academic approach to philosophy, which usually consists of introducing a bunch of competing theories or value systems (they usually end in 'ism), followed by reading a small amount of actual material, and then discussion and debate ad nauseam. The thing is, I'm not interested in what a college professor thinks about this or that work. I just want to read the work.

In ethics, the main distinction for me is between a system that has accountability at its core, and a system that places efficiency at the centre. You could argue that the deontological interpretation takes cues from both; I personally can't see the practical side of an ethics based around duty.

Schopenhauer said that to preach morality is easy, but to found it is difficult. He found Kant's foundation for morality (namely duty) inadequate, and spoke disparagingly about the categorical imperative. I agree with Schopenhauer on this point as well.

The morality of Kant derives purely from a sense of duty. You ought to do such and such because it is your moral duty as a rational creature. There's no place for compassion, weighing cost and benefits, taking risks and rewards into account, or anything else that would be consistent with rational volition. We are therefore the automata of a categorical moral imperative.

As you can well guess, life has not made it this far by means of such imperatives. Not only are they impractical to adhere to, they suck the enthusiasm right out of living.

[Anonymous No.5122184]

>>5122181
>He found Kant's foundation for morality

that's about as bad a clause as I've ever cut, goodness me

[Anonymous No.5122211]

>>5122181
Do you consider the actions of a parent letting numerous people die in order to save their child irrational, their sense of duty as a parent blocking out the rational realization that one life is not inherently more important than another? Is this sense of parental duty incorrect? Are there different rules of morality based upon your relationship to the person being acted upon, such as in the case of parents and children, or the leader of one country nuking another in order to save his nation?

Also, as an aside, when did you first consider yourself to be a philosopher? What made you leap from "someone who is interested in philosophy" or "someone who studies philosophy" to "a philosopher"?

[Anonymous No.5122261]

>>5116692
I wonder how Hume's treatise would look

[Anonymous No.5122266]

>>5122181

>The morality of Kant derives purely from a sense of duty. You ought to do such and such because it is your moral duty as a rational creature. There's no place for compassion, weighing cost and benefits, taking risks and rewards into account, or anything else that would be consistent with rational volition. We are therefore the automata of a categorical moral imperative.

It would help if you actually bothered to read the work which you would dismiss out of hand. Or reached some understanding of it before stuffing your straw man.

[Anonymous No.5122281]

>>5122211

I doubt such a parent would be thinking anything about 'duty' with respect to saving their child. As I've said earlier in the thread, irrational in my mind means that which reason cannot prevail upon; parental attachment would be such an irrational phenomenon. The person might try to justify their actions after the face by appealing to parental duty. Whether or not it is 'correct' depends on what authority or canon is judging.

I agree with Nietzsche that there no moral facts whatever, only moral interpretations. I also believe in an order of rank among individuals, and that one's personal 'duty' is not the same with respect to all other people. In simple terms, the moral obligation of a prince would be different when he is dealing with his father, with another prince, with a slave, and so on.

I'm not sure when that came about precisely. I don't think you have the right to call yourself an artist if all you do is admire or critique the art of others. I began by trying to understand various philosophers. I then attempted to imitate them, their lines of thought, their particular perspectives, even their style of writing. Then I made an effort to challenge what I felt were the weaker parts of each philosopher's system or theory or whatever. Little by little, I accumulated the knowledge and intellectual rigor that allowed me to write a few ideas based on my own experience and the things that mattered to me.

At some point I suppose it just became natural to consider myself a philosopher. When over 90 percent of my intellectually fruitful hours were being spent on one thing, I didn't see what else there was that I could be.

[Anonymous No.5122287]

>>5122281

after the fact*

[Anonymous No.5122303]

>>5116702
>"law of causation"
dropped

[Anonymous No.5122313]

>>5122303

law of causality would be more correct, I suppose

[Anonymous No.5122316]

>>5122313
>"law of causality"
dropped

[Anonymous No.5122330]

>>5122316

>implying

do you even sufficient reason?

[Anonymous No.5122335]

>>5122330
>sufficient reason
dropped

[Anonymous No.5122347]

>>5122335
>dropped
picked up.

[Anonymous No.5122353]

>>5122347
i dropped it upwards jokes on you

[Anonymous No.5122359]

>>5122347
>>5122353
I threw all of you sideways, beat that.

[Anonymous No.5122389]

>>5117133
What about the unity of the two opposites? What about Evil being the same as Good?
I think that thesis + antithesis = synthesis is a gross oversimplification of Hegel's work.

[Anonymous No.5122569]

>>5122359
>>5122353
>>5122347
>>5122330
>>5122316
>>5122313
>>5122303
Ha

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.5122848]

>>5116597
>seeing as either of those would almost certainly prevent my being an actual philosopher, I do not

>150 posts

lol

[Anonymous No.5122856]

>>5122093
Read some Ligotti and come back to tell us what you think. He's more philosophical/introspective than pure horror, though.

[Anonymous No.5122949]

>>5116686
>theory of laughter
is nothing sacred?

[Anonymous No.5123178]

>>5122949
your virginity

[Anonymous No.5123941]

>>5116731
>You consent to it involuntarily

[Anonymous No.5123947]

>>5123941

it's called slavery

[Anonymous No.5123950]

>>5116731
you might check out spinoza's TTP

[Anonymous No.5123958]

>>5123947

it's called freedom

[Anonymous No.5124002]

>>5123947
Slavery is slavery, but "involuntary consent" is self-contradictory.

[Anonymous No.5124852]

>>5117015
Zapffe is legit

[Anonymous No.5125134]

>>5116686
>>5116783
>>5116797
>>5116842
>>5116851
>>5116945
>>5116970
>>5117050
>>5117077
>>5117109
>>5117118
>>5117142
>>5117162
>>5117168
You guys are pretty smart.