[ 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: 605 KB, 561x694, Marcus_Aurelius_Metropolitan_Museum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5552050 No.5552050 [Reply] [Original]

What is the difference between good philosophy and bad pihilosophy?

>> No.5552057

>>5552050
good philosophy = philosophy i like and agree with

bad philosophy = philosophy i dislike and disagree with

>> No.5552062

>>5552057
pleb
good philosophy is what I like and agree with

>> No.5552065
File: 36 KB, 666x408, philosophy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5552065

good philosophy = analytic philosophy
bad philosophy = continental philosophy

>> No.5552075

>>5552065
>i'm a philosopher, i shouldn't waste my time with unsubstantiated opinions

10/10

>> No.5552076

Good philosophy makes a good case, bad philosophy doesn't make a case, it's just doctrines.

>> No.5552078
File: 59 KB, 360x480, 1405475254313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5552078

good philosophy = kanye
bad philosophy = not kanye

>> No.5552079

>>5552076
What is the difference between a good and a bad case? Is it one based on reason or on evidence? Or a combination of both?

>> No.5552080

good philosophy = atheism
bad philosophy = religion

>> No.5552086

>>5552076

you discount the importance that ritual has alongside doctrine

>> No.5552087

>>5552080
+1 epic post, /b/ro.

>> No.5552091

>>5552079
Either or both.

>> No.5552093

Good philosophy is philosophy that could be wrong, but is demonstrated not to be
Bad philosophy is philosophy that can never be wrong in the first place and declares anyone who doesn't believe in it an immoral heretic

>> No.5552099

>>5552086
Yes, however, you discount the importance that my penis has betwixt your buttocks.

>> No.5552107
File: 55 KB, 1024x670, kim yes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5552107

GOOD PHILOSOPHY NORTH KOREA

BAD PHILOSOPHY SOUTH KOREA

>> No.5552115

>>5552099

>has absolutely nothing to say to that

you're off your game today

>> No.5552118

>>5552050
bad philosophy = trying to describe the world through God's perspective... arrogantly trying to build a metaphysical system that describes all realities... "reading God's mind"

good philosophy = humbly questioning your own questions: "are metaphysical questions even meaningful"? the attitude described by Heidegger when he said: "questioning is the piety of thought"

excellent philosophy = inspired by the Holy Spirit

>> No.5552123

>>5552115
That isn't absolutely nothing. Your cheeks have a dialectical tension that only my penis-for-itself can resolve.

>> No.5552140

>>5552123

lol at you legitimately feeling like a pseud right now.

what's the matter? need to maymay like the kiddies when you're feeling a little clueless? lol

>> No.5552144

>>5552123
>>5552099
Watching the progression of your mental deterioration is sad, just sad.

>> No.5552149

>>5552123

Your penis is then only a penis-for-others. There is really no Transcendental Penis.

>> No.5552151

>>5552149
For all practical purposes his penis is a noumenon. Nobody will ever see, feel or touch it.

>> No.5552152

>>5552140
There's nothing maymay about fucking, you slut. I'd shove my dick so far up your ass you'd empty your nutsack right before the pain kicked in, and I'd make you lick it up, you degenerate little whore.

>>5552149
>object-for-itself
>transcendental
Come again?

>> No.5552154

>>5552151
I already made that joke with my contribution to /lit/'s philosophy book.

>> No.5552160

>>5552152
Lol dude you're mental garbage how do you live with yourself

>> No.5552162 [DELETED] 

>>5552160
BTFO xD

>> No.5552166

>>5552050
Good philosophy is what I practice, bad philosophy is what you practice

>> No.5552172

>>5552152
Haha, I had to think for a while and mentally regress to middle school. Now I understand your post and laugh. Explicit mentioning of sexual acts is always funny. L-O-L

>> No.5552173

>>5552162
Shitposting just makes you look more retarded and more desperate, amigo

>> No.5552178

Good philosophy is philosophy which rejects the "good vs bad" dichotomy"

>> No.5552181

>>5552178
Good philosophy is my ass

>> No.5552182

>>5552172
I did it because it gave me an erection, not to be funny.

>> No.5552183

>>5552182
You're pathetic no matter what your reasoning is

>> No.5552189

>>5552183
You're wrong no matter what your reasoning is.

>> No.5552237

>>5552152

>There's nothing maymay about fucking, you slut. I'd shove my dick so far up your ass you'd empty your nutsack right before the pain kicked in, and I'd make you lick it up, you degenerate little whore.

it's embarrassing how hard you let yourself be exposed as a pseud in this thread.

make one simple post that you can't answer and you completely fall apart.

embarrassing.

>> No.5552243

>>5552189
How do you feel about getting #rekt almost daily by arrow girl?

>> No.5552246

>>5552050
Opinion

>> No.5552267
File: 22 KB, 363x501, Evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5552267

>>5552118
>bad philosophy = trying to describe the world through God's perspective... arrogantly trying to build a metaphysical system that describes all realities... "reading God's mind"

>> No.5552283

>>5552107
Get this ideology out of Jere

>> No.5552285

>>5552267
Is he calling out le Hegel?

>> No.5552290

>>5552050
bad philosophy has more logical inconsistancies

obviously no philosophy is without its paradoxes, but "objectively" better ones make more logical sense.

also what >>5552057 said

>> No.5552361

>>5552050
Good philosophy is one that last and is remembered bad philosophy is one that is forgotten.

>> No.5552399
File: 44 KB, 485x634, epicurus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5552399

>>5552050
Good philosophy is 'therapeutic', it helps people traverse their lives and takes away questions and provides clarity. Bad philosophy is philosophy for it's own sake, or worse, for the sake of intellectual posturing. It constructs useless theories and systems and is generally a sophistic circle jerk.

>> No.5552421

>>5552065
define continental philosophy for me plz

>> No.5552427

>>5552421
Unsubstantiated opinions replying to other unsubstantiated opinions.

>> No.5552429

>>5552421
Anything that recognises there's more to the human condition than autistic logic.

>> No.5552434

>>5552427
That's all philosophy m8, it's just that analytics are in denial about their arbitrary axioms.

>> No.5552438

>>5552434
No, analytic philosophy is based in logic and mathematics, the only two objective things in the universe.

>> No.5552449

>>5552438
Logic and mathematics are based on arbitrary axioms, friend.

>> No.5552451

>>5552421
⇒continental philosophy
Wordy bullshit for highschool dropouts.

>> No.5552453

>>5552449
Stay in denial, continental. Your post is a blatant lie.

>> No.5552458

>>5552449
No they aren't. The axioms are necessary but they aren't arbitrary, they're a function of their application (physics).

>> No.5552482

>>5552458
They are arbitrary since you lack a preceding standard on which to base them. They find their base in the very system they support. Logic is self-contained, outside of logic there is nothing to justify logic with. Logically justifying logic is like Catholicly justifying Catholicism. It works by accepting the assumptions of the system itself and holds no authority outside of it, there are no standards external to it that justify adhering to it.

>> No.5552502

>>5552482
No, they aren't arbitrary dummy. "A word" is arbitrary because a word can be anything, given that it's a word. You can't simply alter the axioms of mathematics and still sensibly use it to talk about physics. I agree that it's a bit mysterious why axioms are needed, but the point is they aren't arbitrary, they are what they are for a specific reason

>> No.5552503

>>5552438
>analytic philosophy is based in logic and mathematics
One cannot construe a philosophy using only "logic and mathematics", you retard.

>the only two objective things in the universe.
There are no objective things in the universe.

>> No.5552508

>>5552503
>One cannot construe a philosophy using only "logic and mathematics", you retard.
Yes one can.
>There are no objective things in the universe.
How continental of you.

>> No.5552511

>>5552427
So it is a synonym for analytic philo?

>> No.5552516

>>5552503
⇒One cannot construct logic and mathematics without philosophy.

Logic and mathematics are self-evident and objective. They don't need philosophers to explain them, any dummy can use math or logic and they don't need "muh subjectivity" to understand it.

>> No.5552528

>>5552508
>Yes one can.
Show me one single philosophy that does that.

>How continental of you.
How "I have no idea what to say, so I'll just spew some unrelated bullshit at him and hope he forgets I had no rebuttal" of you.

>> No.5552535

>>5552516
>self-evident
Not really. There are always axioms one must take for granted, we cannot prove any universal, objective "laws of logic and mathematics".

>any dummy can use math or logic and they don't need "muh subjectivity" to understand it.
That's beside the point. You said they were OBJECTIVE and SELF-EVIDENT, which they are not (I obviously thought you meant on a cosmic scale, not that math is logical when calculating the rocket fuel needed for takeoff).

>> No.5552541

>>5552050

no-thing

>> No.5552548

>>5552429
The human condition doesn't exist

>> No.5552549

>>5552528
>Show me one single philosophy that does that.
Take Euclidean geometry, for instance. It begins with five postulates, including the infamous 'parallel postulate' that decrees that if you have a line L and a point P, there's only one line through P parallel to L. If you replace that postulate with (a) one that says there are no parallels through P, or (b) one that says there are two such parallels, you get entirely new geometries. What choice one makes regarding postulates is subjective. From that point, what's provable is set; mathematicians just discover what is already true.

>> No.5552552

>>5552050
the truth is outside = bad philosophy

the truth is inside = good philosophy

e z p z

>> No.5552553

>>5552549
>Euclidean geometry
That's mathematics, not philosophy, you fucking retard.

>> No.5552554

>>5552553
Mathematics and philosophy are the same.

>> No.5552567

>>5552554
No they really aren't. We do't live in ancient greece anymore, philosophy is only very vaguely connected to mathematics and the rest of the sciences (as in giving us the scientific method, the rest is irrelevant).

>> No.5552576

>>5552567
Logic and mathematics cannot be separated. If you take logic from philosophy philosophy is nothing.

>> No.5552590

>>5552576
>If you take logic from philosophy philosophy is nothing.
Most philosophies are not based on "logic", since human behavior and ideals are not logical by any means, and thus you cannot construe a "logical philosophy" (and I'm not talking about euclidean geometrics here).

Keep the math in the autism room and the philosophy in the real world room.

>> No.5552597

>>5552553
HAHAHA
That's the most pleb mistake I've ever seen anyone on /lit/ make, and I've been here since day 1
I'm literally laughing out loud

>> No.5552598

>>5552590
Anything not based in logic is an opinion. It may as well be in the letters to the editor.

>> No.5552601

>>5552598
>Anything not based in logic is an opinion.
Most of philosophy is opinions with clearly or less clearly defined axioms.

Please "prove", mathematically, that we exist (this is pihlosopy). How about this one, prove to me which philosophical stance is "the best".

Go on, use your "logic and mathematics".

>> No.5552612

>>5552601
>that we exist
Pointless. It doesn't matter if we do or don't.
>"the best".
Subjective.

>> No.5552639

>>5552502
But we were talking analytic philosophy, not physics. Of course with physics there is a correspondence between the observed and mathematics which can justify the mathematics, that is if you agree to adhere to certain epistemological assumptions and such. But given that we do adhere to that, the correspondence of mathemathics and physics gives structure and something to hold on to. Axioms are needed for the system to function and are justified within than system, but they hold no authority outside that system. But we accept them because well, it just werks.

With analytic philosophy this isn't the case. It has scientific pretensions, but it isn't science, it just mimics it structurally and aesthetically but misses out on that which justifies actual scientific fields. Analytic and continental philosophy are essentially just as unfounded, it's just that they take a stylistically different approach. Analytic philosophers are like those security guards that try to look like police officers in the hope that the sense of authority will rub off on them.

>> No.5552683

I was of the opinion that philosophy was supposed to inhere from the correct application of logic, as was math and science. Do not all these disciplines arise from logic?

>> No.5552720

>>5552683
Maybe you can make that case for math, but empirical science requires a lot of assumptions beyond the logically sound and philosophy even more. You can't construct logical ethics, for example.

>> No.5552722

>>5552720
That's because ethics is about opinions.

>> No.5552733

>>5552722
And a part of philosophy, therefore philosophy is more than merely applied logic.

>> No.5552737

>>5552050
Good thinking and bad thinking.

>> No.5552759

>>5552399
pls some post some therapeutic philosophers

>> No.5552767

>>5552733
It shouldn't be, though. It should simply be an opinion not fit for academic scrutiny.

>> No.5552795

is it high school day on /lit/?
newly born continental babbies are so cute

>> No.5552804

>>5552759
Laozi, Gautama, Epicurus, Pyrrho, Bodhidharma, Epictetus, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer.

>> No.5552811

>>5552804
wittgenstein is hardly therapeutic though he points out philosophy's therapeutic character

>> No.5552848

>>5552050
Good philosophy is true and useful, bad philosophy isn't.

>> No.5552882

>>5552804

Marcus Aurelius

>> No.5552901

>>5552720,

>>5552683 here, I think you are confused. Assumptions are part of logic.

You may start from an assumption and see where that logically takes you. It is possible for a system of logic to begin from an illogical assumption and proceed logically from there entirely. Indeed, all I know about math (admittedly very little) points to math basically being just this - we are assuming that we are either working with something that is just a creation of the human mind, or else we are assuming that we are working with something that describes, in some fundamental way, the laws of reality, but we actually have no epistemology to back that up beyond heaps of circumstantial evidence.

>> No.5552908

>>5552050
Philosophy exists, therefore it's good; pihilosophy doesn't even exist so it's very bad

>> No.5553024

>>5552848
So all philosophy is bad.