[ 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: 148 KB, 547x307, quote-from-the-secret.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5634758 No.5634758 [Reply] [Original]

Do you think that, deep down at the heart of anyone of their respective epistemolgocal systems, a respected philosopher like Wittgenstein, Hegel, Plato, etc. was saying something similar to what The Secret says?

>> No.5634765

No, no I do not.

>> No.5634771

no, not at all

I know you're just trying some halway crack method to internally write them off without having to read them, but you're wrong

>> No.5634779

The Secret is popular with young women and people who own tarot cards.

>> No.5634801

>>5634779
haha this

>> No.5634847
File: 67 KB, 900x889, 1953i.27-900w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5634847

>>5634758
Hegel and Plato are nuthin. Wittgenstein wasn't much concerned with epistemology. He did more in the way of how language works and what we can use it for. Meaning. Which I guess CAN be knowledge, but Emerson was not thinking along those lines at all. What would make you believe this? That's a hippie thing to do, if you're just looking to 'find answers' without any actual thinking. Try Bertrand Russell. He is easier to understand because english is his first language. History of Western Philosophy can be found in it's entire audiobook form on youtube. It's good, but if you like philosophy, it's not nearly enough.

>> No.5634865
File: 91 KB, 193x268, 1404869462435.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5634865

>>5634758
>a respected philosopher like Hegel

>> No.5634978

>>5634847
>wittgenstein
>not concerned with epistemology

>> No.5634982

>>5634865
Okay so you're retarded then?

>> No.5634991

>>5634779
What you're saying sounds like something rich white suburban kids snicker at over craft beers.

Do you know anything at all about quantum physics?

>> No.5635073

>>5634978
Exerpt from the Intro by Russell of the Tractatus. "In order to understand Mr Wittgenstein's book, it is necessary to realize what is the problem with which he is concerned. In the part of his theory which deals with Symbolism he is concerned with the conditions which would have to be fulfilled by a logically perfect language. There are various problems as regards language. First, there is the problem what actually occurs in our minds when we use language with the intention of meaning something by it; this problem belongs to psychology. Secondly, there is the problem as to what is the relation subsisting between thoughts, words, or sentences, and that which they refer to or mean; this problem belongs to epistemology. Thirdly, there is the problem of using sentences so as to convey truth rather that falsehood; this belongs to the special sciences dealing with the subject-matter of the sentences in question. Fourthly, there is the question: what relation must one fact (such as a sentence) have to another in order to be capable of being a symbol for that other? This last is a logical question, and is the one with which Mr Wittgenstein is concerned. He is concerned with the conditions for accurate Symbolism, i.e. for Symbolism in which a sentence `means' something quite definite."

>> No.5635110

>>5634991
You have the floor anon, explain yourself.

>> No.5636758

>>5634758

All I have to say is, Emerson was the Deepak Chopra of his day

>> No.5636804
File: 13 KB, 680x510, 92f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5636804

>>5634991

>quantum physics
>as a supportive argument for dumbed-down new-age

>> No.5636807

>>5636804
This

>> No.5636824

>>5635073
The two obvious problems with this are that (1) the Tractatus is not the only thing Wittgenstein ever wrote and (2) Russell's introduction to the Tractatus is, according to Witty himself, woefully inadequate.

>> No.5636828

Considering that The Secret you seem to be referring to is a NYT Bestselling New Age self help book, no. Here's the tl;dr version: If you want something bad enough, you can will it into existence, NOTE: this may require some effort on your part.

HOLY FUCK, WOW, SUCH REVELATION, MUCH WISDOM, VERY MIND BLOWN.

I don't think any of the philosophers you listed extrapolated much on this idea, because it's common sense except the New Age parts. The reason gormless first worlders like The Secret is because they think it's going to be about some mystical way to get what you want, when in reality it's "hurr just think positive, here's some shit about spooky debunked ancient mysticism proving it will make you a millionaire, also your brain is an electromagnet that can influence matter telepathically, check out this diagram full of pseudoscience and the astrological symbol for Uranus. Metaphysics, man." But at the end of the day the soccer moms who gobble this up just like to apply the practical "think positive" part and read snake oil fantasies.

The real secret I wish these fags would write about is how they're so good at making money from idiots. I'd like to write a fucktarded self help book and wallow in the disposable of working class husbands spent by their housewives myself.

>> No.5636833

>>5634991
It's sold right next to the "Modern Pagan's Book of Love Spells" at my local B&N.

I think that speaks for itself.

>> No.5636858

The secret is nothing but an extremely clumsy sort of bait-and-switch, where they pull you in with reasonable ideas (say, that having confidence and a clear goal can help your career), and then, when it's established that being positive in that sense is a good thing, they drag an entirely different idea in, and expect you not to notice how different they are (if you open your mailbox expecting to find bills, you will find bills; if you expect checks, you will find checks).

Whenever one tries to argue against "the secret", people always leap to the defence of the first, reasonable idea, and completely ignore that the arguments are aimed at the second, more ridiculous idea. It's extremely annoying.

>> No.5636948

>>5635110
No thanks. I'm op and it was bait to get the conversation moving.

I just feel like some respected philosopher must have been hinting at "wish it, want it, get it"

>> No.5637523

>>5634847
>wittgenstein wasn't too concerned with epistemology

>> No.5637804

>>5636824
(1) The Blue and Brown Books were thoughts on the nature of language right before Phili Investigations. In his intro to Phili Investigations "(His thoughts) concern many subjects: the concepts of meaning, of understanding, of a proposition, of logic, the foundations of mathematics, states of consciousness, and other things." It seems to me that he is concerned with something completely different from most thinkers before him, and one of those things that he doesn't seem to set out to resolve, is epistemology.(2) Well wtf. Why would that intro be included if it was inaccurate?

>> No.5637883

>>5634758
This thread is so stupid that it depressed my day, seriously. Bravo, OP, 9/10. Made me reply + made me sad, because you reminded me that there are actually people who consider The Secret to be philosophy.

>> No.5637895

>/lit/ used to be a place where you could discuss literature
>now it's a cesspool of religious and 'spiritual' fucktards

>> No.5638343

>>5634847
>Try Bertrand Russell.
If you want to choke to death on semen, yes, please do.
>Wittgenstein wasn't much concerned with epistemology.
Uhhh

>> No.5638371

>>5637804

>Well wtf. Why would that intro be included if it was inaccurate?

welcome to the actual world, where things aren't always the way they seem for a multitude of reasons

>> No.5638538

>>5637883
I actually didn't say that dawg. I'm asking if anyone was ever mystical like that and had a convincing, thought out, comprehensive case. Doesn't mean that they would be necessarily right. It could've been a pre-Socratic or Pythagorean type.

I've gotten 25 or so replies now I've never gotten that many on /lit/; I regret nothing.

>> No.5638547

>>5638371
>where things aren't always the way they seem for a multitude of reasons

So you're saying The Secret could be correct then?

>> No.5639341

>>5638371
But even so, Russell's inaccuracy doesn't guarantee that the opposite of what he said is true... I still think that what Wittgenstein was getting at was something different from epistemology.

>> No.5639355

>>5636828
>>5636833
>>5634779

My mother owns that books

And lots of tarot cards

And a lot of chinese pseudo zen new age homeopathy

And 5000 'how to use spirit energy to have a happy life and family' books

If she's gonna attempt to kill herself, Im gonna run out of fingers to count

Sums up the secret pretty well

>> No.5639378

>>5639341
That's because you don't know what epistemology is.

>> No.5639419

>>5636948
sounds like kirkegaard

either way that really isn't the point. Philosophy is more about arguments and reason slowly and surely crossing over to the emotional side and trying to tie it down. Going the other way by playing the emotional card isn't philosophy, its just being human.

Hence why this kind of thinking is popular among new age self help types. It preaches good feelings which are useful by themselves and provide positive distraction.

>> No.5639537

The Secret is partly to blame for Elliot Rodger. His father saw his son having problems, and instead of helping him, he gave him the Secret. No wonder Elliot became crazy.

>> No.5640262

>>5639378
Well what the heck. I guess if you're right, then I don't know what epistemology is. Can you relate some of his work to epistemology for me? It seems like he was the first to think outside of most previous branches of philosophy, to me.