[ 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: 13 KB, 284x271, 1425685520036.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6249763 No.6249763 [Reply] [Original]

Why haven't you stopped reading any books other than Plato's dialogues and the holy book of your religion, /lit/? Surely, between Plato and revealed religion, there isn't anything else worth studying. Not even Hegel, who was basically just Plato but with more words and less Socrates.

>> No.6249799

I'm a vegan Wiccan Shinto-Xeno-Buddhist, we have no holy book

>> No.6249801
File: 38 KB, 499x497, 1421018481203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6249801

>>6249799
>Non-revealed religion

>> No.6249802
File: 97 KB, 720x540, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6249802

>I think Hegel was important

>> No.6249803

>>6249802
>there isn't anything else worth studying. Not even Hegel

>> No.6249804

>>6249802
As far is philosophy goes (and global politics of you consider his influence on Marx and fascism), he objectively was, no question of opinions.

>> No.6249810

>>6249804
No, philosophy died just before him and was revived by Frege, Moore and Russell.

>> No.6249812

>>6249810
I don't think so, they haven't provided any radical questioning of our worldview or ideology.

>> No.6249819

>>6249812
>ideology
Nobody cares about ideologies, faggot. Our world view is scientific.

>> No.6249822

>>6249819
The funding and research topics for science is determined by ideology, as is the technology is pursues.

>> No.6249826
File: 459 KB, 500x579, 1421216774897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6249826

>>6249819

>> No.6249830

>>6249822
Yes, the ideology of scientific progress. I care not for your Hegelian ideology, however.

>> No.6249832

Is ideology the only thing you idiots can discuss?

>> No.6249833
File: 591 KB, 500x2755, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6249833

>>6249826
>>6249822
>>6249812

>> No.6249835

>>6249832
Yes, it's the only thing anyone can discuss. That is the nature of ideology.

>> No.6249839

>>6249833
That's not a very analytic argument, let alone scientific.

>> No.6249846

>>6249839
You're just not the Real.

>> No.6249851

>>6249835
You Zizekians are no better than the Derridans.

>> No.6249867

>>6249833
That was really stupid.

>> No.6249869

>>6249867
Yeah, continentals suck.

>> No.6249876

>Plato thread
>Descends into an ideologyfest within 8 posts
You people are pathetic.

>> No.6249881

>>6249876
Plato was a hack. You only like him because he is ancient.

>> No.6249885

>>6249819
So are you a Marxist materialist, then? He had some pointed things to say about Hegel

>> No.6249890

>>6249885
I don't subscribe to political ideologies. Especially stupid ones like Marxism.

>> No.6249893

>>6249881
He was less of a hack than Zizek is.
>>6249885
Marx was wrong in his critique of Hegel. Idealism is correct.

>> No.6249896

>>6249893
So? Zizek is just a meme, nobody takes his posturing seriously. Plato is overrated, though, still.

>> No.6249908

>>6249896
Why is Plato overrated? You've made claims, but you haven't explained what it is that makes the son of Ariston a hack, or what lies beyond idealism.

>> No.6249925

>>6249908
His claims are either subjective or scientifically false.

>> No.6249927

>>6249819
Scientism is an ideology. A more faith-based one that religion.

>> No.6249928

>>6249925
>subjective
Your claims are all subjective, too. In fact, all philosophy that isn't subjective on some level is hardly worthy of the name.
>scientifically false
So philosophy is empirical science now?

>> No.6249932

>>6249833
The Kierkegaard quote really pisses me off. I hate when people quote him to sound smart without knowing anything about what he actually thinks.

>> No.6249950

>>6249833

that was fedora on top of fedora. wow.

>> No.6249951

>>6249802
>I post fedoras on the internet

>> No.6249952

>>6249927
The rigorous investigation of phenomena is faith based?
>>6249928
Oh, so you just like 'le deep sounding wise man posturing'.

>> No.6249958

>>6249952
I still don't see an actual argument.

>> No.6249963

>>6249958
Anything that is subjective is useless.

>> No.6249968

>>6249963
So you admit you're useless, as a subject with subjective opinions?

>> No.6249971

>>6249968
No, I only state facts.

>> No.6249986

>>6249971

so STEM is the only valid way of making sense of the world?

>> No.6249989

>>6249971
No you don't. If subjectivity is useless, and if your consciousness is subjective, you must be useless If a=b and b=c, then a=c, Q.E.D.
But you may deny that consciousness exists, since you're clearly pic related. In that case, I don't see why you think there can be anything to state facts at all. And if it's the case that there is no one to state either facts or opinions, since you would thus be denying the existence of subjectivity and thought in general, then wouldn't your claim that subjectivity is useless be better stated as 'subjectivity doesn't exist?'
But if you accept the existence of subjectivity, you must also accept that you are as useless as any other subject capable of having opinions, or accept that subjectivity has value.

>> No.6249992

>>6249927

>Scientism is an ideology.

Yes

>A more faith-based one that religion.

no

>> No.6249993

>>6249952
It's based in the faith that our perceptions etc. are accurate and that Hume was wrong.
Can't avoid having faith in something.

>> No.6249995

>>6249989
>and if your consciousness is subjective
It is not.
>>6249986
Yes.

>> No.6250000

>>6249993
No it isn't, it deals with what we experience, not posturing over what is real.

>> No.6250003

If you need any more proof that Plato was a hack, just think for a second about how Plato wasn't even his real name. It was his wrestling name.

That's like if thousands of years in the future, everybody is reading the philosophical works of Stone Cold Steve Austin.

He was a literal meathead.

>> No.6250006

>>6249995
You have an objective consciousness, then? What does that mean, exactly? Could you explain how it is that you've come to transcend anything resembling an opinion?

>> No.6250011

>>6249839
>>6249867
>>6249932
>>6249950
Guys, It's a joke. It's not meant to be taken at face value.

>> No.6250012

>>6249993

>Hume was wrong.

lel

>> No.6250014

>>6250000
That's a fine answer and some impressive quads and as long as all you claim remains that scientism is an especially useful and wonderful descriptive tool we're in 100% agreement.

>> No.6250018

>>6249993
I too have faith that people that pose arguments against me are all wrong.

>> No.6250019
File: 7 KB, 221x228, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6250019

>>6250012
Say that to my face faggot not online and see what happens

>> No.6250020

>>6250006
It means that my consciousness objectively exists.
>Could you explain how it is that you've come to transcend anything resembling an opinion?
The scientific method.

>> No.6250021

>>6250011
It's painfully unfunny, is what it is.

>> No.6250023

>>6250012
>>6250018
I'm not saying that Hume was wrong, I'm saying that such a beleif is implicit in epistemological Scientism.

>> No.6250024

>>6250019
Thanks god there is no heaven, dead philosophers would fuck me up

>> No.6250029

>>6250012
hume was ostensibly wrong, or better yet a lot of his conclusions were simply irrelevant although they may be speculatively true

for instance, it's not so much that causality exists objectively as it has to in order to think or function at all. for all human affairs, including philosophy, some form of causality has to be assumed

>> No.6250039

>>6250029

You don't even understand hume

Causality is wrong when making pure reason statements, when doing experiments from experience it's not wrong. Causality as made from reason through experiences and applied at everything is wrong. There are a lot of axioms in philosophy that imply causality in places that there is not causality possible (like all god ontology, for example)

>> No.6250040

>>6250020
You don't seem to understand subjectivity the same way I do. When I say 'subjective' I mean 'capable of thinking.' Your mind, which must be synonymous with what you mean by consciousness and what I mean by subject, is an object for you to observe in the world? And you can observe it with the scientific method? So I must also be able to observe my mind as an object of empirical inquiry, if you can as well, since our minds must be made of the same substance, or we wouldn't be in agreement that they're both minds.
What empirical experiment will bring to light the laws governing thought?

>> No.6250042

>>6250040
>When I say 'subjective' I mean 'capable of thinking.
That's incorrect.

>> No.6250055

>>6250042
Well, that's what I meant, so it can't be incorrect. I could take issue with your definition of consciousness, which you clearly haven't put much thought into, but I won't, because as I said, you seem to think we can observe the mind immediately through the senses, as the scientific method needs the object in question to be sensible in order for it to be applied at all.
But put all that aside, and tell me: What experiment can I run to show me my mind as a sensible object?

>> No.6250057

>>6249995

on one hand, that makes sense. but what about things like laws, economics, religion, justice, ethics, politics, rights? they don't exist in the STEM sense, yet these are very difficult to ignore.

>> No.6250066

>>6250057
I don't care about those. They are for angry babies.

>> No.6250068

>>6250040
Not the anon you're arguing if and would ultimately be more on your side than his, but that's a weird definition of subject.

The subject observes and is not observed. That's why self-reflection is a fracture, you are both subject and object.

It has little to do with thinking or not.

>> No.6250071

>>6250068
That's even closer to what I meant than what I said. Thanks for pointing that out.

>> No.6250079

>>6250066
Ignoring social issues, how have you personally used the scientific method to make everyday decisions in your own life? Reading other people's papers doesn't count.

>> No.6250083

You can't use the empirical method on laws, economics, etc, because they are inherently power structures

>> No.6250086
File: 71 KB, 540x510, 1421554174495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6250086

>>6250066
I don't usually post fedora pictures on Hawaiian opera imageboards but I can't think of another response to this idiocy.

>> No.6250200

>>6250066

The only STEM field worth anything is mathematics. Everything else is inexact and has relied on philosophy for a lot of its major achievements.

A STEM-only approach is cool if you're a reductionist empiricist materialist faggot, but I'm not a moron, so it doesn't work for me.