Philosophy Critique Thread

File: 48 KB, 640x552, It's called being a hypebeast Jerry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Philosophy Critique Thread Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:14:15 2015 No.6982919 [Reply] [Original]

Post OC philosophy here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:16:17 2015 No.6982927 We live in the best of all possible worlds.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:19:24 2015 No.6982935 If you fart, some serious shit is coming.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:21:19 2015 No.6982942 >>6982927 Unoriginal and derivative conclusion. What is your argument though? >>6982935 Don't understand how this is even an interesting philosophical question.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:21:40 2015 No.6982944 Despair is the default state of being. Transcend it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:27:56 2015 No.6982958 >>6982919 Nothing is real. Everything is real.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:33:25 2015 No.6982966 Philosophy is finished. Everybody has jerked off til their dick's raw and it's time to stop being so pretentious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:34:21 2015 No.6982968 File: 503 KB, 500x667, 1439476492929.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6982919 >implying every strain of possible philosophical inquiry or questioning wasn't already covered by the pre-socratics

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:35:40 2015 No.6982974 >>6982968 What is India and the Middle East

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:38:46 2015 No.6982983

There was a large class which consisted of one hundred young pupils. Near to the beginning of the class’ first semester, the instructor gave to the pupils a task: Each pupil was to write a small poem and once written the poems were to be placed into unmarked envelopes and the envelopes into a cloth sac which sat afore the instructor’s desk.
So the pupils completed the instructor’s task and the instructor was pleased. And the instructor graded them thusly on their cooperation. And the cloth sac sat afore the instructor’s desk. And when the semester came near to its end, for the class’ final lesson the instructor dropped a lit match down into the cloth sac and all of the pupils’ poems were destroyed.
See that the cloth sac did not burn, said the instructor.
And the teacher dismissed the pupils. And the school dismissed the teacher. And the lesson was not forgotten.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:39:02 2015 No.6982984

>>6982974
>implying brown people matter

I'm jk but for real when people say "philosophy" they mean the philosophical tradition of Europeans with its imagined starting point in Ancient Ionia, so instead of being a worthless pedant can you just shut up and enjoy the white-people memes okay

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Sat Aug 15 20:39:03 2015 No.6982985 >>6982974 Theology central

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:42:37 2015 No.6982990 >>6982968 true tbh

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:43:03 2015 No.6982993 Ppl who say gay sex violates the law of nature mistake Kantian rules for the real ones.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:44:36 2015 No.6983000 >>6982919 what does it imply about a policeman's job if attempting to make a right on red before he makes his left hand turn from the opposite side of the intersection is enough to make the policeman suspicious of you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:45:36 2015 No.6983004 >>6983000 I'm aware Foucault has probably addressed similar questions, but only found this out after looking into it

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:48:49 2015 No.6983007 Philosphy, and all theory is only as good as it is useful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:49:04 2015 No.6983010 Justice is social construct.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:50:23 2015 No.6983014

there is no way anybody genuinely enjoys American Ninja Warrior, The Voice, TV in general. the unreformed 20-something mall-kids on my FB, who wear Batman t-shirts and post 420 selfies, cannot actually be that excited about the >9000 superhero movies coming out over the next 5 years.

popular culture is not a vast lizard conspiracy, but it might as well be thought of as such, because it is an unconscious conspiracy of cooperative ignorance.

Caitlyn Jenner will retransition within 5 years, and the SJW shit will really hit the fan.

the concept of a p-zombie is useful because the majority of people operate according to archetypical sentimentality and do not actually think. rational, even airtight, arguments are dismissed on the basis of the language used to make them: "too academic," "big words," "too abstract."

people don't want to know, they want to believe and feel. the solution is education and, perhaps more importantly, a rebranding of "high-brow" (i.e., substantial, intelligent, sincere) art and the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of progress, evolution (not a financially viable college degree).

educate everyone everywhere you go; when you don't know yourself, learn. have discourse. never suppress a belief or opinion because you don't want to offend or "don't want to get into it" for fear you'll be misinterpreted as an asshole, or else you are part of the problem.

be an asshole--a kind asshole.

if you are not a p-zombie, it is through no effort of your own--everyone starts out that way. we are all just a degree or two from a vegetative state, intellectually.

Law & Order is an objectively bad show.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:52:46 2015 No.6983022

we have no means of proving that the laws of logic exist in reality, because our only means of proving things is within the confines of logic, and we cannot logically assume something is valid in the process of showing its validity. If we take the stance that we should only ontologically commit ourselves to things that we can prove exist through argumentation then we are lead to the conclusion that all of existence is fundamentally and purely chaotic, without structure or causality or any of the ideas vital to our thought. Rationalism leads us to pure nihilism, not just nihilism of value, but nihilism of ontology. We have no reason to believe anything at all if we must justify everything. Thus our commitment to logic and structured thought exists only in that life would be inconceivable without it, we literally could not survive in its absence. The fundamental facts are not metaphysical ones, but ethical ones, the facts that the affirmation of existence and thus, life (not in the Nietzschean sense exactly) is the most basic law that all other thought must follow from.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:57:20 2015 No.6983035

>>6983022
>>6983014
>>6983010
>>6983007
>>6983000
>>6983004
CRITIQUE GUYS

>>6983014
>there is no way anybody genuinely enjoys American Ninja Warrior, The Voice, TV in general. the unreformed 20-something mall-kids on my FB, who wear Batman t-shirts and post 420 selfies, cannot actually be that excited about the >9000 superhero movies coming out over the next 5 years.
>the majority of people operate according to archetypical sentimentality and do not actually think.
>rational, even airtight, arguments are dismissed on the basis of the language used to make them: "too academic," "big words," "too abstract."
These are great ideas. Expand on them in your writing. I would stop posting your ideas if I were you. They're worth stealing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 20:59:33 2015 No.6983044 Following the death of God, ethics is demoted below aesthetics, so politics can only be justified by their aesthetic value. We can happily reject all ethical concerns in politics as long as this doesn't diminish aesthetic qualities.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:29:53 2015 No.6983124 My philosophy is that Spinoza was right about everything. Where have I gone wrong?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:49:41 2015 No.6983193 File: 1.00 MB, 891x695, 1437135295878.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6983007 Let me take a wild guess you don't think anything you can't rub your dick on is useful do you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:49:55 2015 No.6983195 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:54:42 2015 No.6983219 Can and will some friendly anon critique us?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:56:11 2015 No.6983227 >>6982974 ancient india is basically counted to the presocratics anyway

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:56:34 2015 No.6983228 >>6983044 According to Benjamin, this is one of the characteristics of fascism.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:57:20 2015 No.6983232

>>6983219

I will do it.

The first thing I will say about every single one of these posts is...where's the fucking argument?
You don't see people just posting single sentences in the critique threads.
Why is it okay for you guys to do that here?
So you have a position.
Great.
How am I supposed to evaluate your philosophy without seeing how you arrived at that position and what place it takes in your overall philosophical worldview?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:59:13 2015 No.6983242 >>6983227 >Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh philosophy >Presocratic

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:01:02 2015 No.6983250 >>6983227 The term actually is only meant to refer to philosophers from the Occidental tradition bub. Socrates had zero influence on the Indians so it wouldn't make sense to divide Indian philosophy into Socratic and Presocratic periods.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:01:44 2015 No.6983254 >>6983228 Do you know in what books he talks about this?

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:03:24 2015 No.6983261

>>6983022

You should read Heidegger's Identity and difference as well as the work of Hegel and Nietzsche in order to come to a more refined understanding of the position you currently hold.

Also check out Heidegger's "Basic Principles of Thinking" for a clearer exposition of the ideas in "Identity and Difference"

Also check out some of the more esoteric Platonic dialogues such as the Parmenides.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:07:39 2015 No.6983284 >>6983261 Thanks friend. I plan to get to them eventually but I'm currently trudging through the swamp of Kant.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:10:19 2015 No.6983299

Intro to a paper that I have been thinking through on my spare time (not for a class specifically)

My anus is prepared

(1/2)

Nietzsche is commonly conceived as a proponent of a bare atheism that delineates the negation of God in favor of the 'humane' , and thus, proposes to end the discussion regarding the 'theological.' First and foremost, the task of this paper is to demonstrate the illegitimacy of this common interpretation of Nietzsche; moreover, to show that this apocryphal interpretation of Nietzsche is subtended by a misinterpretation of Nietzsche's claim within the Gay Science regarding the, "death of God." So, this paper will argue that the death of God does not represent, for Nietzsche, the end of philosophical discussions regarding the 'theological', e.g. some form of reductionistic atheism. Rather, the death of God represents an imagery by Nietzsche to represent a whole slew of differing stakes alongside a particular form of 'atheism.' First, the death of God is espoused on the basis of Nietzsche's historical perspicacity, i.e. Nietzsche delivers insight in regard to historical shifts of values over an epoch. Values come to be and cease to be; thus, the same thing can be said regarding the cultural values that are placed upon God. As such, the death of God is a historical event that demarcates a shift in values within the modern epoch. Two, the death of God is not an end point that delineates the end of a philosophical discussion, but rather represents the opening of a discussion, e.g., the death of God discloses the space for the proliferation of interpretations, and thus, Nietzsche's perspectivism.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:11:19 2015 No.6983305

(2/2)

The conceptual disclosure created by the death of God is contrasted with the traditional Judeo-Christian bifurcation that situates the finite and infinite as separate, and moreover, entails a rhetoric of sin that explains the separation of humanity from God. Nietzsche, instead, relies upon the imagery of the death of God as an opening for the infinite that is situated within the finite. The infinite is not other-worldly, and thus, is not placed as above and against the finite. So, for Nietzsche, the infinite is situated concretely within the finite such that our experiences indicate the legitimacy of this claim, e.g., perception is not a self-enclosed and monolithic process, instead, perception is the process through which a finite being encounters and perceives multiplicity. In other words, perception necessarily entails a multiplicity of perspectives rather than a singular unitary perception, i.e. a gods eye view. Perception delineates the opening towards the infinite from a finite perspective. With this multiplicity in mind, this paper will lastly argue that Nietzsche's form of 'atheism' is not that of a reductionistic atheism, but instead, entails a re-orientation towards the infinite such that it is situated within the finite; an 'atheism' that recognizes the death of God as unveiling the space for the innocence of becoming, a "second innocence."

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:15:24 2015 No.6983323
File: 257 KB, 606x814, _20150815_203002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It is in the imagination of many followers of religion that God has a describable form and is corporeal. This is not in harmony with reason, and I fear this is what dentures many from a belief in God. Indeed God is not corporeal, and is instead the formless underlying principle of all things. He is time and space, but his existence is indifferent to them both. He is the word and law of all reason, but his deepest and absolute nature is untouchable by reason. He is the only master of the chaos inherent in existence past what is conceivable within the illusion of our reality. This is because chaos, and even existence itself, takes place within God, and therefore God is incorruptible to the implications of both

Creation is also, along with many other concepts assigned to God, an illusion. It implies separateness and sequence as limits to God's expression, in that it declares nonexistence followed by existence. Reality was founded in chaos, and attempts at conceiving of the origin are met with chaos (it is inconceivable). While the outer constituents of reality (objects, and relations between objects such as gravity) may conceivably have a beginning and end, the underlying laws of nature and reason (time, dimensions, and mathematics) are interminable

This same idea also applies to death, because it necessitates the idea of sequence. Sequence cannot exist as a limit to our being because our being is owed to God and therefore partakes of his incorruptible immortality. This does not imply that your personality would exist beyond your death. According to this view, both communion with God after death and reincarnation after death are technically correct and technically false.

None of this is truly oc, more the compiling of what I find is reasonable

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:15:36 2015 No.6983324

>>6983022
>we have no means of proving that the laws of logic exist in reality
we can't prove that the laws of general relativity exist in reality either, but there is good evidence that they do.

your phenomenological sense data in conjunction with induction are reliable enough means to infer that reality obeys some laws or another, whether physical or logical.

> If we take the stance that we should only ontologically commit ourselves to things that we can prove exist through argumentation then we are lead to the conclusion that all of existence is fundamentally and purely chaotic, without structure or causality or any of the ideas vital to our thought.
yet it isn't chaotic and 'causality' can be a sensible, useful and formalized notion. ironically, i don't see how your conclusion follows

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:21:29 2015 No.6983347 the only way to achieve true self-realization is to orally pleasure yourself if you can't suck your own dick, you don't know who you are

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:22:25 2015 No.6983348 christ, and I thought the poetry and prose threads were bad

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:23:32 2015 No.6983352 >>6983193 Quite false, dank memer. You get a retry though, on the house.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:26:08 2015 No.6983362

>>6983323

One thing that always rubs me the wrong way philosophically, is that I find it dubious that we can just nonchalantly predicate existence onto God, as if God 'existed' in the same manner as that of a chair. What do we mean we say that God 'is,' or 'exists,' do we really mean what we imply with the linguistic, grammatical, and syntactically constructions of our language? In other words, if we don't differentiate what we mean, then existence itself becomes vague and obscure, and so when we predicate existence in regard to God, it is obscure, vague, and dubious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:31:56 2015 No.6983376 >>6983347 self-fuck is so much better than self-suck

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:34:57 2015 No.6983383 >>6983348 i dare you to explain why each of them are bad. ya know what ? i TRIPLE DOG DARE YA

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:36:44 2015 No.6983391 >>6983323 You belong in the church. Not university.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:41:19 2015 No.6983399 >>6982966 New sincerity this guy gets it

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:43:04 2015 No.6983402 >>6983391 Perhaps I should replace my use of the word God with another, such as "the absolute" or "the one"

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:43:56 2015 No.6983405 >>6983402 the ultimate

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:45:14 2015 No.6983408 File: 7 KB, 225x225, url copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Without darkness there is no light. Without light there is only darkness. Without dank there is no lighter. Without lighters there is only dankness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:50:17 2015 No.6983416 >>6983014 >popular culture is not a vast lizard conspiracy, but it might as well be thought of as such, because it is an unconscious conspiracy of cooperative ignorance. too true

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:50:18 2015 No.6983417

>>6983299
>First and foremost, the task of this paper is to
Don't say this.

Anyway, there's a clash between the two sides of your thesis statement. The first:
> First, the death of God ...thus, Nietzsche's perspectivism.
is all stuff that is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't stupid - you're underestimating your audience.
The latter part (the second post essentially) is much more technical and also somewhat interesting.

So anyone willing to read your later ideas will be bored by the prior, anyone new to the prior (idiots) will be bored and confused by the latter. Reassess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:52:10 2015 No.6983421 >>6983022 You been reading the Principia discordia?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:52:25 2015 No.6983422 >>6983417 Duly noted. Thanks for the response anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:53:23 2015 No.6983425 >>6983044 Meaningless, arm-waving, agenda-pushing nonsense. >>6983022 Very unoriginal and thus pointless. Read Emmanuel Levinas.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:54:15 2015 No.6983427

>>6983254

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility"

Most editions will have the title translated as Reproduction, but I agree with Sam Weber that that's not as accurate.

A nice companion essay to that one is Siegfried Kracauer's "The Mass Ornament"

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 23:03:32 2015 No.6983449

>>6983421
I read it a few months ago
>>6983425
>Very unoriginal and thus pointless. Read Emmanuel Levinas.
I never said I came up with it first, but it's my natural response to what I've read so far so I'm not "getting it from somewhere" per se. But thanks for the suggestion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 23:59:22 2015 No.6983587 >>6982958 this is poetry not philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 00:07:00 2015 No.6983612 >>6982927 Go away, Pangloss.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 00:44:16 2015 No.6983770

>>6983284

Kant is necessary but if you're not extremely interested in the Critical period after the prolegommena and the Critique of Pure Reason it's okay to stop there IMO, although the Critique of Practical Reason will increase your understanding of the critical period it's by no means necessary for understanding those who followed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 03:52:26 2015 No.6984374 >>6982983 What the fuck did I just read

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 04:02:05 2015 No.6984398 >>6982983 This is good prose, but what does it mean ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 04:42:44 2015 No.6984482 >>6983324 >phenomenological sense data Just stop

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 10:50:59 2015 No.6985276 Reading too much philosophy makes one unhappy and the only solution is to stop reading it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:01:30 2015 No.6985298 >>6982983 best in thread

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:28:17 2015 No.6985361 Technology will save us, when it spills into the political realm, of decision making and social organization. Don't be afraid of the robots. Political activism is still a effective means of change in the usa.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:32:46 2015 No.6985365

I'm only in high school but my teacher says I'm pretty gifted for my age and I have come up with a lot of philosophical theories I'm working on. For example, what if everybody sees colours differently but never knows because we call them the same names?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:33:58 2015 No.6985367 >>6985365 kek

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:34:22 2015 No.6985369 >>6985365 Genius! You are bound to be the Socrates of our time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:35:43 2015 No.6985371 >>6983399 this is not new sincere. This guy is being ironically detached and calling people pretentious when they're trying to genuinely express their own philosophical ideas. He's what NS is opposed to.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:37:41 2015 No.6985375

>>6983250
>Socrates had zero influence on the Indians so it wouldn't make sense to divide Indian philosophy into Socratic and Presocratic periods.

>Who was Alexander the great?
>What is Greco Buddhism?
>Why did the greeks and the Hindus both come up with atomism at around the same time?

The Greeks and the Hindus had a lot of cultural cross talk. Eastern/Western philosophy is an arbitrary divide with little historical precedent..

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:38:50 2015 No.6985378 What's the point of philosophy anyway? You're just going to day anyway and all you will have left for people to remember you by is the stupid shit you said, mocking you for it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:39:26 2015 No.6985381 >>6985369 Thanks, I actually think I'm going to be better than Socrates since I read the allegory of the cave when I was only 15. Socrates didn't discuss it until he was well into his 30's

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:39:51 2015 No.6985384 >>6985378 >to day to die*

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:42:35 2015 No.6985391 >>6982919 nah

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:43:42 2015 No.6985395

The world isn't violent enough.Non violence is encouraged because it benefits the status quo, but the status quo does not practice what it preaches. Non-violent revolutionaries like MLK and Ghandi are emphasized over violent ones in an effort to deter violence, but they were only given a voice because the people in power were afraid of violent revolutionaries.

Non-violence makes it too easy for people to get away with injustice. It's better to live in a just world than a safe one. There is nothing wrong with 50% of all adult males dying violently, and in fact allowing young men to have a socially acceptable outlet for their violent urges results in a more harmonious society.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:47:05 2015 No.6985404 >>6982983 I guess this means something like: We can see whatever we want about existence and reality, but in the end the only thing that matters is that we are able to hold those thoughts, i.e., being alive/conscious ?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 12:00:20 2015 No.6985454 >>6985395 You may like Montaignes Essai 'Of the Caniballes'.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 12:42:10 2015 No.6985588

I "invented" this moral system where I make decisions based on my net pleasure. Meaning I will always do the thing which is most benificial to me, whatever it may be. Needless to say it borrows a lot from utilitarism. Ive been using this system for multiple years now but only recentley realized that I have re invented hedonism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 12:54:00 2015 No.6985625 >>6985395 >There is nothing wrong with 50% of all adult males dying violently there is nothing wrong with 50% of adult males dying by the hands of another man or a deadly animal? gene diversity >feminism

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 12:55:09 2015 No.6985633

I'm currently trying to suss out a metaphysical system that is a synthesis of Spinozism and Monadism (without a God monad: the multiplicity of entities is assumed to take place through a process akin to cellular division from a single monad: hence some hypothetical things cannot exist). The general idea is that there are distinct entities in the world of things-in-themselves, but that they can be combined/augmented and divided/disintegrated.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:09:37 2015 No.6985666

1/2

If one were to study the history of mankind a clear pattern will emerge that suggests we, as a society, the populace, actively require an authority to control us, an idol, or at least an ideal, to follow. As an entity we are meek, submissive, and content to be so. It gives us cause to continue, a reason to believe beyond our own means.

This control, of course, takes shape in a variety of forms. If religion, tyranny, warfare, propaganda, mass media are the tools of those in power, then a common hatred, fear, elitism, a communal strive towards an unlikely utopia are the cause to use them. Whether we are aware of the fact or not is irrelevant—at this juncture it’s important only to highlight the fact that in every step upon history’s stairs the masses are governed in some shape or form.

I put it to you that the nature of man, as a rule, is reprehensible for all of our failings; it’s not so much a question of morality, but merely a facet of our bestial condition. We don’t wish to acknowledge this fact, for if we were to implicate that one amongst us is so, then in turn must not we all be guilty of the same thing? Possibly it is an act of self-preservation that allows us to shy away from that truth and allow the strings on our backs to be tugged. After all, are we not, in fact, capable of more? Do not the greatest feats of mankind in art and science and architecture show us to have advanced beyond our basest instincts? We take pride in our achievements, and rightly so, yet I might suggest that we do so under false pretences.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:10:41 2015 No.6985673

>>6985666
2/2

We cower behind walls and name them civilization. We allow ourselves to be placated by materialism and entertainment¬—or any escapism pursuit—and put upon significance to our own, dreary, day to day lives. And we proceed, content to continue, because of that tantalising potential the future offers. Goals and ideals are touted as being round the corner, but as we walk towards them, the road underneath our feet grows, perpetually, in distance to match our stride. We know that, as long as the nature of man persists, there will be no harmony, yet we choose to think otherwise, to perceive reality in a different light. In this way optimism and hope, and not the fingers of that shadowed spectre of authority, act the opium for the masses.

Thus, with some regularity, amongst the people there often rises a desire for that indefinable freedom. Once placated we grow bored and yearn for the promise of something better, higher ground as the fog settles. So we climb or we swim and oddly enough our first thought upon reaching liberty’s shores is to seek out a new lighthouse to guide us home. In this sense then, what is the meaning of freedom? Is it the potential for freedom to act, or of speech? Or is it in fact only the freedom to choose who we’re led by?

Seemingly we are happy to be governed; this subservient need is in our very blood. So why then, do we strive for anything more? It seems a reasonable conclusion to suggest that men are inclined to follow for two reasons; firstly that they have no genuine desire to think for themselves lest they come face to face with their own despicable condition, that acting under duress from an authority or ideal is more desirable than facing that truth, and secondly that it offers a reprieve from the monotony and predictability of reality.

If contentedness is the absence of misery then to live is to forget our existence. Allowing ourselves to be consumed by processes and not thoughts, particularly processes of an escapist nature, is our way of dealing with our insignificance. Life, in terms of consciousness, is concerned with the respite gained from those brief stepping stones and not the constant flow of misery. Misery stems from expectation. Expectation is bred from entitlement. We expect to understand our existence merely because we are aware of it. In the same way that we are aware of the physical; we see it, we process it and we understand it, this is what our brains are hardwired to do. Possibly we believe the answer is there, or within our reach, because of the nature of existence – to the consciousness existence is everything. Without consciousness there isn’t anything to be conscious of. Thus, if we are conscious, then our existence doesn’t exist without us, so why isn’t the answer of our existence already known to us?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:11:06 2015 No.6985674 Never be late!

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:20:21 2015 No.6985715

>>6982983
>>6984374
>>6984398
>>6985404
Personally I think it's a statement about the futility of art. The sack represents the collective human psyche. Cultures can develop as much art (poems) as they want to fill the sack (expand human consciousness, invigorate new questions and ideals), but in the end, everything is always forgotten, destroyed, or becomes dated and irrelevant and we are left back at the base point- the empty human psyche- to start again.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:23:16 2015 No.6985727

>>6983000
I feel like this goes over my head. Turning right on a red is par for the course in my country. Do you come from somewhere where it's illegal? Obviously the policeman making a left hand turn on a red light is a blatant misuse of authority, but I don't really get where you're going beyond that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:24:51 2015 No.6985734 ITT weed smokers

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:36:40 2015 No.6985781 File: 615 KB, 632x1756, CP.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 14:27:04 2015 No.6986037 File: 22 KB, 207x239, 1396038913019.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6985375 >Eastern/Western philosophy is an arbitrary divide with little historical precedent.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 14:30:32 2015 No.6986048 >>6985781 Arby's is disgusting.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 14:45:14 2015 No.6986110

>>6985395
But is safety not a just cause? If violence is a legitimate avenue to justice, then you accept that safety is just and thus curb it or you see safety as unjust or irrelevant and seek to increase the use of violence to redressing even the most inconsequential wrongdoing. The former leads to arbitrary limits of violence while the latter can only end in genocide or a people without injustice but also without the ability to progress any societal function.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 20:37:47 2015 No.6987739

>>6986110
Genocide as we understand it today is a consequence of our hypocritical relationship with violence, we end up with a warrior caste exercising a monopoly of violence, and a defenseless populace.
We also create the conditions for ethic tensions to boil over and explode, rather than encouraging the low level conflicts that have dominated human history for 2 million years.

>>6985625
Polygamy would allow for plenty of gene diversity.

And it's a great deal for men who aren't betas. And even the Betas get to die rather than be forced to live meaningless lives.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 22:22:44 2015 No.6988285 File: 118 KB, 431x315, Screen Shot 2015-08-17 at 03.21.49.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6986037 its basic historical knowledge. europe has never been in a cultural bubble.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 22:26:41 2015 No.6988305 >>6982983 Very good.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 23:53:44 2015 No.6988721 >>6983014 >Caitlyn Jenner will retransition within 5 years, and the SJW shit will really hit the fan. huh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:07:28 2015 No.6988775 >>6984482 oh shush

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:08:47 2015 No.6988782 >>6986037 >>6988285 BTFO T F O

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:09:14 2015 No.6988785 >>6985378 >What's the point of philosophy anyway? oh man

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:16:30 2015 No.6988826 >>6985781 this is essentially a high-minded version of the smug pepe philosophy w/ its ironic shiteating grin as it wallows around in its baseness, consuming shit and laughing at everyone and at itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:23:05 2015 No.6988867 Being around sarcastic people is addicting. It's because we know that they are being ungenuine.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:26:11 2015 No.6988887

Any action is an "ought" statement. If you drink your coke you're stating that the coke ought to be in your belly. This is ok for things that directly affect only you or your stuff, but if it involves other people then you have to prove your point and get the other guy's consent before you do shit. Thus, ethics.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:27:38 2015 No.6988892

>>6983299
How old are you? Do you write often?--Your idea that N suggest an infinity is enclosed in a multiplicity of sensations is nothing less than a John Meme Green thesis. It's not even correct in my opinion. If you want a good essay on N, read Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.

"It's a historical shift." Ground-breaking. Who are you writing for? I assume it's for someone who hasn't read any of N's stuff. Most of this reads like a bad SparkNote. Don't do that.

Also: Leave atheism alone. It's fine if you are one but the last thing the world needs is more Young Men writing about the gray-scale of N's atheism.

Sorry, man, but I honestly think you need to start completely over.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:30:58 2015 No.6988908 >>6985666 lol just stop this is embarrassing

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:42:21 2015 No.6988953 >>6982983 I get déjà vu from reading this. The plot structure spears to have been made vet a thousand times. X teacher asks students to create Y work, destroys it, lesson.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:46:50 2015 No.6988980 >>6982983 Its never too late for a lesson on fire safety.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:49:59 2015 No.6988995 The fourth physical dimension is perceptible to a human as the Abstract-Concrete axis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 00:52:38 2015 No.6988999 >>6988995 Goddamnit anon. Why do you have to say shit like this. Can't you see how absurd you are?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:06:14 2015 No.6989276 christophocles.rocks

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:08:29 2015 No.6989287 >>6988995 >fourth dimension surely you're talking about time? what are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:15:00 2015 No.6989323 >>6988995 If you could write a five page essay on that I'd read it. You may be full of shit though, pretty vague statement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:24:11 2015 No.6989348 Maybe the universe is shaped exactly like the earth, if you go straight long enough you end up where you were.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:26:16 2015 No.6989355 >>6989348 This is dumb because the universe has no edge.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:32:27 2015 No.6989371 [DELETED]

>>6988892

You are suggesting an essay on Foucault, which I have read by the way, regarding the issue of genealogy. I am not writing nor am I thematizing the issue of genealogy. I am writing for my own sake by the way, just trying to conceptualize certain ideas about Nietzsche's Gay Science (I am not trying to write at the tier of graduate level, nor am I trying to present this at some sort of academic level; I am fairly young if that even matters, I guess it does?). The main thrust of the paper is around Nietzsche's perspectivism, the death of God, and 'atheism.' Regarding the passages, I was specifically looking at things like In the Horizon of the Infinite, so it is there I tried run an interpretative thread with that aphorism with the passage concerning the death of God. With this in mind, I wanted to run this thread also through what Nietzsche calls a "second innocence" in the Genealogy of Morality; I wanted to interpret that passage specifically from the perspective of the Gay Science.

Anyways, in regard to Foucault, I think the major thrust for Foucault is that of a material genealogy, contrasted with the more speculative, and arguably, metaphysical insights that Nietzsche offers. Foucault seems much more interested in a material history that traces the inheritance of our values irrespective of a teleology. This, as stated prior, wasn't the theme of the paper, so I am not entirely sure why you suggested it? Nevertheless, thanks for the criticism even though I felt it was somewhat intentionally flippant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:32:37 2015 No.6989373 >>6985365 Do you ever think about how you might be the only real person and everyone else is just a robot or doesn't really exist? I think that's a pretty good one and I think about it quite a bit. What do you think about this thought?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:35:31 2015 No.6989380 >>6989355 neither does the earth

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:37:18 2015 No.6989388

>>6988892

You are suggesting an essay on Foucault, which I have read by the way, regarding the issue of genealogy. I am not writing nor am I thematizing the issue of genealogy. I am writing for my own sake by the way, just trying to conceptualize certain ideas about Nietzsche's Gay Science (I am not trying to write at the tier of graduate level, nor am I trying to present this at some sort of academic level; I am fairly young if that even matters, I guess it does?). The main thrust of the paper is around Nietzsche's perspectivism, the death of God, and 'atheism.' Regarding the passages, I was specifically looking at things like In the Horizon of the Infinite, so it is there that I tried to run an interpretative thread with that aphorism with the passage concerning the death of God. With this in mind, I wanted to run this thread also through what Nietzsche calls a "second innocence" in the Genealogy of Morality; I wanted to interpret that passage specifically from the perspective of the Gay Science. Hence, the aforementioned three issues. Sorry if that is too 'edgy' or 'John meme green' for you.

Anyways, in regard to Foucault, I think the major thrust for Foucault is that of a material genealogy, contrasted with the more speculative, and arguably, metaphysical insights that Nietzsche offers. Foucault seems much more interested in a material history that traces the inheritance of our values irrespective of a teleology. This interpretative split begins with Foucualt's interpretation of Ursprung in Nietzsche, he abandons the more speculative interpretation in favor for a materialist conception of Nietzsche (which is fine, and I of course think Foucault a great philosophical inheritor of Nietzsche, it is just outside the scope of my paper). This, as stated prior, wasn't the theme of the paper, so I am not entirely sure why you suggested it? Nevertheless, thanks for the criticism even though I felt it was somewhat intentionally flippant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 02:49:07 2015 No.6989408 >>6989380 Yes it does, because it has a finite size.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 03:02:50 2015 No.6989453

>>6989323
>>6988999
>>6989287
No, I'm not talking about time. This is the single weirdest idea I've experienced, and I'm a person who has done a lot of drugs.
I'm not sure that this is without flaws altogether, but I'm pretty sure it is at least not a total fallacy.
I'm talking about the tendency of reality to separate into 'layers' when events can be seen as either a set of specific incidences or a trend. The new patterns that emerge with more abstract thought can be looked at as data points. Then you can make comparisons with any metric which is true across multiple layers of abstraction and find a trend, just like in Cartesian geometry. Which means, I think, that it could be perceived as a physical dimension.
This whole thing smells of schizophrenia to me, so I don't like to think about it for too long.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 03:14:05 2015 No.6989500 >>6989453 Required Reading: Gödel Escher Bach

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 03:24:25 2015 No.6989536 Trial and error

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 03:38:40 2015 No.6989592

>>6989453

You perceive thoughts similar to audio and image files in your brain. Imagine two walking robots that are programmed to have the same reaction to stimuli, if they look at a fire hydrant, one side will see the side that the sun is shining on, the other will see a shadowy side. Now imagine they try to confirm with each other what they are seeing, but they don't take into account what the other is seeing, so they disagree.

How can this be? Surely they see with the same eyes, they are the same brand of robot. Both robots argue over who is right until they beat the shit out of each other.

This is the basis of all human disagreement. There is no mystery besides what is being ignored. Two people walking around with images and thoughts popping up due to stimuli that aren't congruent with each other isn't proof for a 4th spatial dimension. They are simply two biological creatures experiencing life exactly as intended by their consiouness and nothing more.

Just like if you ran pacman down a lane with a big pellet, he'll be differently ready and equipped than a packable who ran down the lane with the cherry. His response to touching a ghost is different than the second pacman. That's all humans are, a collection of experiences that conglomerate to form an extremely complex and unrepeatable personality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 10:36:36 2015 No.6990725 >>6989355 It's from a modest mouse song you dip.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:02:17 2015 No.6990838 >>6985674 what if being late would be to your advantage >for example: had you arrived on time you would have been killed by a drunk driver

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:18:25 2015 No.6990878 >>6985378 Would The Republic have been written if Plato knew that /lit/ would one day exist?

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:21:06 2015 No.6990884

>>6985395
>There is nothing wrong with 50% of all adult males dying violently, and in fact allowing young men to have a socially acceptable outlet for their violent urges results in a more harmonious society.

Society is interested in self-preservation, more structured societies actively discourage violence outside of few prescribed outward facing avenues.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:22:44 2015 No.6990892 File: 169 KB, 627x1056, 1358708005624.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mediocre college kids who think they are deep but have never passed a calculus class: the thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:22:53 2015 No.6990893 If aliens do exist it would be impossible to communicate with them because we can't understand the way an alien thinks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:26:44 2015 No.6990903 >>6990878 He'd probably have been too curious about the mechanism by which he could have learned about the absolute certainty of something like /lit/ existing to write it. I wouldn't blame him, that is a tricky one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:29:05 2015 No.6990910 Subliminal and supliminal mean pretty much the same thing. >>6990893 That's dumb.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:29:15 2015 No.6990911 >>6989592 More like they see a man drop a hotdog. One states that the hotdog is on the street. The other states that the street is under the hotdog. Then they call a crusade on the other.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:30:02 2015 No.6990914 >>6990910 good counterargument

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:30:32 2015 No.6990916 >>6990903 Why didn't the cave people just turn around lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:31:33 2015 No.6990919 >>6990892 Calculus is about area not depth you dip

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:34:00 2015 No.6990925 >>6990914 You don't know how I think, yet we're communicating. You barely understand how you yourself think. Define communicate, define the level of understanding required for said communication.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:34:24 2015 No.6990927 >>6990919 calculus can be used to calculate volume which is directly linked to depth.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:38:41 2015 No.6990936

>>6990925
We share commonalities in goals, emotions, needs, and desires. We communicate to work together in achieving these goals.

An alien would not share these same commonalities. It would be just another animal whose thought is foreign to us and our thought is foreign to it.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:44:47 2015 No.6990957

Ok this is going to be hard to explain since I don't usually talk about these types of things with my friends (they only talk about this slovenian fat guy with an allergy problem), but here goes:
so basically, like whenever i say or think or do something, something HAD to think or do that or something! Which is like really pretty awesome since it can actually prove objectively that that something exists. I hope that makes sense. I'll check back on this later i'm going to eat a burrito :D

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:46:07 2015 No.6990962 >>6990957 REEEEEEEE

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:50:46 2015 No.6990972 Stoicism argues a virtuous life is a happy life, what if I convince myself what I'm doing is virtuous regardless of my intentions, will i live a happy life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:52:40 2015 No.6990978 >>6990936 communication is simpler than that anon

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:53:15 2015 No.6990981 life is about doing, not thinking

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 11:57:19 2015 No.6990992 >>6990978 clarify please thanks

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 12:03:00 2015 No.6991009 >>6990892 Actually, I took differential calculus, and up to multivariate calculus, and linear algebra. Double major in physics and philosophy. So, nah breh, not all people are strictly philofag and non-stem.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 12:48:34 2015 No.6991170

>>6989592
>Two people walking around with images and thoughts popping up due to stimuli that aren't congruent with each other isn't proof for a 4th spatial dimension.
I... never said it was? The potential technique to train oneself to visualize an additional spatial dimension relies on the ability to view the same object from multiple perspectives, then let those perspectives talk, though.
I don't know if you're not groking what I'm dealing or vice versa but I'm interested.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:02:48 2015 No.6991223 File: 17 KB, 249x243, 1234567.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6990892 >never passed a calculus class: the thread kek WHO HERE /COLLEGE ALGEBRA/?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:02:59 2015 No.6991224 >>6990892 >calculus >deep

Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 13:09:10 2015 No.6991266
File: 28 KB, 458x458, 1428599161743.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

From my diary entry this morning:

Disgust obscures wild, panoramic beauty. Under a head-tilting, anti-utilitarian gaze, the revolting object at hand—for example, a cockroach—is pinned, legs twitching, to the horizon's blue-violet, next to the smoldering sun.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:14:08 2015 No.6991282 Zapffe was right about everything critique away nerds

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:20:33 2015 No.6991309

>>6990936
If it's something that we can define as being alive, that is it uses reproduction, metabolism, organisation, homeostasis, adaptation, growth etc, then it will have the same goals as us, those being staying alive, reproducing and so on. If it's not composed of cells, doesn't reproduce, consume, grow, metabolise, etc, then it's probably a mineral and not an alien.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:24:04 2015 No.6991322 >>6991266 imho if you just take out "smoldering" this reads better. that one word exceeds the passage's Try limit and pushes it into Tryhard territory.

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 13:30:40 2015 No.6991352 File: 993 KB, 360x270, 1428563199711.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6991322 >take out "smoldering" this reads better I agree with you.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:38:54 2015 No.6991391

>>6982919
Everyone says that life passes by so fast because almost no one really realizes how amazing life really is. Instead of living each day as its own highlight, we choose to focus on key events like concerts or maybe an anniversary. We walk through everything else as if it is just a drag so we don't do anything important to us. I guess, long story short. Don't cut all the fat off the steak and then bitch that all of a sudden your done eating way sooner than you thought you'd be.

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 13:43:12 2015 No.6991417 File: 549 KB, 500x682, 1424301575120.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6991391 Excellent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:46:26 2015 No.6991432 >>6991417 Thanks man.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:49:10 2015 No.6991447 >>6991391 I really like this.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:51:06 2015 No.6991450

>>6991266

>black and white picture
>diary
>implying
>trying to sound smart by saying you had only written it just this morning

>cockroach
>really trying this hard

>"How can I say anything but blue sky and yellow sun without sounding like I can write?"

>smoldering
>smoldering
>smoldering

2edgy4me

2edgy4me

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:51:56 2015 No.6991452 >>6982927 We must cultivate our gardens

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:52:06 2015 No.6991454 >>6991391 Elementary my dear Watson Take your own advice and get off 4chan

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 13:58:58 2015 No.6991482
File: 161 KB, 788x685, bourgeois pepe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The modern capitalist system which provides us with countless distractions to escape from it's dehumanizing elements is fundamentally destroying the ability of human to be reasoning, compassionate beings.

It makes us callous and sardonic and this leads to a completely caustic, cancerous culture in which you countless individuals are rendered incapable of sincerity while simultaneously being made into completely nihilistically hedonistic creatures.

Most of these creature are now unable to tell the difference between what they believe and what they are making fun of. Part of this comes from their own internal fear of ridicule and the other part comes from their own inability to make up their mind about anything they are confronted by because they have system by which to effectively contextualize the things that happen in their lives.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:00:07 2015 No.6991491

>>6991454
To me, this is worth spending time on anon. I get to engage with people I may never get to engage with. Society makes normal conversations so strange now, can't just talk to anyone without having them think you want something or are going to rob them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:00:14 2015 No.6991494 >>6991482 Stop being such an edgy faggot. Grow up. Fuck you fucking edgy bitch. kill yourself

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:00:48 2015 No.6991497 >>6991450 Shut up.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:01:07 2015 No.6991501 >>6991482 Nice job anon. I completely agree with you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:01:19 2015 No.6991502 >>6991497 the edges everywhere help

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:01:57 2015 No.6991507 File: 93 KB, 500x687, PepeS2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6991494 Nihilistic Hedonist detected

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:01:58 2015 No.6991508 >>6991502 "I think in internet memes."

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:03:01 2015 No.6991512 >>6991502 I double-dog dare you to post your home address.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:03:05 2015 No.6991514 >>6991494 He's not wrong though. It is supposed to be a critique thread. Give a counter argument you 12 year old faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:03:40 2015 No.6991517 >>6991482 Read a history book someday and you'll stop blaming capitalism for things which, at the very least have been going on since people started writing things down.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:05:46 2015 No.6991530

>>6991482
Fixed

The modern capitalist system which provides us with countless distractions to escape from it's dehumanizing elements is fundamentally destroying the ability of humans to be reasoning, compassionate beings.

It makes us callous and sardonic and this leads to a completely caustic, cancerous culture in which you countless individuals are rendered incapable of sincerity while simultaneously being made into completely nihilistically hedonistic creatures.

Most of these creatures are now unable to tell the difference between what they believe and what they are making fun of. Part of this comes from their own internal fear of ridicule and the other part comes from their inability to make up their mind about anything with which they are confronted because they have no system by which to effectively contextualize the things that happen in their lives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:06:06 2015 No.6991532 File: 124 KB, 620x372, zizek 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There will never be a true workers revolution in a first world country because the workers of today are soft and weak compared to those of the past

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:07:38 2015 No.6991540 >>6991517 I agree with this, but the capitalist system has pushed these ideas to a new high. Also, I'm not that anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:07:44 2015 No.6991542 >>6991532 First World countries are nations of bourgeois. That's why there will never be a worker's revolution.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:08:41 2015 No.6991551 >>6991542 You don't think that there are "workers" in America? Or is that not what you mean

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:10:15 2015 No.6991557

>>6991517

If you read a history book you would realize that the level of decadence we are able to engage in now is staggering and fundamentally altering the way people interact with each other.
Although it is fair to say that this kind of hedonism always is the result of imperialist plundering of provinces to increase the wealth of the center of the empire, nowadays something fundamentally different is going on because of technology and the magnitude of the hedonism.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:10:28 2015 No.6991559
File: 20 KB, 306x306, 1418845764561.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6991517
This level of distraction is only possible with the advent of of highly consumable and portable mediums by which to receive distraction.

Smartphones are probably the most singularly destructive force to the human spirit that has ever existed.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:10:33 2015 No.6991560

>>6991532
False, this is not true of just the people around today. Most people are very weak and will go with things simply to avoid conflict. You will get the occasional person who is very headstrong but push them a little more and they too will back down. Most people simply are not strong enough to lead a revolution. There's a reason why we only know of a few select people in history that we think of as heroes or champions, they were the one that could lead the others.

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:11:40 2015 No.6991564 Would you guys please quit talking about politics?

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:12:25 2015 No.6991570

>>6991551
I'm saying that even the "workers" benefit too much from the system to ever actually overturn it.

You have to know that the standard of living would go down in first world countries if we actually had a world wide transnational revolution that destroyed existing power structures, no?

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:13:30 2015 No.6991572 >>6991502 Too cowardly to post your address, huh?

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:13:58 2015 No.6991574

We will never know what concrete reality is (whether it is a blob, a nothing, an unintelligible vastness, etc.), and it doesn't matter because we can only know what we perceive from it. As a result, science is not assessing objective reality, but rather the way we collectively interpret reality. We should think of sub-atomic particles as manifestations of the smallest data points in our psyche, like how a self-aware computer would look at a letter in a line of its own code.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:15:01 2015 No.6991580

>>6991560
So you think that the sort of people who showed up to occupy wall street are as capable of revoltuion under the proper leadership as a group of Russian peasants who have done physical labor their whole lives? Maybe I have a sort of 'golden-age' syndrome

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:15:16 2015 No.6991582 >>6991574 >We will never know what concrete reality is >>>/1962/

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:16:08 2015 No.6991588 >>6991574 >he thinks that he is the first one to think of one of the central questions of all of philosophy

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:16:17 2015 No.6991590 >>6991582 spotted the analytic

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:17:18 2015 No.6991596 >>6982983 Impressive

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:18:28 2015 No.6991599 >>6991582 -400 or your last 4

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:18:42 2015 No.6991601 File: 354 KB, 648x864, 1418686657174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6991574 This a nice way of viewing reality and adjusting yourself to it. Sounds like Goethe's twist on Leibniz's monads.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:19:04 2015 No.6991604

>>6991590
I'm not precisely sure what you mean by that, but my point is that

First of all, that realization is old.
Second, it is banal.
Third, it provide no further insight.

It may be an important piece of knowledge to understand but it ultimately provides no real benefit its possessor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:19:51 2015 No.6991608 >>6991582 I said that to segue into my claim about science, not because that was my original thought.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:20:38 2015 No.6991614 File: 32 KB, 466x310, girafe man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I am the giraffe man

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:21:24 2015 No.6991626 >>6991608 I read the whole thing. I refer you to >>6991604

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:22:29 2015 No.6991631

>>6991580
I'll respond when you come up with a decent comparison. Allow me give you a similar comparison to the one you gave me. "So you are saying a group of angry feminists protesting a male figure who is against women are the same as a group of angry blacks from a village in africa?" They are not the same because the comparison makes it clear on its own. Its a bias, man. Compare to equal things and then I'll answer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:28:32 2015 No.6991664 >>6991572 Take your own advice and shut up. Christ.

>>	Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ Mon Aug 17 14:33:22 2015 No.6991681 >>6991664 Post your address so I can send you an autographed copy of Walden.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:36:59 2015 No.6991695

>>6991604
>>6991626

Do you know of anyone else who's talked about this so that I can read more about it?

I understand that it's superficial, it just proposes a thinking about the world/objectivity as strains of our neurology rather than some tangible other. But what follows from that are questions like: if science is just a process of taking advantage of what we're uniquely equipped to handle, and everyone has slightly different equipment, will science ever be able to establish consistency? If there appears to be randomness at the bottom of everything, could it be because our perceptions are not congruent with others'? To what extent can we make collective phenomenological assertions? How long will those last before we evolve beyond our old equipment?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:37:34 2015 No.6991698 >>6991681 yeah it sucked fuck off

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:43:21 2015 No.6991733 >>6991695 It's a logical conclusion borne out of descartes. You could read post structuralism if you want more of the same but it's all essentially meaningless in conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:54:25 2015 No.6991788 dont put your faith in gods, anon. put your faith in mankind. because you have to because gods dont exist

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:56:03 2015 No.6991793 >>6991788 true, only one god exists. good job anon.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 14:56:58 2015 No.6991798

History is now taught to have started after WW2. Everything before that was just myths and legends

The U.S was given control of foreign affairs after WW2 because everyone else was burnt out from decades of nationalism, or had no resources left to spend. Now after a few decades most countries don't even know how to engage in international politics without the U.S by their side. The U.S has demonstrated time and time again that it doesn't really have any kind of internationalist sentiments, but no one really wants to take any share of their power so the U.S is still a THE global power.

Their is no limit on what the U.S can spend currently and the U.S government doesn't take into account any scenario where funds might dry up. Of course that is because most countries are willing to loan the U.S massive amounts of money so that they won't have to deal with any of the problems that the U.S does. In turn the U.S threatens the whole world with the fact that if anybody stopped loaning them money the dollar would drop and foreign markets would be flooded with cheap U.S goods meaning the U.S loses the least

A global financial meltdown seems like the only way this could change, but really the U.S is still the only one who would be poised to take action after such an event so I doubt we will be relinquishing power anytime soon. I am discouraged and lost in what I should do as a person. Who do I march against? The oligarchs? I don't know where to find any of them, and I don't know many people who even care about them. I'll just go get a degree in something that could help a few people and would occupy me with dealing in environmental problems so I go out in the woods and avoid people while always figuring I should do something about the world. I'll just carve out a little niche and live there with a sense of security and wait for the world to end. Maybe I won't live to see it, I guess I should be glad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:07:23 2015 No.6991852 >>6983612 >>6991452 Too many anabaptist shills in this thread

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:21:46 2015 No.6991916

>>6983014
>>6983416

>There is no way anybody genuinely enjoys American Ninja Warrior, The Voice, TV in general. the unreformed 20-something mall-kids on my FB, who wear Batman t-shirts and post 420 selfies, cannot actually be that excited about the 9000 superhero movies coming out over the next 5 years.

Voice of dissent here. You wanna know why you're wrong?

You're not the demographic.

The demographic is someone who works 10 hour days, runs some errands on the way home, and comes back at 7pm for a quick frozen dinner. They watch Jeopardy, finish their meal, then go watch TV for 3 hours because work was a killer.

When you're tired as shit, watching a few people sing melodiously or watching people doing stunts is a good way to relax while mentally fried: it's low effort and easy.

Same with superhero films. I know for a fact if I see a superhero film, at absolute worst I'll just watch one group of colorful costumed fighters beat up another one and I'll have a good time, and at their best it might even be a good artistic work.

Since I know they're mass produced, I don't have to do any work vetting them because the quality floor is pretty fixed. So that makes choosing one really easy if I want to see a film.

It's not cooperative ignorance, p-zombies, or anything of that sort, it's "I'm fucking tired, I wanna watch something easy".

It's the TV equivalent of rereading Harry Potter for the umpteenth time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:24:20 2015 No.6991927 >>6991916 you should read this post>>6991482 also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzse5IrIi4E

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:25:06 2015 No.6991929

>>6991560
>>6991532

there won't be a true workers revolution in a first world country because the issues and challenges faced by workers in first world countries pale in comparison to anything bad enough to actually incite a real revolution. That's kind of what being a first world nation is about, when shit gets "bad" for us it's still really not that bad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:37:09 2015 No.6991966 >>6989348 What if like... stars are projectors?

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:37:35 2015 No.6991971

>>6985395
disagree, violence doesn't equal justice because individuals don't have good enough judgement to determine when violence would be the right answer. Tbh, most people are pretty stupid. If you allow society to be more violent, most of the violence would be for unjust reasons. This injust violence would just spiral into more unjust violence, creating the opposite of a harmonious society. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

And you could say, violence could be used by revolutionaries to enact social change. It could, but again people are stupid and will use violence to fight for causes that are unjust. Just as there were black men with MLK who were likely willing to fight and die for their cause, there were also white men who were likely willing to fight against them to stop them from achieving their goals. In your scenario, it would be the winner of that violence who would get to choose what is justice. In a peaceful scenario, the just cause will eventually prevail as society grows to accept it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:49:45 2015 No.6992017 How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:54:21 2015 No.6992039

>>6991927
>>6991482

That post is stupid because "dehumanization" is generally a buzzword and certainly is there. I understand applying dehumanization to genocides is meaningful, but it makes no sense to say that the trappings of capitalism are dehumanizing because they've always existed. People have always worked to be paid, if it's dehumanizing then his concept of baseline human is meaningless.

Even if he was right and modern work and capitalism is dehumanizing, I still think it's less dehumanization than ever before and need not be thought about because it's solving itself without the whole societal collapse step. We work less than we ever have in history, enjoy far more luxuries, have began transferring manual labor to machines, and now are free to work on more intellectual problems.

Callous and sardonic? Maybe to someone pessimistic who fails to recognize things are getting better. Cancerous and hedonistic are just emotional reaction to seeing that no, the worker doesn't need to rise up to enjoy the things that make a capitalist society beneficial.

The last line is pure speculative drivel that only applies to people who'd post pepes on a Taiwanese cutlery bazaar

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:55:44 2015 No.6992049 >>6991966 What if Cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scene and he goes to the reservation drinks and gets mean? He's gonna start a war. He hops in his pickup, puts the pedal to the floor and says "I got mine but I want more".

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:58:10 2015 No.6992062 File: 27 KB, 657x370, mgid-uma-video-mtv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6991966 >>6992049 >mfw

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 15:58:15 2015 No.6992064 There are many meanings to life. The main one - the struggle of all humans ever - is to try and spread their individual influence. Someone contest that, please. Being this certain about the meaning of life is killing me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 16:02:01 2015 No.6992088 >>6982942 since when was being unoriginal and derivative a bad thing? every philosophy comes from somewhere just because some are less creative doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 16:04:53 2015 No.6992105

Beauty is the measure of predictability of form. This can stem from a few things, sequences which flow into each other, symmetry, or basic patterns. Ugliness stems is from ruined symmetry, unexpected deviations in form, sequences with no discernible pattern.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 16:05:37 2015 No.6992107 >>6983299 >>6983305 This feels turgid to me. I would suggest writing in a more natural way. > Foucault, which I have read I guessed from your writing style.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 16:18:16 2015 No.6992165 >>6991542 This

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 16:47:23 2015 No.6992320

>>6982919
Deleuze's Rhizome is flawed only insofar as it attempts to demonstrate how all trails of thought and discourse in the collective unconscious are of a singular mass/material, emanating from the middle as opposed to a linear (beginning to end) or cycical (as in nietzsche's eternal return) motion of development. It's almost ironic that these three variances fall into allignment with oedipal disjunctions - the father is the totalitarian and unquestionable authority (providing both life and death, the defining linear progression of human experience); the mother is the infinite/whole (and therefore inaccessible) fantasy of desire. Situated in between, in the middle, as it were, there we are - emanating from the centre of our very being, rattling the cage of mommy-daddy. The only possible resolution at this point is the complete dissolution of the self into the transcendental signifer, whilst somehow keeping our very identity (our defining difference) intact. I am limited, here, to only hypothesise what such an event would be like; but its most beautiful and profound artistic portrayal would have to be the climax (pun intended) of slothrop in Gravity's Rainbow. What literally happened to him? It is necessarily impossible to say, but if you can't hear his harmonica reaching the farthest corners of the universe then words will always fail in attempting to approach what he has become.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 16:52:43 2015 No.6992348 >>6982958 Calm down existential Saladin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=We3f3YKlHDs

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 17:16:06 2015 No.6992429

>>6992107

Are you >>6988892?

Just trying to understand the context of this

>I guessed from your writing style.

Anyways, my writing style is something I have been trying to develop. I have a tendency to engorge my writing unnecessarily; it stems from the fact that I have this naive idea to not leave any idea unsaid, and so I say too much, and thus, the ideas that ought to have depth, lack thoroughness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 17:16:56 2015 No.6992431 >>6991482 People aren't as malleable as leftists think. People and culture have always been shitty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 17:33:18 2015 No.6992492 >>6982927 This is true Also it is that way because God made it

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 18:12:52 2015 No.6992668 >>6982927 Sometimes

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 18:47:33 2015 No.6992862 >>6992064 I would contest that life is inherently meaningless and we all attach our own meanings

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 18:51:39 2015 No.6992886 >>6992064 >believes that the primary purpose of life is to spread individual influence >asks for others to influence his perspective on the purpose of life

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 18:54:06 2015 No.6992907 File: 9 KB, 240x240, 1437381108711.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6992088 >I respond sincerely to posts that are obviously tongue in cheek

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 18:56:42 2015 No.6992925 >>6992320 >Deleuze wasn't Deleuzian enough Sounds like you got the point :^)

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:00:57 2015 No.6992948 >>6992907 sorry, I take everything on the internet seriously we need tags or something

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:02:32 2015 No.6992959 >>6992862 The means of life is to pass on our own genetic code, unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:06:04 2015 No.6992974 >>6992948 >I take everything on the internet seriously This should be a clinical indicator for autism, holy shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:06:16 2015 No.6992977 http://docdro.id/maAKOoM Here is a rough draft of an introduction to my manuscript... no bully pls s-senpai

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:07:56 2015 No.6992985 Rarity is best pony

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:18:07 2015 No.6993038 File: 475 KB, 500x366, ascending.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6985781 >tfw when you transcend the george self

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:28:29 2015 No.6993069

There is nothing more noble than defying the expectations of an authority figure, and responding to their abuse with sheer unrepentant physical violence as soon as the opportunity arises.

A certain type of person never expects it: these haughy folks are often so used to being obeyed without question that the idea of being kicked to death in a toilet stall never crosses their mind.

You must cultivate a sort of madness, so that the satisfaction of the act can sustain you through any punishment.

Furthermore, you must be certain to inflict such horrendous injury on a person, their property, and their loved ones, that no legislative punishment can ever compare.

That is the ultimate defiance of authority: the individual must become nigh bestial in character, and fundamentally unpunishable.

He must sustain himself on the satisfaction of the incomparable and terrible nature of his most poignant transgression.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:42:27 2015 No.6993119 >>6992959 I didn't even know that. Am I now enlightened? Of so I thank you honestly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:47:20 2015 No.6993141 >>6993119 Reproduction isn't something to be greatly proud of. It's the same set of behaviors exhibited in mold and bacteria.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:52:04 2015 No.6993158 File: 174 KB, 282x400, 834702022_1018068.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] All you need is Hegel

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:52:54 2015 No.6993165

>>6991916

not the original poster, although i agree with him

i am dwelling in the world you describe. 32 hours a week at a retail job, 15 hours a week TA'ing a kindergarten class. 10 hours a week of classes at a local CC. i'm the demographic, my friends are the demographic you're describing. and it is entirely possible to dwell in this horrible world of grind and not be a "p-zombie"

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:53:17 2015 No.6993172 >>6993141 But knowing that it is the means of life is a different set of behaviour. Also enlightement has nothing to do with proudness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:56:46 2015 No.6993182 >>6993158 Blingee is captures the zeitgeist of the 2000s very well

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 19:58:54 2015 No.6993188 >>6993165 Yeah but your brain isn't like most people's. I work hard too but I can still imagine being the sort of person who would want to watch television.

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:04:22 2015 No.6993208

>>6993188

it's a dangerous confusion for anyone to say they're significantly different from others, imo. especially to say something like "my brain operates in a fundamentally different way from the brains of most"

i think the person you responded to would agree that watching television is *easy*. but that's not quite the point, isn't it?

imo if we care about living virtuous lives whatsoever, it is imperative to rise above the tendency to sit and sink into almost comatose non-thought because we're "tired"

i also have a feeling early man worked a lot harder than we do. honestly, how "hard" is any given job in contrast to having to forge/hunt for your own food?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:06:31 2015 No.6993220 >>6993208 >>6993208 me again. I wanted to add that to me it seems undeniable that making a habit of sinking into this "comatose non-thought" ripples into unspeakably nasty side affects, no matter who you are

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:06:51 2015 No.6993222 >>6993182 it's being shut down in 8 days make your blingees while you can

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:09:36 2015 No.6993237 >>6982958 and? these statements are not mutually exclusive, common sense really

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:12:36 2015 No.6993246 >>6982983 a poignant lesson on the importance of jumping through bullshit hoops

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:13:26 2015 No.6993249 >>6993237 are these statements not mutually exclusive? >your brain isn't like most people's >it's a dangerous confusion for anyone to say they're significantly different from others

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:17:03 2015 No.6993270 File: 193 KB, 400x251, 834702235_506468.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6993222 will do

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:20:34 2015 No.6993291 >>6982983 Absolute shit to the very core Holy FUCKING shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 20:26:22 2015 No.6993314 >>6983323 >this is what dentures many fresh revelations yall, god's a dentist

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 21:31:11 2015 No.6993640 >>6982919 "Money is the root of all money" Came up with it myself #2deep5me

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 21:56:06 2015 No.6993796 >>6992977 Please say something about this

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 23:55:10 2015 No.6994418 >>6992492 moles

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 23:55:15 2015 No.6994419 >>6993796 It might be, but I might not have the ability to confirm whether or not things are

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 23:59:29 2015 No.6994433

>>6992977
>>6993796
>thinking anyone on /lit/ would slog through your philosophy manuscript when they can't even crack the seminal works of the greatest philosophers who ever lived

You're a decent academic writer, but... I don't know anything about philosophy, mind you, but as I read this I'm not convinced that you're saying anything that hasn't already been said before.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:04:53 2015 No.6994454 >>6994433 Thanks for the feedback. I don't think I'm saying anything astoundingly original with this. The point of philosophy is to say things that bear repeating and update it for the language of your times IMO.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:09:53 2015 No.6994472 >>6994454 Is this for school? Is it the introduction to your thesis, or an academic paper? If it is, I would strongly advise you not to post any more of it here.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:12:22 2015 No.6994489 >>6994472 It is definitely not for school. If you tried to do something like this for a paper or a thesis you'd get laughed out of most philosophy departments.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:23:51 2015 No.6994539 >>6994489 Again, philosophy is not my strong suit, but I think you're vastly overestimating the quality of writing most undergraduate students produce.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:24:20 2015 No.6994544 The corporations have won It's time for a revolution But the coup de grace must come from the inside Then hopefully, deregulation will be staved off for a while until the process starts again

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:27:43 2015 No.6994556 >>6994539 Surely the writing is better than most undergradute or even graduate papers. However the subject matter and pretending to address problems of this scope would come off as pretentious.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:34:49 2015 No.6994580 >>6985378 Some people enjoy it. I'm sure many live and act not for the sake of leaving some specific kind of legacy, which you seem to imply is what constitutes there being a "point" to something.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:37:25 2015 No.6994591 >>6994556 No it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:40:09 2015 No.6994596 >>6994591 Care to provide some less vague criticism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 00:44:52 2015 No.6994609 >>6985378 philosophy is learning how to die by coming to an understanding about the world

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 02:20:55 2015 No.6994906

>>6994596
I'm not >>6994591, but no, it isn't quite at the level of graduate work. It's riddled with small grammatical errors, you have a tendency to meander when explicating an idea, and you use too much colloquial language. You say this like "We should..." too much, for example. You don't cite sources properly. You don't format quotes correctly. These may seem like minor issues, but they separate graduate work from otherwise good scholarship.

It's good, though. Certainly better than a lot of undergraduate work I've seen.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 02:23:52 2015 No.6994920 Science and art are in a race to the sublime.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 02:36:32 2015 No.6994964

>>6994906

I haven't gone through and cleaned up the grammar yet, as I said it is a rough draft. I have professors with degrees from top 20 schools who still make grammatical errors in emails.
I'm not entirely sure that colloquial language or formatting is a problem given that this isn't supposed to be a proper scholarly style work of philosophy.
I can see what you're saying about the meandering but I'm more worried about whether or not that makes it more difficult to follow the ideas than whether or not that is what one is supposed to do in a scholarly piece.
Are the ideas hard to follow or is that just a stylistic point?

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 02:42:10 2015 No.6994993

>>6992039
>People have always worked to be paid
Oh yeah?

>[We] now are free to work on more intellectual problems.
Is this actually true for individuals? I imagine you're thinking about how, as a society, we produce a lot of intellectual work. But I contend that most people's days are more and more devoid of intellectual problems, because of the hyperspecialized division of labor and efficiency of the "assembly line" model of work.

> Maybe to someone pessimistic who fails to recognize things are getting better.
By certain metrics, but depression rates are higher in industrialized countries. Ironically the advantages of the system seem to coincide with the "pessimists who fail to recognize things are getting better."

>the worker doesn't need to rise up to enjoy the things that make a capitalist society beneficial.
The managers at the fast food restaurant where i work work 60 hours a week and make ~25k.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 02:50:27 2015 No.6995012

>>6994964
Your professors don't care about their emails. I assure you, however, that none of them would submit a paper to a journal or a conference without proofreading their work dozens of times. Granted, it's a rough draft, that's fine. However, you're failing to think of your audience, ostensibly an academic one, by shirking proper formatting and formal language. You're clearly not trying to write a piece of pop-philosophy.

The ideas aren't hard to follow, though to be fair, I didn't take a magnifying glass to your essay. I can't give you an honest, thorough critique right this moment. I think that clarity of thought and succinct delivery of ideas is paramount in any piece of non-fiction writing, though, regardless of whether that's what you're "supposed to do" in a scholarly piece. I don't think you're allowed to brush off a critique of opaque style just because you're not writing for the academy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 03:12:21 2015 No.6995073 >>6983014 Hmmm interesting, i like your ideas... >Law & Order is an objectively bad show You done gone too far

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 03:45:36 2015 No.6995161

Why do humans pursue pleasure and avoid suffering? Because natural selection favored those that did. It is essentially a paradox to avoid suffering by committing suicide, because it defies the very purpose of suffering.

Many actions can be negated in such a way. Even if there is no one true path, there are still many wrong paths. I do believe there is one true path though, and it can be found by regressing along a chain of "why"s until a single purpose for everything is reached.

I don't have any idea why meditating until you reach singularity of purpose lets you see the future though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 03:54:56 2015 No.6995188 >>6995012 I'll keep what you said in mind. I didn't want to have an exclusively academic audience but I might be giving the general reading public too much credit for familiarity with philosophy.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 10:20:28 2015 No.6996016

The universe has a set of rules and limitations some of which preclude observation of all these other rules. If this is the case, and many people's trust of models science has provided for answers to how the universe operates indicates that many believe that this is the case, then all things are predetermined and any appearance of randomness is an arbitrary distinction brought about by a limitation on human perception. This implies that if one wishes to decry the state of their life or the world or anything in existence they should direct their anger not on the immediate cause of the effect they found lacking, but instead on the existence of the universe itself

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 11:06:11 2015 No.6996116

Which of these two things do you guys think is going to happen?
>Modern civilisation continues to evolve as it currently is: technology gets more advanced and people get shitter at being social, until eventually everyone is a hedonistic idiot enjoying comforts created for them by an unappreciated, unheard of intelligent minority. Bonus points for a Big Brother government with lots of censorship, thought policing and the developing world breaking down completely but no one is capable of giving a shit
or
>Another collapse due to either something finally causing first world powers to take sides against each other, or collapse to modern day barbarians like ISIS

Or something else? I want to know what you guys think is going to happen, because in my opinion the future is bleak.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 11:26:58 2015 No.6996184
File: 628 KB, 1016x720, dehumanize.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6996116
If I had to chose I would go for option 1 since people won't rebel against their government (a revolution is actually something quite uncommon) and the preference for the present (I don't know if that's the English term) will make us what you cll "hedonistic idiots" until we understand that we will never be happy (and that's also what makes us humans) thus returning to a more "authentic" lifestyle (repopulation of the countryside etc.)

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 11:30:24 2015 No.6996195 File: 358 KB, 1000x1500, Albert Camus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Objectively correct philosophy.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 11:49:28 2015 No.6996249

If the poor criminal in the bad part of town murders and rapes, and you call him a victim of circumstance, bad upbringing, bad genes, got dealt the proverbial bad hand, you name it, then the rich, powerful man that manipulates food prices and consequently makes thousands suffer through hunger is also a victim of circumstance, “bad” upbringing, “evil” genes, the proverbial great hand, et cetera. Either we are all victims, or all responsible agents. You cannot use different starting points when initiating some line of reasoning about humans, and still claim to make a valid point in the end.
This is why so many political systems are just dogma mixed with halftruths and ultimately uninteresting, and all it comes down to in the end, again, is the eternal battle between nature’s forces, ego’s trying to force their forms onto other ego’s.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 12:04:54 2015 No.6996295 >>6996116 Neither, both of those options are idiotic

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 12:28:34 2015 No.6996363 >>6982927 Pls go Leibniz. And i discovered integrals you fuckin Plagiatist

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 12:33:27 2015 No.6996381 >>6996363 Publishing date is what really matters, virgin. In that respect, I am the true inventor of calculus. Bow.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:15:26 2015 No.6996524 File: 27 KB, 600x375, Burd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6982919 The existence of fruit snacks is proof humanity has crossed the point of no return.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:21:19 2015 No.6996545 >>6996524 Not all of humanity was responsible for the manufacturing of fruit snacks You're overreacting

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:21:19 2015 No.6996546 >>6992977 >http://docdro.id/maAKOoM >for reasons that we will explain later >this will be explained much later >much later don't do this. You're practically begging me to just skim it instead of actually reading it through.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:22:57 2015 No.6996551 >>6996249 This is what I've been saying tbh. If you blame upbringing and circumstance then most people are justified in their wrongdoings.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:25:25 2015 No.6996560

>>6996116
both are extreme and neither will happen within our lifetime. That being said, the first is a lot more likely than the second.

But even if we all live to be 100 I don't think we can predict how society will advance in our lifetime. Look at how people in the 1950's viewed our present day. They figured we would have flying cars and robots that cooked all our meals. We don't have those, but instead we have devices in our pockets that contain all the information in the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:25:58 2015 No.6996563 >>6996545 I was going for something with a touch of humor. I suppose text doesn't translate that well.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:28:46 2015 No.6996568

>>6996249
I would agree that upbringing is not an excuse, but you can't ignore the fact that a poor criminal in the bad part of town might have to commit some crimes just to get by. Maybe selling drugs is the way to get food in his families mouth. Whereas, a rich man never has to take advantage of others just for basic survival. Depending on how rich, he could probably just sit around all day and still have the money to survive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:30:06 2015 No.6996573 >>6992977 piss poor drivel

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 13:30:15 2015 No.6996574
File: 63 KB, 632x303, bE2miJC.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6991309
You can see where this is wrong, can't you?

We can't have a conversations with ANY animal on our planet (8 million+ species), so what makes you think we'd be able to hold a conversation with an alien, if it existed?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 14:24:10 2015 No.6996813 What is the point of cake? It's just sugary bread. >>6985395 The quality of human life has increased while the amount of deaths due to violence has decreased on a global level. Humans are on the right track as far as violence goes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 14:54:41 2015 No.6996930 >>6996546 >post shitpost >people engage with your point >post more than 300 words >dude you're just begging me to skim it Fucking millennials. Go browse reddit and vape if that's how you treat books.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 15:01:58 2015 No.6996949 >>6996574 >that pic REKT

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 15:09:40 2015 No.6996985

>>6996574

Not that dude, but we can have rudimentary exchanges in sign language with other primates, specifically gorillas. We can also communicate in a very rough fashion with certain domesticated animals, like dogs. There are also developed techniques for communicating with dolphins and porpoises.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 16:24:47 2015 No.6997274

>>6992977
>http://docdro.id/maAKOoM
"The split between what is called “analytic” and what is called “continental” "

I don't like duplication in sentences, just like duplication in code, it always feels like there is a more gracious way of getting your point across.
I also get a strange passive-aggressive, h-h-here i go vibe from the text, probably because you use words like probably and futility in your intro.
Maybe, if you know what you are talking about, some philotimia is warranted.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 16:27:45 2015 No.6997298

Is money the greatest religion ever?

Money has a priest class delivering services of questionable worth to the masses while receiving the fat of the land in return. It has dogmas attached to it that are taught to the young in school. Apostates are persecuted, jailed or shunned from society. Artists sing praise to its strength and beauty, or bemoan its wrath. You cannot go into politics without believing in it.
Whatever walk in life you choose, you will serve it.

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 17:29:58 2015 No.6997654

>>6997274

The point I was trying to get across in the very beginning is not that I don't think I'm good enough to do philosophy but that we live in times where producing a work of philosophy is no longer of any consequence.
Perhaps I should make that clearer but I thought I was fairly clear about that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 17:32:37 2015 No.6997675 >>6997298 Frankly embarrassing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 17:39:47 2015 No.6997713 >>6997675 Do you think the form lacks or the contents?

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 17:43:21 2015 No.6997729 >>6997713 Both. This is some middle school shit, anon. Throw in a few fucks and it's a Rage Against the Machine song.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 18:11:28 2015 No.6997811 >>6997298 You're confusing money with Capitalism but yes Capitalism is a religion. see Walter Benjamin

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:01:37 2015 No.6998035

>>6996813
How can you say the quality of human length has increased? A lot of people seem depressed these days. Are you sure we aren't just prolonging peoples lives without giving them a meaningful existence?

You are spot on about cake though, Pies are so much better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:10:33 2015 No.6998082 >>6996813 Hi stephen pinker why are you on 4chan?

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:15:06 2015 No.6998101

>>6998035
you can absolutely say the quality of human life has increased because being alive is inherently better than being dead. Every animal's main goal is to survive and reproduce. If you want to get into "is live worth living" bullshit that's a whole different discussion.

>a lot of people seem depressed these days

That's super anecdotal. There's no possible way to know how big of an issue depression is now compared to, for example, the Middle Ages. Depression may seem like a bigger issue than it is because it's more out in the open now with the internet. It also may seem more important than it is because we've conquered other more important problems, like for example having to hunt and gather for our own food.

"Meaningful existence" is all personal. There are farmers out there who think toiling away in the fields for 8 hours a day is a meaningful life, whereas for you or me that would probably be our nightmare. We can't "give" people meaningful existences, they have to find that for themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:21:23 2015 No.6998137 >>6983010 no shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:23:22 2015 No.6998147 >>6998101 being alive longer has nothing to do with quality of life. Learn to speak english.

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:31:10 2015 No.6998177 >>6988867 >Being around sarcastic people is addicting. It's because we know that they are being genuine. Fixed

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:34:19 2015 No.6998191 >>6990972 > Implying belief is an action

>>	Anonymous Tue Aug 18 19:44:58 2015 No.6998228 >>6996249 everyone is a victim of circumstance and there is nothing wrong with that

Anonymous Tue Aug 18 20:19:27 2015 No.6998336

>>6998101
>Every animal's main goal is to survive and reproduce

That's the thing though. Even if 50% of all adult males die violently, they are still surviving and reproducing. This isn't some antinatalist shit. There is value in human life. I'm just questioning why we think a long boring life is superior to a short exciting one just because we have all bought into the non-violence ideology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 19 03:53:49 2015 No.6999956 File: 28 KB, 279x304, 1432187708398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6996195 The only good answer.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature