[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 713 KB, 1205x1200, 1445349117057.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7350855 No.7350855 [Reply] [Original]

How would one write a book of philosophy?
In this day and age how would one go about just writing their thoughts?
Imagine a book of erratic thoughts. Would it be better to keep them erratic or to structure it in a way?

>> No.7350866

>>7350855
That image fucking hurts way more than it should.

>> No.7350867

>>7350855

just don't. i can guarantee you that whatever you thought, someone else has already thought it. to do philosophy is not writing down your idle thoughts.

>Imagine a book of erratic thoughts.

why do you think this would be of any interest to anyone on the planet?

>> No.7350883

Have a notepad and jot down your ideas.
Look at them a year later and laugh--then contemplate the divine forms.

>> No.7350888

>>7350867
I don't think it would be of interest to many, but isn't that the point of philosophy? To write or say what you believe not to fall on deaf ears but to ring within those that agree.

>> No.7350893

nietzsche's reasons for aphorism vs system are still valid. unless you want to create a system for a very small domain, much smaller than a "total philosophy", you run the risk of pretentiousness. even the subtopic of aesthetics is still too big.

>> No.7350894

>>7350888

Not really. Philosophy is about the search for truth and meaning, not people who agree with you.

>> No.7350895

You have two options:
1 - Take a multiplicity to grasp the jouissance within your own text, while advocating the moral endeavours of writing. In summa, the deterritorialization of your own rhizomes produces the social paradigms of the universal capabilities whilst redeeming the transcendental logarhithm of reason.
2 - ∀x[∀y(Rxy→Rxy) → Rxx]
A ∧ B ↔ (α.β); □A →□□A = ◊0□1B → □2◊0A

>> No.7350896

>>7350867
There's the The Book of Disquiet... Not sure if you can expand upon or do it better, so yeah

>just don't

>> No.7350897

>>7350855
As a novel. It's far easier to express your opinions through a character than to ever get taken seriously as a work of non-fiction in the modern age.

>> No.7350904

>>7350894
no, it's about optimistic statements with apodictic certainty of 1820s

>> No.7350906

>>7350888

>but isn't that the point of philosophy? To write or say what you believe not to fall on deaf ears but to ring within those that agree.

dude, no. the point of philosophy is to actually do philosophy. i know you have just come up with some nicely worded sentiment but what you have just written is meaningless. the point of doing philosophy is to find people that agree with you?

look man i'm not trying to be a dick here but you are clearly misguided about what philosophy as a whole is. there are many philosophers who write in an aphoristic style--and this is a completely valid way of conducting philosophy--but that would be professional philosophers working through philosophical problems. merely having thoughts does not philosophy make.

i suppose here is my question: what makes you think that you have insight into the philosophical questions asked today? are you aware of what those questions are?

>> No.7350909

>>7350895

>1 - Take a multiplicity to grasp the jouissance within your own text, while advocating the moral endeavours of writing. In summa, the deterritorialization of your own rhizomes produces the social paradigms of the universal capabilities whilst redeeming the transcendental logarhithm of reason.

please don't. "rhizomes producing universal capabilities" baka desu thinking that's what rhizomes do

>> No.7350910

>>7350906
The purpose of philosophy is preparation for death my brother.

>> No.7350911

>>7350866
There are people who are similar to you, who manage not to be shy.

You should try putting yourself out there once in a while, and see if you stumble into one.

>> No.7350914

>>7350866
Same, senpai.

>> No.7350933

>>7350895
Kek

>> No.7350970

>>7350855
write it as "insert names" book of cool Ideas
print it like a "Zine"
hand it out on college campuses
open a website with the book on it for free like Icycalm
I saw it in a movie once...

so obviously it must apply to the general public

>> No.7350974

What if it was a book full of stuff like
>I don't have friends; I am just well acquainted with certain associates that choose to socialize with myself. I don't feel an attachment on the level to speak of them as if they were friends. The word friend has lost it's meaning over time and the concept is drifting even further in the vast sea of people. Your meaning of the word friend and my meaning could possibly be two polarizing concepts. You could mean someone you like to be around and I could interpret someone willing to sacrifice themselves just for your well-being. I'm not particularly fond of being around people so it can't be the former and I don't think I would save another so I doubt the latter. Why sacrifice myself for another when I can do more than they can? Perhaps I am just interpreting the question differently again. You could be inquiring as to if I am one to follow the flock of sheep or if I would wallow in dissonance for regret. The jump could be a leap of change and the cliff could be precipice of faith that one may have to descend to reach that change. Would I change myself merely because some people that I think I know have changed or would I remain the same? Would I cast my individuality aside to feel bliss with the crowd or would I hold my entrails as they spill against the tide? You ask me this question and I can not bring myself to answer it. While in thought I may do one but in action I may another. Would you do what you think; would you jump that cliff for your friends I ask? Would you?

>> No.7350975

>>7350974

That's just a collection of stuff to tell your therapist, anon

>> No.7350979

>>7350866

>just don't. i can guarantee you that whatever you thought, someone else has already thought it.
How can people like you exist? I genuinely think you might be retarded. What a pointless thing to say.

>> No.7350980

>>7350855

This image makes cheap look like r

>> No.7350995

>>7350909
>rhizomes do
what do they do ?

>> No.7351002

>>7350995
They create the illusion that D&G are reputable thinkers rather than insane hacks.

>> No.7351022

>>7351002

nah. the rhizome is a very reasonable description of thought. describing meaning as "rhizomatic" is really another way to say that things have meaning by the contexts that we put them in. it is true that "there are no individual statements," as statements (books, poems, ideologies) have importance so long as they are being used within a context that actually utilizes them. the idea that things have some sort of non-contextual value to them that needs to be excavated and can never change is just dumb, but something D&G are right to point out that plagues our entire history of thought. i mean, what if the rhizome WASN'T true? we'd never be able to bring thought into modern contexts, ancient or medieval works would just sit there on the shelf unable to lend any sort of light on our thought.

>>7350974
see
>>7350975

again, dude, this isn't philosophy. this is a diary entry.

>>7350979
in philosophy, we have people like this all the time: folks that want to publish works of philosophy coming from an "outsider." me saying 'whatever you thought is unoriginal" is coming from experience, as 100% of the time ALL of those people who want to publish amateur works of philosophy AS philosophy are just rehashing entry-level problems or not even conducting philosophy at all. this thread is case in point.

>> No.7351024

>>7350897
How would I do a character like >>7350974
?
Wouldn't readers notice that I'm force ably creating scenarios just for the speeches. Should the character be like a wise man figure or something?

>> No.7351088

>>7351024
Yeah, if you turn that character into a "wise man" it's going to feel more forced. Read and write more, and when you're writing remember the "show, don't tell" principle. If you do that, you might upgrade from shit to mediocre by 25.

>> No.7351104
File: 184 KB, 741x1024, vso2V.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7351104

>>7350855
>>7350866
>>7350914
We're all in this together

>> No.7351140

>>7351002
>>7351022
I find it amusing that the most obscure and cryptic modern philosophers have the same abbreviation as a modern fashion brand. I suppose they would call it deterritorialization.

>> No.7351169

>>7351022
I cant tell you how many conversations Ive had with uneducated people who basically understand concepts from people like Kant, Stirner, Sartre etc etc but spout them out like theyre geniuses for having come to the same ideas

>> No.7351174
File: 89 KB, 526x588, 1447121701399.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7351174

>>7350855
>tfw cold hands
>I wonder if I'm really bisexual or just incredibly lonely
>tfw laughing at the absurdity of situations others still find meaning in
Why is this so accurate

>> No.7351200

>>7350855
is this some known writer or just
>dat literary lifestyle

>> No.7351215

>Two characters
>One depressed, the other enlightened
>They both tell stories
>The depressed becomes enlightened, the enlightened depressed
>Shows the fragility of enlightenment, causing the reader to think, and come to their own conclusion

The character system also allows you to craft ramblings, and poor "human-like" structure. This is very easy to do, and can really help you portray a philosophical idea if it's your first time.

>> No.7351218

>>7350910
thats the purpose of life, not philosophy anon

>> No.7351222

>>7351215
....I usually like the main character to be unenlightened, petty or selfish

>> No.7351227

the fact that you have to ask how to write a book of philosophy tells me you don't have a clue what you really want to say.

say something brilliant, unique, and unprecedented, and no one will give a fuck what a bunch of autists on a macedonian throat singing board have to say about your "style"

>> No.7351335

>>7351222
So romance?

>> No.7351369

>>7351335
more so a "practical" or "utilitarian" person, theyre too abhorrent for romance

>> No.7351414

>>7350910
That would be the philosophy of life, not philosophy as a whole.

>> No.7351442

>>7350855
1. you have some really novel ideas - it doesn't matter how you write them down
2. if it's not new, find an original way to tell them

>> No.7351521

>>7351024
Write in first person.
>Should the character be like a wise man figure
You're probably quite young. I used to think like this too and It's pretty cringeworthy looking back. It's not your fault but time will make your ideas and writing better, don't expect a masterpiece.

A reader wants an honest expression and exploration of humanity; it can't be forced. Use first person perspective to propose your own ideas with a consistent tone and character. Put your character into situations that challenge their outlook.

>> No.7351536

>>7351022
>in philosophy, we have people like this all the time: folks that want to publish works of philosophy coming from an "outsider." me saying 'whatever you thought is unoriginal" is coming from experience, as 100% of the time ALL of those people who want to publish amateur works of philosophy AS philosophy are just rehashing entry-level problems or not even conducting philosophy at all. this thread is case in point.

philosophy is also garbage where each "great" philosopher only drives thought further from what's worth thinking about

read poetry instead ya kek

>> No.7351545

>>7350855
I have a long book of erratic thoughts that should be published by V&S's in January. It's titled "my diary, desu" and it's written from when I was 17 and a freshman in college, naive and tragically liberal, to when I was 20 and a senior, embittered, experienced, conservative, and kind of a bad person. I think it's pretty heavily philosophical.

>> No.7351562

>>7350855
>>7350855
if you really want to do this, the best way is to start researching things that you see problems with. odds are there is already a philosopher—indeed, a whole scholarly community of philosophers who are mining the same problem. what you need to do then is read everything that's been written on the topic. this may seem unrealistic but don't expect to be taken seriously unless you've conducted a thorough review of the literature. if you think the topic is so impossibly large that you could never read enough on it, then your topic is too big; nobody wants to read another book on the consequences of marxian historicism or whatever. or on being lonely. instead, use your readings to narrow down your topic. find the differences in opinion, and through these rarefy your research until you find a narrow community of maybe ten or so thinkers communicating across time and space through books, essays, and journal articles in an effort to locate an obscure, particularly articulated truth. once you've done all this, maybe, if you're smart, you'll find something original to say about the topic, and what you thought would be a book ends up being a twenty page article that gets rejected several times. but should you make it through revisions on your third try, and get published, well, congratulations, you've just written and published the first chapter of your book on deleuze's anti-dialectic and his conduction of philosophy as a minor literature within the historical major literature of french phenomenological hegelianism. now you keep going, investigate the consequences of your findings, etc, and maybe at the end of five years of this you'll have enough material to loosely string together through a series of appended transition paragraphs into a book.

>> No.7351584

>>7350855
1. Read a book by a philospher
2. Write a book in response
or
1. Read a bunch of books by philosophers
2. Write a bunch of essays in response
3. Publish essays
4. Put them in a book

>but that sounds hard, I just want to write my """original""" ideas
Start a blog

>> No.7351602

>>7351562
Just call him a faget, unless you enjoy writing these kind of things, I know I do.

>select all pictures with a bicycle
Oh google. I love how dadaistic you get at times.

>> No.7351663

>>7351536

>philosophy is just a circlejerk that has no bearing on reality

Nice meme dude, find it on Reddit?

>> No.7351943

reading this thread it's not wonder your all a bunch of fags

>> No.7352470

>>7351022
>describing meaning as "rhizomatic" is really another way to say that things have meaning by the contexts that we put them in
is this not the territorialization ? (like desire which must be territorialized, that is to say contextualized ?)

>> No.7352495

>>7351584
>>7351584
>>7351584
this anon.

But both options mean you should read a ton of other philosophers.

>> No.7352500

>>7351562
>you've just written and published the first chapter of your book on deleuze's anti-dialectic and his conduction of philosophy as a minor literature within the historical major literature of french phenomenological hegelianism

sometimes the prospect of working so narrowly is so discouraging. And yet I see no other way.

>> No.7353954

>>7350855
not that hard, I'm currently doing it :
1. Pick authors
2. Justify their position
3. Synthesize

voilà