[ 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: 218 KB, 700x467, 1273664461493.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
765412 No.765412 [Reply] [Original]

hey /lit/ could you please post those philosophy guides? (there were 8 or 9)

>> No.765414

I'd rather just look at that girl for a while..

>> No.765418

http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading

>> No.765425

>>765418
awesome, thanks

>> No.765453

>look at existentialism thread
>full of nietzsche (not existentialist in the least, nor were any of his considerations truely existential)
>No Sartre
NO FUCKING SARTRE? you people make me sick, honestly.

>> No.765472

>>765453
>I have not read Sartre
>or any of the Existentialists
>or any history of philosophy

Sartre was a nobody whose entire philosophy was founded on misunderstanding Heidegger (who called Being and Nothingness "muck") and Husserl.

>> No.765491

>>765472
why do you label a divisive reading of heidegger as a misunderstanding. People cling to heidegger, but what could be a more flawed concept than Dasein. Sartre corrected heideggar (the nazi fuck) if anything. Also, Sartre's work on intersubjectivity is essential to a true grasp of Existence.

>> No.765496

>>765472
Dismissing Sartre as an Existentialist? real edgy bro. Seriously, Sartre gave a defining form to a strand of thought which Heidegger couldn't. Heidegger failed in his basic terms, something that Sartre was far superior in. Heidegger was too drawn in to German plattitude, his writings lack vivacity and clarity. If Dasein is mistranslated, and that detriments its understanding, then it is a weak term and Heidegger was clearly weak in his assertions on existence.

>> No.765501

>why do you label a divisive reading of heidegger as a misunderstanding

Because what Husserl did what essentially finding a solution allowing philosophy to continue despite Cartesian skepticism. Hence, phenomenology, the entire point of which was to basically go with what we observe and philosophize on that, disregarding whether we can prove our observations to be True or not. Heidegger built on that. Then Sartre the moron comes along and tries to rebuild Heidegger's philosophy in a fucking Cartesian framework! Talk about missing the point..

>> No.765504

>>765410
http://tinyurl.com/2wzsgem 43a558b62a8a20f7c68b0de697d6d7dc

>> No.765505

>>765501
>what
was

>> No.765507
File: 36 KB, 714x691, teehee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
765507

>>765453

>nietzsche
>not existentialist in the least

Nigger, full retard, et cetera.

>> No.765512

>>765418
Didn't know this site existed. Uploading my pics now.

>> No.765515

>>765512
Or not.

>> No.765516

>>765512

Don't they already have all of them?

>> No.765522

>>765501
He didn't miss the point, He understood that Dasein was weak, that Heidegger went to far and narrowed existence too much, if anything Sartre was mislead by Heidegger when he discussed authenticity, because authenticity is something subjective, and Heidegger would completely do away with the subject. Also the list did not include Jaspers. That list is fucking stupid and the people who made it should feel stupid.

>> No.765525

>>765507
in what way is Nietzsche existentialist?

>> No.765531

>>765525

Technically he wasn't, but he is highly relevant in that he pretty much set up the problem(s) existentialism set out to solve.

>> No.765534

Existentialism should properly begin with Sartre. People historicize the importance of existentialism in Heidegger, Kierkegaard and Nietszche, but this is pure nominalism. Sartre is Existentialism proper, and to draw needless comparisons to these other thinkers, and then throw out the baby and keep the bathwater, is just a failed attempt at being edgy, which sums /lit/ up pretty well when it comes to philosophy.

>> No.765537

>>765525
Nietzsche was basically the originator on the discourse of "values", "nihilism", "the self (or ego)", "the unconscious" etc. The whole "conflict within yourself".

"Making your own values" - this discourse didn't exist before Nietzche.

>> No.765538

>>765531
right, he wasn't. You can perhaps fashion a dialogue between Nietzsche and Existentialism, but that would be an exercise, nothing more.

>> No.765546

>>765537
That is the dumbest thing you could possibly say. Seriously, those problems were set up since Socrates, it's called Dialectics. The Unconscious proper should be attributed more to Freud, but even he didn't conceive of it. Nietzsche is an interesting thinker, but he didn't innovate much at all.

>> No.765547

>>765546
Nigga you just went FULL retard.bmp

>> No.765550
File: 5 KB, 122x127, no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
765550

>That is the dumbest thing you could possibly say.

Justin Bieber is the next Bach.

REFUTED

>> No.765555

>>765547
interesting refutation, old chap.

>> No.765557

>>765525
The Old Testament is to Christianity as Nietzsche is to Existentialism. Not completely compatible, but one laid the foundation for the other.

>> No.765558

>>765550
i can't deny that. +3 internets.

>> No.765561

>>765557
See I can see where you would say that, but I also think that the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christianity, since Christ completely deconstructed the "Law". So, consider that.

>> No.765577

>>765561
>Christ completely deconstructed the "Law"
that doesn't make the Old Testament irrelevant to Christianity

>> No.765599

>>765577
I honestly don't know why Christians consider the old testament. Sure Judaism was a precedent for their monotheism (which really, they aren't monotheists--well specifically Catholicism which is the true church, but really even most protestants) but so does zoroastrianism. I just think that it's a really thin connection.

>> No.765603

>>765522
>>765501
This is an interesting debate. Would you chaps care to cite anyone who supports what you're saying?

Genuinely interested, not trolling.

>> No.765611

>>765603

Dreyfus was of the view that Sartre was pretty much a nobody in the history of philosophy and that he misunderstood Heidegger..don't have time to dig up any citations but it shouldn't be too hard to find.

>> No.765612

>>765603
I don't know of authors to cite on this as such, except for Heidegger and Sartre.

>> No.765620

>>765611
People give primacy to Heidegger by suggesting that Sartre misread him, first and secondly that such a misreading would incur a refutation of Sartre in total. This is a fallacy, it presupposes that Heidegger was more important. It is also important to consider that Sartre was not just a critic, but himself innovated in concepts such as inter-subjectivity, which was left untouched by his predecessors. Not only that, but existentialism=/=phenomenology, they may have some equivalences but they are not the same.