/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7961193]

I want to 'get over' philosophy. What are some good endgame philosophers that help one do away with it all?

[Anonymous No.7961205]

lel youre like someone who wants to be a tennis player but instead of starting by buying a racket and then going to train goes to buy a trophy.

you will only understand those "endgame" texts if you know what they are ending.

[Anonymous No.7961213]

>>7961193
Skepticism can help you commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.7961219]

>>7961193
television is the only way desu

[Anonymous No.7961260]

This is like trying to 'get over' engineering or music. It's not a static object that simply ends in some way or another, it's an activity, if you stop doing philosophy then it's over.

[Anonymous No.7961264]

Pragmatism

[Anonymous No.7961269]

>>7961260
Please recommend works that inspire to stop doing it.

[Anonymous No.7961275]

>>7961193
Stirner destroyed ethics
Hume destroyed metaphysics
Zhuangzi destroyed even caring about philosophy

[Anonymous No.7961295]

Read house of leaves broseph

[Anonymous No.7961964]

The grl I like, is a hard Schopenhauer fan. Also, she reads Nietzsche. Should I read Shopenhauer too?

[Anonymous No.7961969]

Philosophy is a giant waste of time.

[Anonymous No.7961972]

>>7961275
>Stirner destroyed ethics

No, he was just an absolute embarrassment that neckbeards take seriously.

[Anonymous No.7962055]

>>7961972
>No, he was just an absolute embarrassment that neckbeards take seriously.
Go to bed Karl

[Anonymous No.7962057]

>>7961193
*ring ring* *ring ring*
Hello-o? Are you there anon? This is Jesus, calling you home to God.

Not to oversell my product here and all, but what you'll get out of it is infinite happiness and comfort in the world, and everlasting perfection for your soul!

[Anonymous No.7962090]

>>7962055
Popper, Jaspers, Marx, other?

[Anonymous No.7962109]

>>7962090
probably all three, they're all spooked cucks, but in this case is literally Karl.

[Anonymous No.7962116]

>>7961193
Diogenes

[Anonymous No.7962117]

>>7961193
nah

[Anonymous No.7962124]

>>7961964

Schopenhauer is always the right call.

[Anonymous No.7962126]

>>7961193
Sapir and Whorf. Anthropology in general.

[Anonymous No.7962477]

>>7961193
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.7962509]

Nihilist literature. Realise everything is obsolete.

[Anonymous No.7962511]

>>7962509
what are som niihilist books?

[Anonymous No.7962532]

>>7961193
Just find something better to do, reading more books isn't going to help you.

[Anonymous No.7962629]

>>7961193
There are none. Philosophy isn't something to get over, it's a hobby. Some people like to think that it helps them understand things but that's really just nonsense.

[Anonymous No.7962642]

>>7962509
Anon, this is the first thing you're supposed to do on your philosophic journey.

[Anonymous No.7962647]

>>7962642
The first and the last.

[Anonymous No.7962648]

>>7961275
>Zhuangzi destroyed even caring about philosophy
What specifically can I read for this. At the very least recommend me the book but I'd appreciate an excerpt of his that deals with this

[Anonymous No.7962662]

Justin Bieber's tweets run as deep as the subterraneous religiosity of an Old Testament or the fiery enthusiasm of Zarathustra's oratory.
If there ever was an End All Be all of philosophy, then Justin's tweets would need to be crowned in a wreath of Laurels and pure Gold.

[Anonymous No.7962672]

>>7961193

Schopenhauer --> Nietzsche --> Heidegger

(Kant if you must) --> Hegel --> Stirner --> Marx --> Debord --> Deleuze/Guattari

Russell --> Wittgenstein --> Late Whitehead

These will give you a good understanding of the current endgame. Even this is a fair bit of reading but if you sincerely read this stuff over about half a decade you'll get over it.

[Anonymous No.7962683]

>>7962672
You don't have to read all of that shit to realize that thinking about thinking is pointless and circular.

[Anonymous No.7962720]

>>7962683

Ok, you just keep on truckin' with whatever contingent ideology has been put into your head then :^)

Hope you have a happy life and make many monies!

[Anonymous No.7962730]

>>7962720
>being limited by ideology
>not making decisions on the fly based on personal preference

[Anonymous No.7962734]

>>7962730

> personal preference
> not the formative cumulative weight of parents, society, developmental accident, propaganda and reinforcement

le rugged individualist faec :^)

[Anonymous No.7962745]

>>7962734
and? the preference is still his, it doesnt matter how he got that preference

[Anonymous No.7962747]

>>7962745
I was going to post that but now I don't have to. Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.7962758]

Camus

[Anonymous No.7962760]

>>7962672
"On my view, James and Dewey were not only waiting at the end of the dialectical road which analytic philosophy traveled, but are waiting at the end of the road which, for example, Foucault and Deleuze are currently traveling." -- Richard Rorty

[Anonymous No.7962785]

>>7962745
>>7962747

Yeah but fucking hell mates, if you're just going to act on an immediate stimulus/response basis you're going to have issues. Feel free to tread that road -- I don't condemn it -- but it's not a solution to the problem the OP had. By all means, go and live a (classical) Epicurean or Hedonist life, but don't go worrying about philosophy while you do it.

>>7962760

I can't tell if I agree with you or disagree with you. Care to elaborate more on what you meant by this?

I am a bit of a pragmatist -- I see theory as tools, weapons, to be employed in practice (when attacking systems and situations I want to attack -- and working out which ones those are). I think philosophy is mostly word-games or symbol-play, but in a world made up of so many dense symbolic constructs maybe that is what we need.

[Anonymous No.7962793]

>>7961193
Have you tried crippling alcoholism?
It's really popular among esteemed philosophers.

[Anonymous No.7962794]

>>7962785
>it's not a solution to the problem the OP had.
>don't go worrying about philosophy while you do it.
Seems like a solution to me.

[Anonymous No.7962797]

>>7962785
>By all means, go and live a (classical) Epicurean or Hedonist life, but don't go worrying about philosophy while you do it.
You have no idea what Epicureanism is.

[Anonymous No.7962807]

>>7962794

"Just stop worrying" is not a 'good endgame philosopher... that help[s] one do away with it all?'

>>7962797
I am getting sick of your bullshit, comrade.

Epicureanism is a philosophical approach to life where you try to seek maximum pleasure.

Epicurus himself, after trying all the hedonist shit, decided to live in a farm-type philosophical commune with his mates (and women) and talk shit.

However, this is still an Epicurean solution to the existence problem, because it is still insular, hedonistic (though moderated, but only because pleasure gets old fast), and discourages, for instance, public/political life.

I'm not knocking it, it is a good solution, I am just saying it is only one solution, and leaves out many other options.

[Anonymous No.7962829]

>>7962807
You REALLY have no idea what Epicureanism is.

[Anonymous No.7962835]

>>7962829

Well don't offer to educate me or have a discussion, far out

I am not Professor Expertise here, I am just some guy on 4chan. Please halp.

[Anonymous No.7962886]

/thread

[Anonymous No.7962900]

>>7962109
"Le morality is a spook!" is a moral statement.

Stirner sucks, dude.

[Anonymous No.7962904]

Whoever invented electroshock therapy.

[Anonymous No.7963001]

>>7962900
it's a meta-moral statement bro, nice try though

[Anonymous No.7963022]

>>7961193
Kazantzakis. Zorba.

The main character is literally a wannabe Buddhist reading Dante.

[Anonymous No.7963130]

>>7962509
Please recommend some.

[Anonymous No.7963137]

>>7961193
there is literally only one philosopher who matters any more- see pic related
it even says PHILOSOPHER right there in big letters in his profile name
and he totally wants us to share his awesome work with the world

Never-Ever Lose Hope. i mean how deep is that

[Anonymous No.7963154]

Benatar, Better Never to Have Been

alternatively Camus the Myth of Sisyphus

If that doesn't work I don't know what will

[Anonymous No.7963194]

>>7963154
>Benatar, Better Never to Have Been

i thought Love is a Battlefield was more profound, myself

[Anonymous No.7963271]

Put your books down and go outside. Stop thinking of why everything happened or why it actually doesn't matter and just enjoy the one life you have. It's really not that hard.

[Anonymous No.7963355]

>>7961275
>Zhuangzi destroyed even caring about philosophy

came here to post this

>>7962648
The Book of Chuang Tzu (Penguin Classics)

I'm reading it right now, it's a great book, especially if you've read tao te ching beforehand

[Anonymous No.7963361]

>>7962124
Academic philosophers HATE him!

[Anonymous No.7963366]

>>7961193
Sartre. He will make you believe in free will and that you really are in control of your life and then you can just go get laid or whatever.

[Anonymous No.7963613]

>>7962835

Different anon here. Epicureanism is fundamentally a negative hedonism, in that it seeks the good life in pleasure, but by doing away with excessive desires and habits that disturb pleasure. The goal is a pleasant tranquility, free from the insatiability of uncontrolled appetites, free from fear of gods and death.

"If you wish to make a person rich, do not add to their possessions, but take away from their desires."

[Anonymous No.7963699]

>>7963355
the penguin version is by far the worse one. there are just too much available to pick that one. (ive read over 10 in both english and french). it depends on what ones interests are: if academic/sinology, the graham one is the one to read, if literary id say the mair one is the best. if lying in between those two then the classic watson one should do it. from the abridged versions the ziporyn has quite good translations of certain passages. and that is just from memory, cause the older ones are not neglectable and the abridged ones are all worth checking.

[Anonymous No.7963734]

>>7961193

Panentheism is the true definition of God.

Determinism is true, free will is a myth.

When you die you experience heaven, but in reality it is an illusion or rather delusion of the immaterial consciousness, that experiences a state of bliss and peace for a period of time before being thrown back into another life on Earth.

[Anonymous No.7963963]

I've always seen philosophy as wearing protective gear to make walking into walls less painful.

To me, it seems easier to just not walk into walls.

Reality is simple. There are two layers.

There's physical reality - wherein things are what they are; structure without function or purpose.

There's mental reality - which manifests as possibility. Each tool, object, or material has a myriad of potential functions. When we employ a function, it gains temporary purpose.

The fundamental state of our world is one of balance, and it's easy to arrange our definitions to reflect that.

Conflict arises when we cling to incorrect definitions. The only thing required to repair them is a willingness to do so.

The one important thing to bear in mind is that language is a very limited medium for representation - it cannot quantify, only illustrate.

Allow it to leave you thoughtful, but never accept it as truth.

There. Now you're set for life.

[Anonymous No.7964010]

>>7963963
I agree with you. I'm still miserable tho.

[Anonymous No.7964206]

>>7964010

Are you healthy, anon? Do you eat and sleep well?

Eating fish is always helpful.

[Anonymous No.7964914]

>>7963963
You sound spook'd

[Anonymous No.7964920]

>>7964206
Yeah. I'm just a bit bored and dissatisfied with the world.

[Anonymous No.7964946]

>>7963963
>2016
>believing in "physical reality"

[Anonymous No.7964950]

>>7961275
>Hume destroyed metaphysics
Only for a few decades

[Anonymous No.7964953]

>>7963963
>The fundamental state of our world is one of balance
Where do you get this? There's only a tiny window of short-lived life in this ongoing explosion and then it is gone. Existence is not balanced or stable, it's a thing tearing itself apart trying to get away from itself.

[Anonymous No.7964954]

>>7961269
Smoking pot and watching television

[Anonymous No.7966312]

>>7964206
>Eating fish is always helpful.

not for the fish

[Anonymous No.7967069]

What's "endgame" philosophy anyway? A philosophical realization from which you can no further derive anything?

In that case, what would it be? There are many philosophies that lead you to such a dead end: solipsism, nihilism, absurdism and probably egoism as well, although the latter is compatible with the other three.

How do you choose among those dead ends?

[Anonymous No.7967233]

>>7966312
it's okay, they don't have feelings

[Anonymous No.7967529]

>>7967069
Literally none of those are true logical dead ends.

[Anonymous No.7967530]

>>7967233
Something in the way.

[Anonymous No.7967531]

>>7967529
Why not?
What would you say is a logical dead end of philosophy then?

[Anonymous No.7967549]

>>7967531
Taoism 2bh

[Anonymous No.7967560]

>>7967549
Why?

[Anonymous No.7968242]

>>7963963
>I have blindly accepted whatever vague philosophical umbrella my parents/culture/friends broadly accept, because im a free agent free from all outside influences because I feel that I am
>I will never question any of these assumptions, because to do so would be dumb obviously, it's just my common sense xD

[Anonymous No.7968257]

>>7961193
It sounds like you do not want philosophy but religion.

[Anonymous No.7968288]

>>7963194
That joke totally wasn't done to death in the past 5 years.

[Anonymous No.7968289]

>>7963963
>muh cum-on cents

[Anonymous No.7968300]

>>7961275
>Stirner destroyed ethics
Stirner destroyed all of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7968321]

Aristippus

[Anonymous No.7968605]

>>7967069
>solipsism, nihilism, absurdism and probably egoism as well

Only if you're 15.

[Anonymous No.7968662]

>>7961275
Stirner only destroyed shit for himself, not anybody else, unless you role-play as stirner, which is basically what stirner people do.
They don't actually agree with him they're just pretending to be him that's my theory.
Hume destroyed fast food chains by systematically exhausting their inventory, there is a difference.
Zhuangzi didn't do shit you shut your mouth.

[Anonymous No.7968669]

>>7961193
The philosophical endgame is actually the priesthood.

[Anonymous No.7968673]

>>7968605
>it's a "anon trivializes a philosophy by claiming it's for teenagers" episode

[Anonymous No.7968683]

>>7968662
>They don't actually agree with him they're just pretending to be him
What are you talking about

[Anonymous No.7968688]

>>7968673
The saddest part about the joke is that they're rarely actually teenagers, most are in their twenties still believing those things.
What makes them stop I wonder.

[Anonymous No.7968695]

>>7968688
Explain non-condescendingly why these ideologies are invalid

[Anonymous No.7968706]

>>7968683
I mean like if everything is a spook then you're a spook so the only thing that isn't a spook is stirner since he came up with spooks so the only way to agree with stirner is to be him since otherwise you can't be anybody.
The only thing that's real is the spook, you have to assume that otherwise the idea of spooks is not reputable and holds no weight because it is a spook.

[Anonymous No.7968715]

>>7968706
Holy shit you're retarded; stop posting about things you've never read.
Stupid fucking weebposter.

[Anonymous No.7968727]

>>7968706
You don't know what a spook is. Read Stirner.
If you've already read Stirner yet still came to this ridiculous conclusion, kill yourself asap.

[Anonymous No.7968754]

>>7968695
They all revolve around certain degrees of materialism, and when it's a lesser degree of materialism the "immaterial" parts are unfounded.
If you're not religious then just don't bother with anything other than straight materialistic nihilism, anything else in the realm of "irreligious" philosophy doesn't understand its own situation.

So all I really have to argue against is materialistic nihilism:
It basically boils down to this; things exist, so there must be some subsistent principle of existence differentiating them from non-existence, the source of which is immaterial and non-contingent but ultimately ever-present by metaphysical necessity.
Science (or any empirically based method), for example, cannot differentiate being from non-being, nor life from non-life, those things are intuited by the sense-perceiving individual by means of an inference upwards to conscience.
Hence mathematics is abstracting from matter, but in this context philosophical thought is abstracted from sense-perception, so there is some ultimate truth that the senses, together with the synthesis of the whole individual, are able siphon from reality itself which science cannot adjudicate and which the abstractive intellect can only gaze upon from afar and wonder how it got there.

[Anonymous No.7968792]

>>7968688
>What makes them stop I wonder.

the real world intrudes. most people grow up and get jobs, partners, etc and the time comes to put away childish things and stop trying to work out which philosopher's pop-thinking most closely acts as a justification for one's own twisted worldview

that's what happens for most people, anyway. for the people who post here, i'm not so sure. i suspect there are many /lit/tards who will go to their graves wondering which ideological label they should attach to themselves.

[Anonymous No.7968830]

>>7968754
Don't quit your day job, christfag.

[Anonymous No.7968837]

>>7968754
>the "immaterial" parts are unfounded
What do you mean?

>things exist
Some reject this postulate, or rather, consider the dichotomy between existence and nonexistence as insubstantial. Where do you go from there?

I fail to understand how your post invalidates nihilism. The assumption that the information gathered from an individual's senses and conscious perception hold any intrinsic value is preposterous.

[Anonymous No.7968844]

>>7968715
>stop posting things youve never read
Then why do Stirnerposters still exist?

[Anonymous No.7968875]

The beginning, middle, and end if philosophy is picrelated.

[Anonymous No.7968884]

>>7968792
You're not completely wrong, it's true that most people here tend to grab onto an ideology in an attempt to identify or define themselves.

However
>the real world intrudes
>grow up
>put away childish things
Again, you're underplaying philosophical thought by using meaningless allusions to adulthood. I don't see how that's relevant.
A man, being confronted to the world around him, has to face an existential crisis at one point or another and decide how he wishes to view his existence.

[Anonymous No.7968895]

Skepticism.

Anything else is sophistry.

[Anonymous No.7968904]

>>7968875
>concepts bound by words and arbitrary logic
>implying the end of philosophy simply isn't casting it all away and becoming one with what 「Is」

[Anonymous No.7968963]

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."


I live by the law: AB-LB

that is

(Whenever in doubt) "Always Beat Little Boys"

[Anonymous No.7968984]

there you go op

[Anonymous No.7969030]

>>7968984
Isn't that absurdism?

[Anonymous No.7969063]

The real answer is cosmology and theoretical physics. Who could tell you more about reality?

[Anonymous No.7969083]

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus- Ludwig Wittgenstein
7- That which can't be spoken of must be passed over in silence.

[Anonymous No.7970511]

>>7961193
Just play a lot of video games/watch TV/shoot yourself.

[Anonymous No.7971903]

>>7967530

Mmmmm mmmmm

[Anonymous No.7971908]

>>7968288

Still worth it.

[Anonymous No.7971939]

>>7961193
ECCLESIASTES TBQHWYF