/lit/ - Literature

>>1295849

Good point, sir. Guess I will stop posting.

>>1295841

Fatalism is a reaction to determinism.

>>1295836
>phenomenological business consultant

:3

>>1295824

My heavens, you teach what you write about? Why are you sober right now?

>>1295827

1. teaching philosophy.

2. Anything a different humanities graduate could get

3. law

4. Busking

>How do you feel about non-analytics like Nietzsche, Philo, Kant?

I hate them; I don't know who philo is; Kant is analytic

>>1295823

No, it doesn't seem to have order. It actually has order. Glad I could help!

>fatalism

It makes sense. Given that nature of our minds, though, it's impossible to genuinely endorse it. Glad I could help!

>>1295815

Yes, but then you'd only be qualified to work in a gas station. Best if we make everyone think this stuff matters.

>>1295810

It's not ok but it's true. I recommend drinking.

>>1295814

Yes. Problem?

>>1295804

Ask any question, and I will be kind. And kinder than I have been previously.

>Representational is one of the key words here. This is an imitation, nothing existing in our physical world really.

Representations are arrangements of neurons caused by a state of affairs in the world plus our perceptual system. Physical? YUP.

>You accept, without validity, that desire must be a proposition.

Desire is an attitude towards a proposition. Not a proposition.

>Regardless, you used a metaphysical claim

YOU GOT ME

>>1295801
>are true emotions invulnerable to study?

No, they are observable.

>>1295781

Yeah, OP is a jerk. Why can't we all just get along?

>>1295791

No.

>>1295748
>What is the point of philosophy in modern day society? I find the study of philosophy fascinating, but I am struggling to find a practical use other than flexing the intellectual muscle and debate in academia.

Doing philosophy results in increased reading and writing abilities. Also in knowing more true propositions, or rather, recognizing how many true ones you know.

Yeah, that's all I've got. Sorry.

Maybe the continental thread will tell you that it makes your identity immanent and shit.

>>1295776
>A line of questioning that insists through its teachers that it must or should be read chronologically, without modification, is dead.

Ayup, I don't read chronologically. I read what the fuck I want: because I'm alpha and shit. Still got problems?

>>1295765
>ou did not argue the "pineal gland"

On the Cartesian account, love corresponds to pineal motions. I did not mention this. It is compatible with what I mentioned.

>Social obligation and desire are immaterial concepts and cannot be fully explained or realized through a methodology of observation.

Desire is a mental state: taking some proposition as "to be brought about". Propositions are mental representations. Mental things are physical. Physical things are material and observable.

> "observing" the structure of events

What is an event? I'm not sure what they are.

>>1295763

Truly, they trust you? Guess I'll just keep posting tier lists.

>>1295746
>columbia

Oof, I would be sad if. Tell us a story, Izzy.

>>1295747

Strawchucklefuck has bad intuitions.

>>1295736

So.... Buffalo? I didn't even know that that existed.

>>1295725

Yes and no. He has some good points about the importance of social contexts. He has some shitty intuitions about the significance of brain processes and the public-private distinction. If you read it, keep this in mind, and be careful.

Also keep in mind that "meaning is use" lacks the resources to account for disagreement. Wittgenstein was a dick, basically.

>Tell me about something you've come to discover on your own,

You can't make a scimitar out of cotton candy.

>>1295720
>When a poster earlier asked you to explain love, you explained it in immaterial terms.

But no, sirrah. On the Cartesian account, it's all about motions in the pineal gland. On the account I gave, it's a combination of brain chemistry and social obligation/desire.

>What is to be said of reconstructing ontology by means of mathematical, logical axioms?

Nothing. Intuitions are unreliable, and your project involves relying on our intuitions to create some sort of mapping between human intuition and genuine ontology. Just back the fuck off and observe some shit.

>>1295712
>You could be the next zizek

Excuse me while I kill myself

>>1295706
>nope

I'm fairly sure that you don't matter, then. I mean, all of those, and not the New School... what the fuck is left, in New York?

>What are you talking about?

I responded to your ugly female reaction image.

>What is truth?

A predicate.

>>1295705
>Isn't philosophy the study of immaterial bullshit?

It isn't. Naturalism (conformity with science) is all the rage, really. Even in ethics.

But if you go back a couple hundred years (or to continental), that's when the immaterial bullshit kicks in.

>Whose side are you on?

Good philosophy.