/lit/ - Literature

>>15135100
So the truth of Nihilism is the recognition that there is no truth in nihilism. I agree, in a sense, but I wouldn't call that nihilism's truth so much as truth's evolution when it contacts nihilism. Universal eudaimonia is the only end worth pursuing.

>>15135126
The whole point is mathematics is not enough. Say something that isn't an ad hominem meme, I dare you.

>>15133861
'Physical' is entirely consciousness. If you try to define physical substance you end up with a noumenous unsensed reality- a completely non-empirical entity. Why? Lets say a fire is matter. You see the fire as a human does- red, orange yellow. But how would a snake perceive the fire? We cannot conceive of it, but we call their perceptions infrared. Humans only perceive 'visible' light, 'visible' here being a term relative to humanity, because for a snake infrared is 'visible' light. But the fire also has radio waves, UV rays, both of which are not perceivable to humans. The fire then is a posited unperceivable and unperceived entity that has latent within it the ability to be perceived- what is perceived depending on the structure of that which perceives it, i.e. snake vs. man, infrared vs. visible light. Then what is matter? Matter is a non-empirical singularity of possible perception. It is only known through a consciousness's synthesis and actualization of it. Everything here boils down to human perception- everything normally thought of as 'matter' is really 'reality which human consciousness can interpret.' Which is to say, a chair that is hard and brown and wooden, is really a collection of synthesized perceptions- the 'matter' is an unknowable singularity which allows for these perceptions. The best definition of 'matter' is the mathematical and conceptual framework which we use to understand the flow and transformation of reality- gravity, expressed through mathematics, shows the transformation of things through space and time. So matter is, when boiled down, only mathematical equations which describe the process of consciousness. Materialism is the stupidest fucking philosophy on the face of the earth, held true by midwits who cannot think past 'science good,' and don't understand that the concepts of matter is itself a constructions of consciousness. This doesn't even get into the hellish moral existence which Materialism implies, which is an existence of pure nihilism. The unfortunate bullshit of it all is that, because consciousness is real, this era of belief in materialism does not actualize a nihilistic universe where nothing matters, because consciousness fundamentally is and meaning fundamentally is- what belief in materialism does then is obfuscate with language games an understanding of reality which would allow us to get out of this miserable hellscape of materialism and base animal hedonism. Materialists enjoy your time while it lasts, teleology will overcome you, and you'll be looked back on with as much pity and contempt as we look back on the Aztecs with.

>>15111193
If your default definition of God is a naive biblical representation you need to read a lot more fucking books idiot

>>15118969
How many youtubers come here to larp as critics of their work I wonder

>>15107371
I'd take you more seriously if you killed yourself

>>15099018
I agree, multiverse theory is the equivalent of Christians saying God created fossils and redshifting to make the universe seem like its billions of years old. Its a dying paradigm rationalizing any way to keep itself alive, it won't work.

>>15098997
??? I said I love her and I do, but I have no idea if she was the love of my life. It was a Kierkegaardian Either/Or situation: stay with her and resent her and myself for giving up on my dreams, or leave and feel the pain of losing her. I made my choice and I stand by it, life is not easy and no decision is perfect. As far as my personal flaws and denigration of normal people, I'm more or less aware of them and working on it- but I have no intention or desire to fit in anymore. I tried that and succeeded in my early twenties and it didn't bring me any happiness. As it is, I'm a good worker, I'm kind to my family and friends, and I keep to myself and read books. That's good enough for me, and that's what my nature and experience chasing after acceptance has led me to. I still have growing to do, but talking to normal people about the topics that interest them brings me no joy, and so I'll be polite to them when I have to engage and spend my time with myself when I don't have to.

And the irony of you speaking about pride and pretension, and then believing you can psychoanalyze me and fix me through a few posts is the definition of projection. Tend your own garden, I'm doing my best tending mine.

>>15098723
Some truth to that. But the internet age and the limitless access to free educational materials has shown me that most people are under the the totalitarianism of their own minds and inability and lack of desire to expand past received knowledge. A society of 'freedom' is just as totalitarian as any other, in that every belief system is merely an input that creates a single output in a person- viz, telling someone they are free does not give them multiple futures to choose from, it is a single output which dictates which potential future will manifest, as all idealogies are, and so believing 'freedom' is true is just as limited as any other belief system- i.e., there is only one potential life that will manifest. So true freedom isn't teaching people they are 'free' and letting them believe that and do what they want, its teaching people whatever they need to be taught to manifest their ideal potential life to the best of our abilities. Western conceptions of Freedom are incoherent propaganda.

>>15098712
I don't really follow.

>>15098673
I began philosophy as an non-self-aware materialist, Plato made me an idealist, Berkely made me realize he isn't any different from materialists fundamentally (he denies matter/ existing 'things,' but still argues that there is consistency to reality because of God's benevolent will recreating things as if they were permanent- meaning that the question of matter/mind is a red herring, what really matters and what all agree upon is a fundamental order and consistency to things, whether they ascribe it to permanent matter or spontaneously created mental projections by 'God') this led me to think mind/matter dichotomy is utter bullshit, there must be a fundamental order beneath both, speculations about redness corresponding to certain physical states ('what mary didnt know'), and other speculations on how every mental phenomena seems to have a correspondent physical phenomena, brought me to a rough version of Spinoza's conclusion before I read him. Then reading him it all fell into place.

What baffles me most about reading philosophers throughout civilization is how much Truth has been here and yet neglected. Its fucking nuts how long it takes for cultural illusions to destroy themselves in internal contradiction.

>>15098560
I don't think most men can understand philosophy; only a handful each generation, and the mechanism behind it is more than simple intelligence.
Pic related is a good analogy. A philosophical argument is this puzzle ball, and each piece is a part of the argument. Most people of above average intelligence can put the ball together and understand the argument piece by piece. But true understanding is an epiphany that ignites a simulataneous grasping of all the parts of the argument such that they appear as one indivisible truth- as if the ball, when put together, fuses into a perfect sphere without the cracks/ logical divisions of each piece of the argument. This sort of understanding is the root of epiphanies and true grasping of philosophical truth, and I think very few people achieve it, and the few who do have something akin to Christian grace.

Most people will never be able to grasp Truths beyond the paradigm they were brought up into- for that, we need a collective religion, which ideally serves to indoctrinate Truths into people through authority into accepting a good framework for life. Essentially, almost nobody can think very far past received knowledge, and the boundaries of their thought are guarded by subconscious allegiance to it. The most they can do is put the pick related puzzle together, pay superficial homage to the fact that it logically makes sense, but in their hearts and minds not grasp the intuitive truth of what that means.

>>15098329
Its natural to forget a lot; one Emerson quote I do remember: "I don't remember the books I've read anymore than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me." Don't take the opinions of random anons who tear others down because they can't self actualize seriously.

But also I've read many of these books multiple times and spend most of time writing in my journal or staring into space analyzing my thoughts. I don't have any peers to discuss with either. I'm not going to pretend I don't have a natural skill with philosophy, but much of it is hard work and dedication, and I think most people overestimate the need for talent. I don't doubt you can contribute something worthwhile if you want to and you put the work in.

>>15098315
I'm not a fan of 'intrinsic value' because it has a lot of cultural baggage and pre-existing interpretations that make it difficult to convey your meaning to others who already have their own rigid definition of what the statement means. That being said, yes, 'intrinsic value' loosely fits 'truth,' if truth is defined as a correspondence between our mental frameworks and some noumenous 'reality-as-it-is.'
In the sense that saying 'fire burns your hand' keeps you from touching fire, or 'he is a liar,' if the statement is true, keeps you from trusting him and consequently better allows you to navigate the world and attain your ends. Truth is in a sense 'power,' and man uses uses 'power' to attain his ends, which can generally be called states of happiness/eudaimonia. In this sense, if we go deeper, it isn't truth and the power that it unlocks that has intrinsic value, because I hold that subjective states are the true intrinsic value which we spontaneously seek- that being said, the only way to achieve subjective states we desire is through knowledge of ourselves and the world so that we can properly navigate through time and transform into potential states of mind which we wish to attain. In this sense, Truth and Happiness/ eudaimonia are fundamentally linked and no different, and so you could again say truth does have intrinsic value. Then you could argue that a baby doesn't know anything and is taken care of by its parents, so its achieving happiness/eudaimonia without knowledge, but that relies on an overly individualistic sense of what constitutes knowledge- the child doesn't 'know truth' and achieve eudaimonia through it, which appears to disconnect truth from subjective states and therefore from intrinsic value, but then again it is attaining eudaimonia through its parent's and their knowledge of what a baby needs, and so the baby is being given eudaimonia through truth, even though it is not the baby's personal truth.

The point is yes, I believe truth is intrinsically good, but this whole digression and need to constantly justify small inconsequential linguistic inconsistencies is my problem with modern philosophy and its hyper-logical focus which keeps us from accepting things we intrinsically know to be true.

>>15098020
Now reflecting a bit I remember Theaetetus goes from opinion to true opinion to knowledge, then asks for justified knowledge, which leads to an infinite regress where 'justified knowledge' has the same problem as 'knowledge,' only the problem is in the word justified now and not in knowledge- viz, what is it that could compose justification. And the answer is that language can't justify itself and becomes either circular or infinite regress. Which led me to think, for knowledge but also most things in life/ perception, that justification is an immanent state of mind and not something that can be contained in language. Something that is probably a probabalistic algorithm in the mind which we don't 'trust' but which is our sense of trust itself.

>>15098004
For the books I write. I can't justify or convince you to believe me, the point is that almost anyone can be remembered if they dedicate their life to something worth remembering, and that's what I'm trying to do. You could be remembered for 500 years.

>>15098020
I know the Thaeatetus is about knowledge and that it ends in aporia because no airtight definition of knowledge could be found. It depends on the dialogue/ philosopher. I couldn't really tell you much about Emerson because his writing is more poetic and lacks an overarching system to remember. I could describe and analyze the apology and use it as a summary for Plato's entire philosophy as I perceive it. I remember a lot, but its spotty. When I read philosophy my goal isn't to become an encyclopedia but to refine my own vision of reality.

>>15098075
None of the miracles or mythological aspects, I'm open to its historicity but I'm not well versed in it and don't really care. I read it as collective mythological wisdom about the nature of humanity on the individual and collective level, as well as a vague outline of metaphysical truths. Ex. Isaiah 10:15 is an analogy for God's necessity and natural law; Matthew 7:15-20 is an analogy for the masses inability to discern linguist truth, and so an admonition that they should look at the actual consequences of leader's behavior and not their honeyed words. etc

>>15097769
Thinking on it I might say Othello. Iago is the best villain I've ever read because he is the evilest villain who still seems human. A villain like the woman from Tale of Two Cities is just as evil, but she's too clearly an allegory for the blind hatred of the French Revolution. Somehow Iago is nothing but an absolute lying piece of shit and yet nothing he does makes me think 'this guys a character.' I'd say Shakespeare's greatness lies in the fact that none of his characters seem judged or heavy handed or like they're trying to represent something. They all feel like real people living their lives according to their values. Even Coriolanus, who ends up dead because of his haughty pride, doesn't seem judged at the end. It feels more like 'this is a type of person who genuinely exists, and this is the fate of this type of person.'

>>15097769
Coriolanus. The main character is exceptional, but prideful and disdainful of the common man. This has consequences. I identify with him, his flaws, and his disdain for playing the game so its a personal favorite.

Hamlets 'the best' for a reason though. And as a /lit/ fag you'll probably appreciate how indecisive and philosophical Hamlet is. 'What should men such as me do crawling between heaven and earth?'
And Othello, and Lear, and Macbeth. I haven't read Shakespeare's comedies but honestly every tragedy I've read has been great, I wouldn't skip any of them.

>>15095374
More on the Ethics. Self-evident subjective experience is the substance of the Good. Which means that a serial killer who enjoys murder and torture is experiencing intrinsic goodness. But all of us subjectivities, though isolated in our minds, are unified in the 'objective' world of causality (I use these terms loosely) which means we are all refining each other, through this unified medium, into forms which allow us to reach our own ends. Which means subjectivities are refining each other such that we can all simultaneously attain our ends- in laymans terms, we put the murderer to death. Or we indoctrinate society into believing universal ethical doctrines so that they will cooperate. All these things are not important in some truth value sense, only in a pragmatic sense of whether they allow subjectivities to mutually optimize the attainment of Eudaimonia/ 'power' in the sense of mastery of the technical aspect of reality. You can see this process in the history of man from tribes to modern society. Empires become powerful, expand, passively homogenize the lands and cultures they conquer to themselves, and eventually fall- but ever iteration of this process leaves the world more unified and intersubjectively harmonized.

>>15096600
Like 'John is a man?' In a sense nothing is anything but itself and all conceptualizations fall short of grasping the thing itself. In another sense, yeah you can say that. I might not understand and am now a psued

>>15097361
I know. I told her to move on and cut her off early into the relationship, but she never did and in my weakness I used her for intimacy and love and sex. I truly loved her, but I felt the need to explore more of life. I'm glad she left for her sake. Even though it hurts.

>>15095374
The conceptualization of math is created but its rooted in a foundational existence which is self-evident. I can create a math system where x + x = 2x + 1, but that doesn't mean that walking 1 mile twice will take me 3 miles. What we call math is rooted in some real fundamental existence in reality.

The hard problem is a mistake of language. The only problem is why consciousness exists at all, and its probably beyond the knowledge of this life. But everything is fundamentally consciousness, even our scientific understanding and frameworks for the world. There is no dualism there. I'm somewhere between Hegel and Spinoza on this one.
Ethics are rooted in subjective experience and the natural law. The natural law is rooted in the foundational truth that that certain structures of existence continue to exist over others. The structures which happen to continue to exist, over the long term and with a line of best fit, are those which correspond to morality: truth, unity, cooperation. The evolution of single cell to multi-cell to social groups to now a one world political entity cooperating is the line of best fit that shows the teleological trajectory of reality and morality.

>>15094266
This is expressed in one of the Zhuangzi’s parables. There was a butcher who began by chopping the cow, and he had to replace his knife every month. Then he began to cut the bull, and he had to replace his knife every year. But eventually he learned how to listen the bones and hollows in between them, and place the knife exactly where it was meant to go, and now he never needs to replace his knife. Essentially, following conceptual knowledge (chopping, cutting) eventually gives way to listening to reality itself, not forcing it to conform to your categorization, but listening to your perception of its true nature.

But there are negative consequences to the east’s focus on listening to things as they are. The Western desire to perfectly conceptualize gives it a dialectical instability. Because we take conceptual systems more seriously, it seems to create more entrenched systems that can’t be ‘felt’ past like the butcher listening to the bones, but instead must be chopped through destroying the blade. Essentially, we take conceptual systems so seriously that they need to be destroyed by their internal contradictions before we recognize a change is needed. Also, our focus on deified concepts and deified causality is the source of our scientific outlook and all that it unlocked.

I know its this is broad as fuck but I can’t answer that question definitively. Both philosophies are worth reading and the goal should be synthesizing their strengths, not declaring which is better.

>>15095418
I'm not as hard for dialectical rigor. More historical analysis and phenomenology; I don't claim to be the best philosopher, and my goal is not to be accepted by the current paradigm, its to write my own book according to what I believe and find compelling.

>>15096442
Inevitable but should be looked down upon and children should be brought up knowing that its a hedonistic release with little to no long term benefits. Modern sexuality is licentious and base, we need to tame it with an Aristotelian approach- that pleasure is good and worth pursuing but quickly gets diminishing returns and degenerates man/ opportunity cost of pursuing it keeps one from attaining higher potential.

>>15094266
Both are better in certain ways, and I believe they’re eventually going to be reconciled in a Hegelian synthesis. I’d argue the east has already undergone this synthesis, or is further along in it, because they were dominated by the west and forced to engage with its philosophy and science. As China and the East transitions to world power, the West will begin synthesizing eastern philosophy more.

But what’s the synthesis? Broadly speaking the West is influenced by Plato and Aristotle, and all philosophy since them has been passively framed by their methods. This has made western philosophy place importance in the rational intellect and linguistic Truth value(dialectic), deified concepts (Platonic forms), and its focused on properly categorizing reality such that we can understand causation(Aristotelian categorization/ deification of causality through the uncaused cause.)

What this passively rejects is the Eastern methods of philosophy, which I’d sum up as more phenomenological and focused on the spontaneous conscious responses of our nature. Ex. Confucius focus on filial piety is rooted in a focus on the spontaneous phenomenology of kinship, to love each other more easily than non-kin. Or the idea of the mandate of Heaven, which doesn’t place legitimacy in conceptual structures of political sovereignty (such as ‘the kings eldest son’) but instead argues that political legitimacy is something that shows itself through the prosperity of society. Meaning that a rebellion in China is not seen as attacking the legitimate structure of society, as it is seen moreso in the west; a rebellion in China is itself its own justification; the east does not expect reality to fit into its neat categorization of things, they realize reality is constantly shifting and that the events of reality need no justification beyond themselves. You can see this also in Confucius’s focus on ‘Ritual,’ which is everything from the emperor wearing fancy clothes to the actual rituals he is supposed to observe- which once again does not conceptualize so much as realize the human tendency to respect certain shows of wealth and consistency which puts people in a state of awe and creates peace of mind. In sum I think the Eastern culture has a deeper understanding of the pre-conceptual structure of reality as revealed through phenomenology, which gives them a flexibility and an ability to roll with the changes of reality more easily.

>>15094211
The greats that have survived the test of time have proven themselves to be worth reading. Modernity has not yet been distilled so I read it more selectively

Checked out Girard's theory, its interesting.

>>15094051
I don't read interpretations of philosophers I intend to interpret myself. Reading secondary literature is a good way of boxing in your thought before it has a chance to define itself. Modernity seems fucked in the head to me, maybe that'll be my downfall

>>15094055
Appreciate the psychoanalysis but I've already set my course. I'll write my book and publish it and let fate decide what comes of it. I might be delusional and I know I care too much about being special, but nothing will stop me from pursuing this goal.

>>15093963
Fair enough, I should re-read him.

>>15093974
I mean what I say. Lots of philosophers say that philosophical insight is something that can't be taught, but must occur internally. Plato said true philosophers experience flashes of insight/ epiphanies. At this point I feel like I'm genuine even if you don't, and I've just got to trust that

>>15093919
I'm in too deep to let a crab pull me down. Maybe I'll be the Alfred Russel Wallace to his Darwin.

>>15093940
Gotcha

>>15093943
I haven't read many philosophers directly from the past century. Only Camus comes to mind. I don't read secondary books, but I've read a fair amount of Stanford Encyclopedia and iep.utm articles about modern philosophers. Their insights don't seem as deep as the ancients to me, but that sounds like bullshit. They're on my reading list but German Idealists and classic lit is more important to me. Do you have any suggestions?

>>15093846
I don't mean to say Spinoza isn't brilliant, he's in my top philosophers. But his other ideas like necessity and the conatus parallel Aristotle and Parmenides, and having already encountered them, I wasn't blown away. Granted I've only read him once and potentially missed a lot of insights.

My relationship with philosophy? I'd say it began with a sense of vocation, which you'll know you have if you experience euphoric epiphanies. (Seriously, the word fits here.) I'd say this is the phenomenology of the love of Truth- it began when I was a teen and asked a teacher what made gravity do what it does, and he said 'nothing, gravity just is.' I was struck by an epiphany there, I didn't even understand what that meant, I just felt a deep recognition that it meant something really important. I've had similar situations with Descartes, Plato, and just generally reading philosophy. So in this sense I do believe I have the gift, the ability to grasp with the understanding deeper truths. In my early twenties I was seeking discovery and spiritual development. At this point I'm so invested that I can't stop, though sometimes I despair that this was the wrong life path to walk. Superficially I want to help the world and be recognized as great. That drives me more than I'd like it to.