General philosophy thread for amicable discussion. Starting questions for anons:1.) How did you get into philosophy?2.) What value do you see in philosophy?3.) Who is your favorite philosopher and why?4.) What philosophers do you look forward to studying and why?5.) What advice do you have for the zoomers who are just starting to read philosophy?
>>24749542The only logical job for philosophers seems to be a judge of some kind. You are more qualified to be the decider of moral choices with great impact. Do you all work in law or politics?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEK9jo9Czeg
>>24749553Many philosophers would challenge the possibility of a science of such judgments, like Aristotle, Hume, Hegel. I would disagree with you that this is the purpose of philosophy as such even if some philosophers do try to create complete ethical codes etc.
>>24749542OP pic filters the schopensissies
>>24749553>1.) How did you get into philosophy?through an old friend i used to know from Texas who urged me. I figured since the political climate was so volatile at the time I wanted to get to the bottom of it all and read the classics. I began with Kant.>2.) What value do you see in philosophy?To answer questions regarding the nature of existence and why certain things are the way they are. Of course history gives some answers but philosophy acts as a 'God Of The Gaps' to fill in the "how" where history is the "why">3.) Who is your favorite philosopher and why?Jose Ortega Y Gasset. I find him to be similar to Spengler despite Spengler being more of a historian. His concept of the "mass man" explains so much about the current problem of those who decide to settle for less.>4.) What philosophers do you look forward to studying and why?Martin Buber and his concept of "I And Thou", going to dive deeper into Girard and possibly philosophers of science Kuhn, Latour and Michael Polanyi, to understand the how the nature/culture dichotomy formed and how so much science revolves around tacit faith commitments>5.) What advice do you have for the zoomers who are just starting to read philosophy?I'd say pick a period that interests you, and just dive in. It helps to have to prior knowledge of the ancients although I don't think its entirely necessary though I do recommend that you read them eventually.
>>24749578I should add that the objective/subjective is also fascinating to me too as well
>>24749568I think I finally understand being-for-self. I'll try to write it out. Being-for-self is the negation of negation, i.e. it's the negation of a thing's being limited by another, whether as a determinate something, or as as limitation in the infinite progress. Being and nothing, which in the rest of determinate being were immediate and hence separate, are now in an absolute unity, so being-for-self is absolute determinedness rather than relative determinateness. Whatever being-for-self relates to itself simply is itself, it is being-for-one - at this stage I pictorially imagine it as "simply being", like abstract being in a concrete/stable form, rotating into itself. But this infinity is still a relating. The affirmative self-relation accordingly stands opposed to non-being, the void, which is its negation as such, and is a limit - a limit that is nothing ofc - and a determinate being. Being-for-self turns out to be complex composed of the void and the being-for-self which is now the one. But the one, as affirmative self-relation, has to relate itself "to something" as it were, and this is the moment of the many ones and of repelling. But because this is all being-for-self, each of the ones is the same as the first one; therefore these ones participate in the same movement of repelling, and also attraction, because they all are one. This is different from determinate being - the ones aren't others to one another, they're 'simultaneously' one by attraction and many by repulsion; the ones do not have a limit, they're limited by the one which is what they are. And that makes them quantity, because they have an indifferent limit.What's some of the significance of all this? Hegel thinks this is the train of thought that Leibniz was on with his monads. The issue is that Leibniz could not figure out repulsion and attraction, so the plurality was merely formal. He also thinks this underlies ancient atomism although in atomism it becomes externalized. Democritus, Epicurus etc thought the void was the principle of movement, just as for Hegel, negation as such, the void, is an essential moment of the whole process. (cont'd)
>>24749594(cont'd) More fundamentally, being-for-self is a purer idealism than what you see in Kant or Spinoza (Hegel thinks all philosophies are idealist it's just a question of how far they go). There's not some Being, the one, being-for-self, that stands apart from the many. Rather the one and the many are all together simultaneously one and many. And he says this is how the soul and God actually are, the idea of a God who was an abstract being standing against the world would be logically incomplete, i.e. the very thought of such a relationship demands a higher thought which sublates it, infinity/being-for-self.
>>24749542good thread OP, thx>How did you get into philosophy?switched high schools junior year and met some seniors who liked to argue about philosophy, it was the first time I learned that philosophy wasn't just going "bro... like, it depends on your definition, bro, like, dude, shit depends on how you define it and shit," that you could actually argue, reason, prove, disprove, etc>What value do you see in philosophy?what value do you see in literature?>Who is your favorite philosopher and why?Spinoza -- difficult to imagine a more saintly nature, the Ethics possesses a certain icy crystalline beauty, his guide to the good life is actionable and liberating>What philosophers do you look forward to studying and why?John Rawls, probably? Extraordinarily influential on contemporary anglo-american political philosophy. Want to get back into Aristotle at some point but mainly just for the context for MacIntyre>What advice for novice zoomers?there's two ways to read philosophy. the first way is to find a chart thread and post things like "kant was retarded because of this thing I just thought of," laugh at philosophy memes, watch a lot of youtube explainer videos, and generally fake an understanding of postmodern/critical theorists in order to sound learned and smart and in-the-know. this will work, people will think you're smart if you yell about Plato at them, but you will learn nothing. the second way to study philosophy is to figure out what you're interested in -- ethics? aesthetics? metaphysics? political phil? etc -- and then google "introductory analytic ethics textbook" and read that. look for ones that are basically just compilations of major papers in that field with some additional introductory contextual information. anons here will start screeching that analytic work is heckin bad because... because... it's autistic okay!!! but remember that virtually no philosophyposter on /lit/ actually knows what they're talking about
>>24749618> analytic work is heckin bad because... because... it's autistic okay!!!Kek, I always laugh at those guys because all philosophy is autistic and densely argued. If you don't like that, you don't like philosophy. I haven't read any analytic stuff yet and it will be a long time because I'm into idealism for now. I need to read the rest of the Ethics, I only read part 1 and 2. It's a serious gap in my knowledge because he was huge for the idealists even if they largely oppose him.
>>24749542>1.) How did you get into philosophy?I don't know, I just get fixated on things. I don't really control it per se. >2.) What value do you see in philosophy?It's just interesting. >3.) Who is your favorite philosopher and why?I've only read a few so i wouldn't say I have a favorite necessarily because I don't think I have enough exposure or depth within the category to really know that yet. Instead, I'll say someone I've read and why I like them. >Julius EvolaI like his romantic view of life and how it intertwines with the ancients >Miguel Serrano Similar to Evola but a sharp distinction of extension into how far he pushes the metaphysical structure >Nick Land Interesting and thought provoking ideas.>Immanuel Kant I like that he creates a very systematized structure with regards to thinking and then draws a very hard line before metaphysics as to not go beyond what is knowable. >4.) What philosophers do you look forward to studying and why?Schopenhauer, because he seems to also have some interesting ideas and from what I gather his writing style is much more approachable which will be a relief of sorts for me after reading Kant. >5.) What advice do you have for the zoomers who are just starting to read philosophy?While it is possible to jump into almost any philosopher's work and absorb a great deal of it almost everyone's work draws on previous thinker's works so while it may be a more boring approach, it's probably worth it to go back and read some foundational texts first, though I don't think it's necessarily required.
>>24749628>all philosophy is autistic and densely arguedIn fairness, some isn't -- Nietzsche isn't like this, to use an easy example. >analytic idealismthere's plenty of idealist analytics out there, but I get the sense that you're more reading idealist continentials (hegel etc?) so I get what you're saying. I find the Cambridge Companion / Oxford Companion series invaluable for studying specific philosophers, both companions to Spinoza are worth their weight in gold. They probably have one for whoever you're reading atm>ethics, part 1 and 2man those are the hardest parts! the best stuff is books 4 and 5, which are genuinely beautiful and astonishingly moving. at least to me. Spinoza's an interesting figure in that most philosophers disagree with him but acknowledge that he's a fascinating, deep, heterodox thinker. ik Hegel was very influenced by him but that's about where my knowledge ends, I'm not that interested in Hegel sadly (should I be?)
>Future generations motto will be "nothing ever happens"how did he know?
shit thread that annoyed me.
>>24749670Idealism is a fuzzy word but I mean specifically the classical Germans. I love the Cambridge companions; do menial work at a university and can get full free access on my work phone so often read them while going between job sites and whatnot. I must say though this is a super pseud opinion but I don't enjoy reading secondary literature, these guys mostly are not geniuses and their opinions can be problematic in the extreme. I do not believe that any professor simply because he is a professor will understand a philosopher better than any moderately intelligent person who has carefully and repeatedly read the philosopher's works. Hegel is an incredibly based, he found a new way of thinking. But he's hard to sum up except in some vague disappointing shit like "everything's connected", "substance is subject" etc. His philosophy by design rejects any simple judgments in philosophy, but if you're just shit-posting about philosophers on 4chan, simple judgments are all you have. So I can come up with cheap summations and shitposts for any philosopher I've read but with Hegel not so much.
>>24749542>What advice do you have for the zoomers who are just starting to read philosophy?Writing is editing is thinking. Dull minds produce dull literature with defective technique (which is proof of work). Philosophy miscarries and is usurped by scientisms and the pace of technical advancements early last century, something cemented by the outcome of the World Wars-- Work backwards from the British Idealists to the Germans, then again to the Greeks. This is genealogy is natural for contemporary moderns. Approaching the Greeks out of the gates without this build up is suboptimal. >>24749594>determinate negation of the Absolute Finite (human subject) starts passive but is/must become active, appreciating this and its double in the True InfinitePeople Pleasing is the opposite of being-for-self, extraverted chasing after content, empty vessels make the loudest sounds.
