Every time I see anyone discussing philosophy, whether on /lit/ or elsewhere, almost every single person misrepresents the views of the philosopher in question and brings up obviously incorrect criticisms.I don't mean that their interpretation is different than mine and I dislike that. I mean that their "interpretation" is explicitly against what the philosopher claims in their own text. Like there is a section where the philosopher will say "I don't mean X" and people will say "so he meant X??". And the "criticisms" are the same half baked attacks that the philosopher themselves presents and shoots down in the text. Not modified in any way, and not counterarguments against what was presented, just the same exact shit.It's almost as if they haven't even read the philosopher in question. Or skimmed a wikipedia article, honestly. Like god damn.
Philosophy is gay and boring. Reading philosophy books means you are a retarded pseudo-intellectual who can't think for himself. Anything worthwhile is easily deductible from knowing basics of genetic and memetic evolution and some basic physics.
>>25014722Most people don't read extensively. What you are observing are impressions based on secondhand descriptions of what the texts or authors were about, in tandem with choice quotes gathered from random sites and graphics.They seem wrongheaded at bare minimum because they have not actually directly read the material at all.
>>25014751>evolution and some basic physics
>>25014751trvke
>>25014722There is no such thing as “discussing philosophy.” That’s like saying “discussing physics” or “discussing biology.” Sure, you can say it, but those fields are so huge and so split into branches and subfields that talking about them in general is basically meaningless. Philosophy is even worse in that regard. You have to invest years into a single area just to not sound surface level. One person might actually know ancient philosophy, another might be deep into phenomenology and so on. But anyone who claims they have a real, indepth grasp of all of philosophy, and can seriously go from Aristotle to Duns Scotus to Spinoza to Heidegger to Evola to Žižek without missing a beat, is lying and a wikipediafag.And even if someone is truly well read, most self-taught fags have huge blind spots, especially now that you can just ask ChatGPT to spoonfeed you summaries of everything. Talking to people like that is usually pointless. On the other hand, people who actually study philosophy in school tend to be rigid and dogmatic. They know the basics they instilled into them, usually with biased interpretations, but they have almost no original ideas of their own. Talking to them is pointless too.The real problem is the format. Philosophy is not meant to be discussed in little imageboard posts seriosuly. It is meant to be written out as full theses, with careful arguments that someone else can answer with equally careful arguments. Shortform philosophy discussion is like watching YouTube shorts about Plato’s cave. Autustic posturing with no real merit.
>>25014805me in the middle
bump
Start with the greeks (Euclid), continue with the germans (Euler, Riemann, Dedekind, Hilbert and Noether). Then follow with the rest of philosophers (Plato et al.). That entrance sign at Plato's Academy was there for a reason
>>25016079This anon knows. Post more recs fren.
>>25014763Every "great" philosopher was a polymath. Schopenhauer tells you to study anatomy before attempting to read anything philosophy. The modern philosopher is a STEMcel. Your kind has no place here. Stop obsessing over the aesthetics and pick up a science.
>>25016089>Euler: The Master of Us All - William Dunham>Mathematics by Its History - John Stillwell>Essays on the Theory of Numbers - Richard Dedekind>Foundations of Geometry - David Hilbert>What is Mathematics?: An elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods - Richard Courant, Herbert Robbins, Ian StewartIt may be hard to read Hilbert and Dedekind, but you can know that a given book about geometry or set theory is good simply if they are acknowledged, respectively. The rest are good primers.
>>25016093"genetic and memetic evolution" is a false paradigm, but STEMcels don't question this because they only know how to obey. Not very good philosophers when you think about it.
Everyone but me is stupid.
lil niggas can't even wrap their haeds around high school algebra
>>25014722>I don't mean that their interpretation is different than mine and I dislike that. I mean that their "interpretation" is explicitly against what the philosopher claims in their own text. Like there is a section where the philosopher will say "I don't mean X" and people will say "so he meant X??".to be fair, if a philosopher says "dogs don't have wings" and then goes "by dogs i mean people and by wings i mean hats" then there is a question as to why he's using terms that can be easily misunderstood and if what he's saying is actually important at all. it's the same shit with most "logical" arguments-they end up being based on retarded definitions of words and what they're actually arguing is completely trivial "an X that has Y has Y">>25014751>>25016093>>25016243>russelltarded fregetardsyawn
>>25014722Yes.>>25016093>>25016202Good posts for posterity. Many wannbe erudites are STEMcel nerds who are resentful their education only taught them to be workers, then spending years why they are so vulnerable to nihilism or ennui or resentment, why they have no immunizations against the moral traps of our shithole modern zeitgeist fans. Not to mention how disproportionately so many of them are just automaton mascots for positivism or materialism. See most Jordan Peterson fans under the age of 30 for a demonstration of this.
the uni-educated think that math and logic are white male constructs and literally fatphobicyes
>>25014722teaching real philosophy is dangerous, that's why Nietzsche which just stated that meaning is derived from human experience and not exactly the natural world as in biological needs, you can find meaning in your natural urges but saying that a man is free to find meaning for himself is against the control of the population, so yes, people are purposely miss educated and they didn't read it enough or pondered about it.same as post modernism where they inverted it's meaning, deconstruction... everything that makes you question the "le facts" is shunned.deconstruction is one of the greatest tool for modern human, if you learn how to use you can understand your desires and even substitute actions, if you got conscious about what you are doing you would eventually see how nonsensical are your actions that were imposed to you.deconstruction will get you the same what psychoanalysis was supposed to do but it can be applied to things other than the self, so everything is your problem and not the structures...
>>25014751>deductible
>>25014722You can pretend to be mad for (you)s but outside of a specialist university setting or forum, /lit/ is as close to good as it gets.Popular articles and YouTubers always get PHIL and SCI wrong, hilariously so. Reddit is more accurate than lit but they never actually engage with the material, the only thing allowed there is to repeat what has already been said.
Yes the modern academy is basically all about bringing out pseudo-philosophy which is essentially:We have to teach philosophy to everyone who comes to college and takes this class, meaning we have to teach something that is intelligible to some 90 iq black, some chinese person, some indian. Because that's who the audience of the class is. (Philosophy is tied in with ethnicity/culture if you need to be told that) So this pseudo philosophy meaning "what can be extracted from philosophy and reproduced like a factory line and reproduced and integrated with the academic establishment" because what-philosophy-is and the fundamental thesis of that is it IS accessible to everyone so they can sell it to everyone because it is functionally a product.The real negative side of this is even if you do have someone who is like an intelligent European person they are conditioned to think what-philosophy-is is what must function with in that system and maintain the intelligibility to those very much non-philosophical people. That's what modern philosophy is it has essentially nothing to do with actual philosophy. This is why also why even if you have sort of "competent" philosophical thinkers who say write on the great thinkers with competence there is also something fundamentally dishonest and non-comprehensive about it, they can't actually follow through on the ideas in practice. They are part of an institution which in the past century has basically turned into a way to scam young people into debt and to form an artificial sense of mass identity so people can more easily be degraded by advertising. Philosophy properly speaking calls you into deeper relationship with your home, family, place you are from it makes you more particular not less. It's fundamentally contrary to modern academia which is just about reducing philosophy to that basic reproducible technique and actually cutting people off from any ability to actually attain even slight forms of wisdom.If the hypothetical "anti-moderns" who focus on medievals and greeks are basically just larping. They'll talk about 'univerals' or something and avoid anything about usury, culture, ethnicity anything that actually points to their compromised position. Philosophy builds off of actual "comprehensive rational engagement with your life and the things in it" it is not a technique you can learn in alienation from your life
>>25014722In short, yes. You should just accept that the loudest people are often the dumbest. So they voice their super entitled opinion that some philosopher (mostly Nietzsche) is shit because of [misinterpretation in exactly the opposite way the philosopher meant]. Like I dig both opposite and in favor takes, but come on, we have to be talking about the same shit. Like I've seen pros and cons, and thought some of them myself, how I align. But some people just make straight up nonsense.What's funniest though, is that those people that make those memes or takes, even go as far as to make philosophy their personality: there are fb pages that are filled with the most retarded takes, and yet they are titled "philosophy memes" or similar. Like, the takes would fit better in something like a parody page called "Retard reads philosophy off Wikipedia" or something.Best thing is to ask if you even have talked to those people, "what did you read of him?" and after seeing the vague answers just disengage respectfully saying you don't agree. Sometimes straight up silence is better when confronted by a retard, like "okay" and move somewhere else.
>>25014751>Reading philosophy books means you are a retarded pseudo-intellectual who can't think for himselfPatently false since critical analysis is required for serious philosophical study. I love Heraclitus above all philosophers, but his cosmology was simply wrong. Hell, even Aristotle and Plato didn't blindly accept their predecessors' work.
>>25016418>So they voice their super entitled opinion that some philosopher (mostly Nietzsche) is shit because of [misinterpretation in exactly the opposite way the philosopher meant]. if those philosophers summarise their thoughts with pithy aphorisms and simple sentences, and then say the words in those aphorisms have esoteric and uncommon definitions, are people at fault for interpreting those aphorisms and simple statements using the common meanings of the words within them? or, to put it more simply, are they not aiming to be misunderstood?
>>25016629the main academic consensus is that the reader or consumer of the art piece is the ultimate creator of its meaning. imagine the amount of academic slop you can cook with that.
>>25014812you look lonely
>>25016636there's a good point there that the common understanding of a word is how it should be used. you cannot be said to have answered a simple question like "does god exist?" if your definitions of "does", "god" and "exist" are esoteric.
>>25016365>Philosophy is tied in with ethnicity/culture if you need to be told that)>Philosophy properly speaking calls you into deeper relationship with your home, family, place you are from it makes you more particular not lessThat'd be news to the Greeks
No one's too stupid for philosophy as the 'smart enough for Stoics/Church Fathers/Scholasticism/Spinoza/bad interpretation of Hegel/neopragmatists/postmoderns' midwit.Smart enough to understand, too dumb to contribute anything. And too dense to understand any of their favorite guy's critics (mainly because they're Christian/Atheist and are forced to put their head in the sand to protect their delusions).
>>25016647you didn't understand them
>>25016418>Like, the takes would fit better in something like a parody page called "Retard reads philosophy off Wikipedia" or something.Unfortunately that's where newfags think they are."Any community which gets its jollies from pretending to be idiots will soon be flooded with actual idiots who believe they are in good company."
>>25016365holy fucking spooked
A surprising type that's common here is the retard who is extremely proud of reading a lot but doesn't understand anything.
Yes. The fact is that to say intelligent things about philosophy you have to know a lot about a wide range of topics and the course of intellectual history. And you have to ACTUALLY read it (and I would say live it too) and not just watch YouTube videos and repeat 4chan/reddit/xitter talking points. Even this thread is full of these pseuds, involving lots of bitching about the academy even though it’s obvious they’re just repeating the “muh leftism muh postmodernism” shit from counter-currents and juden peterstein. The academy has its issues but it remains the only place where you can actually talk philosophy properly and have your ideas challenged in the right social environment. A bunch of shitty flame wars online are not a substitute.
>>25014722It's Nietzchean to make up your own baseless spin on what Nietzsche meant and stood for if you're adopting it as your personal philosophy.
indeed. but so are most philosophers
>>25017432Living philosophy is more important than reading it. There's too much to read and too much non-objectivity over what's worth reading. Read enough, then live. Learning how to apply a philosophical outlook to the mundane details of one's small life is the art each man must make in his life. Philosophy is meant to be applied, not merely theorized. You must embody a philosophy and live it.
>>25017432This.However, do realize most American academies want you to be a slave to Analytic philosophy, a handmaiden to STEM disciplines.
continentalfags need not apply
>>25017515True, and I’m in Australia studying philosophy so I get it, but you can still say what you like provided you aren’t a complete fucking sperg (which might be too much to ask from some people around here.) Criticisms of analytic philosophy are everywhere too so it isn’t forbidden, but analytic philosophers don’t apply them because their need to apply reductive logic is a character defect more than anything else.
>>25017432>complains about people not reading>makes up a position no one is arguing for and rather than responding to any post just invents an imaginary post he is arguing against I can tell you are involved in the academy because you think "inventing" a position and reducing everyone's arguments to is somehow adequate for an actual argument. This is why I said the academy is fundamentally contrary to philosophy, it teaches people like you to string words together and think you are making an actual argument where you are just fundamentally not capable of actually engaging with ideas. YWNBAP
>>25014751Oh tell me what original thoughts you have!
>>25014805What about historians of philosophy like Remi Brague?
>>25017515Yeah maybe on the Ivy League level, not so much for state colleges
>>25014722Most people are too stupid for literacy in general.
