How can one avoid getting tired of philosophy? It feels as though, with every book, 95% of it consists of unnecessary verbiage and repetitions of a concept that was already established in the remaining 5%. It creates the impression of a cumulative waste of time. Not to mention that all philosophy prior to the 1960s feels so outdated that it’s no longer even worth reading.
>>25159956Just let it rot.
>>25159956>all philosophy prior to the 1960s feels so outdatedFOOTNOTES
>>25159956Do you procure any enjoyment from reading philosophy or are you just interested in the ideas as an intellectual ornament you can display and exhibit to the astonishment of less well read peers?Are you interested in the ideas or how those ideas create a reflection upon you when uttering them?
>>25160026Well, what really interests me is the feeling I get from incorporating new frameworks into my thinking. But that’s something that happens very rarely in my readings. I thought that was the case for all of you as well. It becomes rather exhausting. For example, my most recent read was Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man by McLuhan. I found his idea of the extension of the body through new systems, reorganizing civilizations into a hot and cold divide, quite stimulating, but that only took up about twenty pages. The other 350 pages consisted of repetitions and arguments trying to legitimize the initial concept. It feels like a kind of repetitive initiatory torture, and most philosophical or socio-philosophical works rely on the same process. Others are simply so outdated by the ideas produced through the postmodern acceleration of thought in our generation that their concepts already feel internalized before we even read them, which makes them effectively obsolete and turns them into a repetition of things already known. I honestly wonder how you manage to stay engaged with philosophy after so many years, as most of you have.
>>25159956Don't read it if you don't want to then? 95% of people are okay with being hedonist monkeys, join them.>Not to mention that all philosophy prior to the 1960s feels so outdated that it’s no longer even worth reading.Incorrect. No, I will not elaborate.>>25160087>I honestly wonder how you manage to stay engaged with philosophy after so many years, as most of you have.>as most of you have.Nobody reads here. Anyway, in the end it doesn't matter much and philosophy won't save you. Read it, or don't, who cares. Nobody knows anything. You'll see what actually happens when you die.
>>25160087I understand. Thinking for thinkings sake is certainly rewarding and quite stimulating. Now, with that said, you left out a lot of nuance in McLuhans thought. Understanding media is about his theory of technology as the extension of mans mental, physical, and sensual being. For example, a car is a technological extension of mans feet. A microscope his eyes. Telephone being an extension of mans mouth and ears. Beyond that is his now infamous notion of the medium being the message, or the medium through which we communicate effects the fundamental message in and of itself. His thought is still pertinent for the modern day.
>>25159956No not really, I quite enjoy racking my brain with it, I’m working through Kant’s CPR again and I feel though he’s tautological in his writing (I don’t mean his definition of the word. But the fact that he repeats himself often) I think this helps to hammer in what he’s trying to say, the section on his table of categories for example may seem repetitive, but in my eyes it begins to make sense the more he elucidates it. He also begins to make more sense after reading Schopenhauer, if you simply imagine Kant’s noumena as Schopenhauer’s will.>Thus allness (totality) is nothing other than plurality considered as a unity, limitation is nothing other than reality combined with negation, community is the causality of a substance in the reciprocal determination of others, finally necessity is nothing other than the existence that is given by possibility itself. But one should not think that the third category is therefore a merely derivative one and not an ancestral concept of pure understanding. For the combination of the first and second in order to bring forth the third concept requires a special act of the understanding, which is not identical with that act performed in the first and second. Thus the concept of a number (which belongs to the category of allness) is not always possible wherever the concepts of multitude and of unity are (e.g., in the representation of the infinite); or influence, i.e., how one substance can be the cause of something in another substance, is not to be understood immediately by combining the concept of a cause and that of a substance. From this it is clear that a special act of the understanding is requisite for this; and likewise in the other cases.>Third remark: The agreement of a single category, namely that of community, which is to be found under the third title, with the form of a disjunctive judgment, which is what corresponds to it in the table of logical functions, is not as obvious as in the other cases. In order to be assured of this agreement one must note that in all disjunctivejudgments the sphere (the multitude of everything that is contained under it) is represented as a whole divided into parts (the subordinated concepts), and, since none of these can be contained under any other, they are thought of as coordinated with one another, not subordinated, so that they do not determine each other unilaterally, as in a series, but reciprocally, as in an aggregate (if one member of the division is posited, all the rest are excluded, and vice versa).It’s like you and this goblin manlet sperg are working together on this epistemological journey. I find it fun actually.
>>25159956if you arent hanging arguments off your geistegeschicte tree in your living room then yes philosophy is boring and you should probably read game of thrones
>>25159956Try reading Liggoti's book on Zappfe, Mainlander, and Shoupenhhauer. Its cool because Ligotti having that knowledge reframes a lot of his horror work as philosophy like my work is not yet done.He's got thr capitalist realism retrocausal rocco's basilisk he just doesn't use the terms we use today
>>25160167
>>25159956What a lucky cat.
>>25159956Turn 18.
>>25161690Too young for these current retards, I’m gonna say turn 25
>>25159956I’m interested in philosophy, because I want to understand the world around me, the course of history, civilisation and religion. I’ve been reading and thinking for a few years now and only last year i had the experience of having acquired enough tools in order to understand most philosophical texts. The feeling of discovering something new is indeed quite rare, but I’ve always been thinking in circles, meaning I’m venturing off into one direction which will take me in a year or two back to my starting point. Then I have a new perspective and can venture into another direction.Last time I had the feeling of novelty and true profoundness was when i started with Heidegger.
>>25161768You’ve reminded me, I need to read Aristotle’s Metaphysics, I’m a dummy for not starting with the Greeks and jumping straight into German Idealism but I’m hoping this will provide some very good insight.
>>25159964Retarded title, Plato was a hack dumbass and should be forgotten
>>25161774You’ll hopefully come to realise this is false soon enough, hylic.
>>25161770Metaphysics is good, also essential i would say. Especially the first five books. Enjoy
>>25161795Thanks, I’m curious to see the foundations of Kant’s transcendental philosophy in it, that is to say, I mean how it was a corollary to Aristotle’s materialism, form and telos.
>>25161803That’s an interesting pursuit, I’ve never thought about this connection.
>>25161831Well, I just wish to know if it’s an apt connection to make, to begin with.
>>25161704fair.
