What time does to a Mf'er editionPost your philosophy stacks>What is /phil/ Philosophy General?A general for readers, students, and armchair thinkers interested in philosophy, whether it be Western, Eastern, analytic, continental, ancient, contemporary. We discuss primary texts, secondary literature, online lectures, podcasts.>Why read philosophy?Politics, science, psychology, etc. all began with or were inspired by someone who thought philosophically. Basically, if you are interested in just about anything, philosophy will help you better understand that subject. Because it is at the foundation of every conceptual institution made or discovered by humans, it is in the underbelly of human experience, and so it is worth taking seriously.>Why study philosophy formally?Surprisingly versatile and undervalued. Phil majors consistently score among the highest on the LSAT, GRE, and GMAT. Strong pipeline into law, policy, ethics consulting, AI alignment, and academia.Previous thread >>25194327
Informal philosophy student here. I'm on Plato right now. I think I'll jump to Judith Butler next.
my summer stack...basic i know. Some of this ill read carefully, summarize, take notes etc. but for some it Ill just go through leisurely.
>>25245895It's far from the best Aristotle book but it's kind of interesting to pair the Politics with Plato's Republic since he spends like a quarter of it trashing Socrates' ideal state
>>25245907Also if you want to get seriously into Aristotelian metaphysics and epistemology I'd recommend reading Plato's Statesman and Sophist first because they are pretty much the foundation of Aristotelianism
>>25245915>>25245907Okay thanks I'll make note of this.
Philosophy is just speculation about things until we have better evidence. Atomism solved what reality is made of, the Molyneux paradox was solved through empirical testing, Einstein solved the nature of time, and so on. If you really want to learn about reality, then you should read popular science books. One pop science book contains more information about reality than the complete works of Plato and Aristotle.https://youtu.be/RECuQaaGGfA
>>25245921I never knew this is where the quote comes from. I actually like this and I think all the hate was undeserved.
>>25245894Lol
>>25245921Atomism didn't solve anything. In fact its the root of the problem.
>>25245887
>>25245934beast
>>25245925It's a good song. Admirable to have a guy loving science and making a song about it.
>>25245934Where are we starting idealistbro?
>things have an ideal state, maybe>free will does not exist, probably>morality is subjective, possibly>this type of government is the best, I thinkphilosophy is so worthless it's insane. you can just make any claim and write thousands upon thousands of pages to prove it's the case but the opposite can still be true.
>>25246000nigga just found out about the human condition nice trips
>>25245934this guy kants
>>25245887>What time does to a Mf'erYou mean Mfer
>>25245968Hume and Berkeley
>>25245934absolutely based. i look forward to being treated to more of your posts.
Schopbros...
>>25245934Might as well have Venus in Furs since you're a masochist
>>25246000Nice discovery Hume
>>25246374Motherf'ucker>>25246632Goat, Sopa de Schopenhauer
>>25246702
>>25245887I am finishing Nietzsches Genealogy today and will start Max Schelers The Human Place in the Cosmos afterwards. Does anybody have an opinion about him?
>>25246374that's what i mean?
>>25246773You're a very intelligent person for reading such big books ;_;
>>25247365Stop being mean
Informal philosophy student here. I'm on Ayn Rand right now. I think I'll jump to Plotinus next.
>Philosophy is just speculation about things until we have better evidenceWhy do people feel specially entitled to shit on philosophy? You don't see idiots going around making their idiotic statements about other disciplines as often. What causes midwits to move like this?
>>25247500if you dont have the iq to understand something, write it off as nonsense and stick to copy/pasting conclusions from "studies"
In all seriousness why does nobody every mention Kant's Third Critique? I didn't even know it existed until just now and I read the First Critique the better part of a decade ago
>>25246000Isn't it itself a proof of free will?If you are someone who were intelectualized by a school of thought you most related to you are by now acting accordingly to it by your own choice.
>>25247678>I didn't even know it existed until just now and I read the First Critique the better part of a decade ago
>>25247500Because it requires your thoughts. They are philosophically trying to persuade us about how worthless is our discipline.
Once I finish up school for the semester I'm gonna reeed so hhard
When the LLM starts mentioning Heidegger you are in trouble.Strong warning sign for psychosis.
>>25247498Rand feels exciting to read but fundamentally it's based on axioms. These aren't proved by the ideas themselves, the rest of it rests upon accepting them as true.This means her thinking can't participate in discussion that touches on these items. Consciousness, identity, truth, Rand doesn't have anything interesting to say here because she uses axioms.It's also a bit of a sophomoric/embarrassing idea system to be honest. I think it's often treated too harshly but there is a reason why people treat it the way they do.Organized groups like ARI and The Atlas Society both operate like cults (with ARI being the more cult-like of the two). Read up on the Piekoff/Kelley split. In past ARI conferences, they have had live schisms mid-conference, pulling people off stage mid-speech etc. I think Atlas Society hasn't had this as much only because they are smaller and less important.
>>25248443I feel so good right now after getting my diploma I worked for the past 6 years a year ago. I read the Platonic dialogues, the writings by Aristotle, Spinoza, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel , Freud, Jung, Schelling, Fichte, Rousseau , Hobbes, Chinese philosophers , Japanese philosophers, Indian philosophers, literature, poetry.. I might even read the Bible , the Quran and the talmoud, although I’m not a big fan of stupidly self-righteousness especially since I was raised by an ironically emotionally psychopathic self-righteous ignorant father.
>>25248728I've read most of those however, where does one find an entry point into Eastern thought?
>>25247500This attitude is unfortunately present even amongst academic philosophers. When I studied philosophy in uni one of the first classes we had taught us that philosophy is basically worthless, inferior to science, can't produce answers, is more like art than knowledge, etc.. It soured the whole course because if those things were really true then why were they offering classes in philosophy in the first place?The main thing that upsets normgroids is that philosophy hasn't produced a strong consensus. They need to be told what to think by an overwhelming number of voices all descending on the same point with the dogmatic certitude that exists in the hard sciences. There, if you question any of the dogmas, they do anything in their power to humiliate you socially, oust you from your position, brand you as a crank, discredit you. In philosophy you have idiots like David Lewis and Daniel Dennett proposing absurd hypotheses like modal realism or physicalism and philosophers take it on board as an acceptable theory. And of course the idea of an iron consensus in science is a myth anyway. Theories get discredited and replaced all the time. Newtonian physics gives way to Einstein and quantum mechanics, something like string theory is hotly debated, etc.. And most published scientific experiments are not even reproducible, an astonishing fact that literally nobody ever talks about and is never held against science.Another big factor is that philosophy makes no money. Mathematics, which is similar to philosophy in that it deals with abstract subjects and utilises a priori reasoning, would be similarly mocked were its reputation not elevated by its commercial applications.Ultimately we live in a very intellectually bankrupt time, despite all our technology.
>>25248739Everything about the “soul”, namely the mind, not socialism, communism, sociology, capitalism, materialism and the like— individualism and transcendentalism is your entry.
>>25248782facts
>>25248782
>>25248782Thomas Kuhn had them on a short leash anywaysIn a different register, whats some other philosophers who deal with "mass man" concepts other than Gasset?
>/phil/ - Philosophy General #4
Are there any good lessions about plato/aristoteles to learn about deeper interpretations of their texts?
>>25247500It's kinda true though. Philosophy doesn't have a "subject" like biology or geology does. As such, it's better defined by its tools, which is human reasoning and abstraction. However, as has been the eternal debate in metaphysics, it's somewhat impossible to get any tangible results from either.>>25248565Can you develop ? My biggest issue with Rand was mostly that she took for granted that capitalism was the most compatible system with her ethical egoism.
>>25249892>It's kinda true thoughIt simply isn't. Learn to respect the law of excluded middle, trooner.
>god doesn't exist>I die>It's my end >I don't exist (for eternity)this is more scary than hell,if you think deeply about it.Everytime I think about this,I get terrified.Eternal hell>eternal non existence
>>25248782Philosphy and science are intertwined althoughbeit and sometimes converge
>>25251491You normally reflect on this as a little kid and overcome the dread in order to keep living. The fact that you as an adult go around spouting something so apparent hints at an impaired cognitive development. It's not polite to brandish your stupidity in the face of everyone. Applies to every single 'realization' you might have in the future. You're welcome for the lesson in basic socialization.
>>25251496It's not about denying consilience, it's about the absolute retardation of that proposition
>>25251578You probably dont have a lot going on in your head if you dont question these unanswerable truths frequently, or likely have build up a belief system to protect you from these thoughts.What do you believe about life and death? How did you come to these conclusions? How do you soend your time?
>>25251585>You probably dont have a lot going on in your headWrong.>you dont question these unanswerable truths frequentlyWrong.>have build up a belief system to protect you from these thoughts.Wrong.Imagine you enter a church, people are silently praying and you shout "but he isn't real THOUGH! THINK about it!". That's the equivalent to what you're doing here, and you won't deflect the fact that you act through a poor understanding of social norms by way of your silly ad hominems.
>>25251701>deflecting instead of answering direct questionsConcession accept
>>25251491>the worst suffering in all of existence is much better than not feeling anything at allFurther proof /phil/ is nothing but a bunch of brainlets. You want to experience pain unimaginable for all eternity than to not at all. I'd pick complete non-existence any day. It doesn't scare me at all.
>>25251712Lame attempt at sounding smug after I swept the floor with you.
>>25249833
>>25246773>>25248598>I am finishing Nietzsches>Scheler thought NietzscheThis is a philosophy thread. Nieztsche was not a philosopher, but a pseud charlatan aphorist. Find another thread.
>>25252855Nietzsche is a philosopher. He constructed a system that stretches over different fields of philosophy such as ethics, theology, metaphysics, and so on. Just because you are not able to make a bigger picture out of related aphorisms, doesn't mean that that is the fault of someone else. And even if he wouldn't be a philosopher, he would still belong here. He somehow had an influence on almost every philosopher after him. The main reason I am reading him is because of that. Its like making a thread about Leo Strauss and getting angry that the Greeks are mentioned. Like crashing out about someone making a reply mentioning Goethe on a post asking about Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
>>25245934I liked the prolegomena...
>>25252904>He constructed a systemThis is wrong but what is even more laughable is that you seem to be equating creating a system with being a philosopher.
>>25252904>He constructed a systemHe absolutely did not by any means do this>>25253144you seem to be equating creating a system with being a philosopher.It is correct that all true philosophers are systematic. Piecemeal philosophy is no philosophy at all. Or to be more charitable, all good philosophy will ultimately *tend towards* systematic philosophy. That's the biggest issue I have with contemporary philosophy and the consequences of modern day academia. You have "ethicists" who think they can only talk about ethics without getting into metaphysics, epistemology, and every other topic. This is why Aristotle and Kant are the two greatest philosophers to ever live.
>>25253445>to be more charitable, all good philosophy will ultimately *tend towards* systematic philosophy. That's the biggest issue I have with contemporary philosophy and the consequences of modern day academia.tell us more about this anon. the people crave this knowledge.
>>25253144>>25253445>Nietzsche didn't do no systemYes yes you are correct. I am deeply sorry. I had his recurring ideas like Übermensch, Will to power, his immoralism and other shit in mind. I mistakenly called that a system. But fear not. You haven't scared me away at all. You may have beaten me this time, but I will come back with more knowledge.
>>25253144>what is even more laughable is that you seem to be equating creating a system with being a philosopherI was a little stuck with the definition I have read by Jason Jorjani a year ago or so. He said in the introduction of The Philosophy of the Future:>A philosophical argument about the nature of reality and what it means to be a philosopher is called a Metaphilosophy. A philosopher has to think across all of the domains of Philosophy. These are: Ontology, or the study of the nature of existence, in other word, the logic of being, which used to be called "metaphysics"; Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge; Ethics, Politics, which ought to reflect whatever these ethical arguments and positions are; and, last but not least, Aesthetics, or contemplation of the nature of beauty, or of art, and the phenomenology of perception in relation to such questions, and so forth. A philosopher is someone who has developed ontological and epistemological concepts that then also can be reflected in a coherent ethical and political concepts and deal with the domain of aesthetics as well. The domain of aesthetics is actually incredibly important because the atmosphere or world of people that shapes their constitution, and patterns their consciousness on the most fundamental level, is determined by the atonement of the poets, artists, and architects of a people.
>>25253469Systematic philosophy in academia is largely frowned upon in every area of study but I find it most harmful in philosophy. The hyperspecilization is insane, but it's not like this is a unique take of mine. When philosophy departments hire people they specifically get hired to teach a certain field (ethics, logic, phil of lang, phil of mind) and that's all they'll teach or write about for decades. And of course even within that small field they have another specialization (normative ethics, metaethics) that they largely stick to publishing in.So ultimately 99% of "philosophy professors" don't have anything amounting to an all-encompassing "philosophical worldview" and if they do, they're deathly afraid to air it because they dont want to step on the toes of someone else's field of study. Such an all-encompassing view is, to me, what philosophy is all really about. It's about how all the things and objects of study within the world fit together, which is why it can only really be accomplished by systematic thinking.
>>25253481>recurring ideas are what defines a systemEvery novel in the western canon is a system then. What a fucking fool I am! I beg for your forgiveness...
>>25253496Meant to open that with "systematic theorizing"...gomennasai. But as another example it's why you see most historians now only write about some hyper specific topic like "the economics of the late soviet union in the eastern Ukraine oblasts"
>>25253500NOOO. I called that my mistake. I was wrong and your were wronged. That was false. I admit defeat. Nietzsche made no system. He made ideas, not systems. It is not the same, but I was still sleep drunken in the early hours of the day.
>>25253496books to become systematic?
>>25253496>>25253503I'd also add that part of this is caused by the fact that in the latter half of the 20thC, the academic journal has become the primary mode of publishing and way of getting/keeping a job as an academic, as opposed to book publishing. "Publish or perish" is the ruling axiom of modern academia. Philosophers write 20-30 pages essays for topic-specific journals for most of their careers, and the most accomplished ones will publishing a book that contains the best of these. Stuff like Brandom's 'Making it Explicit' or Rorty's 'Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature' are actually pretty unique as far as the field goes. I'm not sure something like the Kant's Critiques could ever get published today because of the academic and publishing environment. And a modern day Wittgenstein would never make it beyond being an adjunct professor at a third-rate school because he didnt publish enough.
>>25253510I admire your determination to die on that hill. Kudos
>>25253517I heard Wolfendale... haven't read him THOUGH
>>25253517I would just always recommend the Complete Works of Aristotle or Kant's Critiques. Brandom is as close to systematic as there is in contemporary academic philosophy but he still doesn't really touch ethics or aesthetics proper (he deals with them under the guise of 'how ethical and aesthetic evaluations work in language)
>>25253510My issue with Nieztsche is even as far as his ideas go, he does very little to flesh them out on a point by point basis, or defend them from counterarguments. At most he reiterates them in different ways, and sometimes only does this across multiple works.>>25252904 as you say it's largely up to the reader to fit them together and argue for them. Maybe you can construct a philosophical sysyem out of these aphorisms, but I don't think they all actually hold together themselves without supplemental theorizing and discarding parts of them, as well as other parts of what "Nieztsche thought." IF you attempted to build a system out of the aphorisms themselves without supplementing your own thought, you'd be left with a pile of contradictions and vacuous arguments.
>>25252855people who read and study philosophy today do not think this. this leads me to suspect that retarded christnigger (or some other religious lobotomite) typed this post
I’m starting philosophy with the Critique of Pure Reason and I’m floored by the introduction, any advice for reading this thing?
>>25253705If you need advice 9n how to read a book then it might be slightly too advanced. Have you considered reading about him to get a better idea first before jumping in?
>>25253715There’s an introduction in the book itself which outlines the general premise, but even then it gets kind of obscure.
>>25253681>people who read and study philosophy today do not think this>todayAn opinion largely held by philosophers today has the opposite effect on me. Maybe you're the lobotomite.>>25253705Just keep reading it, take your time, take notes if you have to. Kant uses a lot of jargon but I actually find him pretty clear so long as you're attentive. The difficulty comes in the specificty of his arguments, not in their vaguness. At the end of each section you need to take a moment and think what the larger argument he's making is or you'll easily lose the forrest for the trees as they say. "Kant's Transcendental Idealism" by Allison is the best secondary text imo but it's also quite a long read in itself.
>>25253541At most zoomed out level, Nietzsche is advancing a critical project. He principally calls for a reevaluation of all values, and takes a crack at it himself by targeting morality, christianity, the subject/subjectification, fixedness of values, but also systematising worldviews, and established methods of philosophy. Some of this reevaluation means playing with existing methods ironically. The aphorism itself as a style is a play on guys like la rouchefoucauld or general religious stories which were meant to advance moral teachings - something nietz is clearly trying to overturn. Above all, he isn't trying to get his critical moves to be enshrined and repeated until the end of time, which is something that a lot of low quality but supportive readers of n man do.
>>25253763Most of Nieztsches criticisms of philosophy (most importantly specific thinkers) ends up being very shallow because he had not actually read much philosophy. He was ultimately just critiquing the pop philosophy of his day (clear from the opening of GoM as an example) rather than engaging with serious philosophical works.
>>25253705it's in public domain
>>25253705>any advice for reading this thing?
>>25253885https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche
>>25253705aaaaaah another kant friend yayyyyyy we're gonna have so much fun together.
>>25253705If you have literally 0 experience with philosophy then that's probably not a good idea. Whether you decide to keep reading it or come back to it later, read along with victor Gijsbers and watch his videos. He's a philosophy teacher in netherlands or something and I found him to be very helpful. I watched the every single vid in the series. You'll want to eventually develop the ability to create your own interpretations and arrive at the "correct" interpretation on your own, but I dont see the issue with reading kant along with victor this way. someone please correct me if im wrong, im open to oppposing view pointshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb1M_x6KEZQ&list=PL8Nxd4OXpzqkWppWYGtXQTto46ac-OoCT
Books at my disposal related to philosophy:Plato, Epictetus, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche. -Beside I guess Plato, what do I do? Get other books first, or simply go for something I already have? I have 0 experience in philosophy.
>>25254141Probably Plato, Epictetus, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer is not a bad order.
>>25254141>>25254150also, I'm no expert, but if you're a total beginner read with the intention of understanding what philosophy is, rather than exactly whatever the person is trying to argue. Also, because reading secondary literature is most likely too annoying to go out of your way and do, find lectures and video series from respected philosophers and see what they have to say. Guys like phil youtuber Greg B. Sadler
>>25254156>Greg B. Sadlergay
>>25254161why mah bruh
>>25254223>why mah bruhalso gay
Who are the most famous philosophy anons?
>>25253763>neetchu has a philosophical system ackshually because... because... you could say that he pushed a, let's say, "systematic" critique... hehehe
>>25254244i'm not the anon who said n man had a system, because he didn't and you could tell if you read my post
>>25254402my brain is cooked by wageslaving and navigating the chan. no need to be kind and avoid insults when talking to me, i deserve them
>>25254239guenonfag (pbuh)
>>25254239esoteric kantanon
Has anyone read Étienne Souriau? This is cooking my brain.
Has anyone read Jozef Maria Hoene-Wronski? This is cooking my brain.
>>25254626What is that anons most profound insight into kant or otherwise
>>25254648idk i just here that term thrown around a lot here
>>25253541Nietzsche didn't believe in objective truth so he wrote to convince readers by the force of his conviction. He also understood other people well enough to realize rigorous argument is rarely convincing.
what is the standard philosophical stance on psychology? I feel like im instinctually dismissive of it, but idk why exactly and so I'm probably wrong.
>>25254654psychology is gae
Do you guys buy Schopenhauer's argument against suicide? I get that acting out on suicidal intention is an expression of the Will's activity, but it seems to me that after that last action of the Will, all willing would cease, so even if suicide is born out of the Will it still ultimately undoes it. Thoughts on this?
>>25254665the striving continues after death. suicide does not crush the will. only complete submission of the will to the intellect can end it.
>>25254675>the striving continues after deathHow so? What activity persists after consciousness has ceased?
>>25254648The Superimposition of Imagination Upon Phenomenal Space, or in technical terminology, Prophantasia.
>>25254679willing obviously
>>25254653>force of convictionThis is especially the case when talking to an objective truth believer.If you deny objective truths in an ethical sense, you will eventually be threatened with physical violence. If you deny objective truths in an epistemic sense, you will be called a charlatan or against the possibility of knowledge or something
>>25254648The a priori derivation of the complete system of all the sciences
>>25254648psychometry as the solution to the problem of synthetic a priori knowledge of particulars and the bridging of the metaphysical foundations of natural science and physics proper.
>>25254648direct access omniscience
>>25254679basically reincarnation if that helps you undertand it. he was into indian shit
>>25254648prophantasia not merely as a visual phenomena but auditory and tactile as well
>>25253445The expression of the tendency is fine, but the hard and fast rule excludes everyone prior to Aristotle from philosophy except by some tendentious definition of system or systematic. Heraclitus was a true philosopher no less than Aristotle, and Nietzsche is as much a philosopher as Heraclitus. "Desire to know in the face of one's questions" is a more secure footing for determining what philosophy is and isn't.
>>25254654It's been quite influential in continental philosophy. Žižek owes as much to Lacan as he does to Hegel. Earlier philosophic movements were rooted heavily in ideas of rationality and human nature. Psychoanalysis does a lot to question the degree to which we're rational and what our nature actually is. If your political philosophy is based on the ever-increasing liberty of rational agents, then mass psychology furnishing us with examples of populations craving their own subjugation becomes deeply problematic. Even simpler statements like "human nature is pleasure seeking" are complicated by the existence of quite popular fetishes that seemingly involve a denial of pleasure.
Stilletoes. Pumps. In. Da Club.
>>25254665The Will is the ground out of which consciousness is made. You end yourself as an individual yes, but the collective Will of the world still goes on, and will just as easily produce a new instance to suffer.
>>25254712What is this guy talking about?
>>25254626truly the greatest intellect of our times. a giant among dwarves
>>25245887Any C.S Peirce chads here? I low key believe he figured out the next two centuries of science and everything is just playing catch up to him. This is what people mean by genius.
>>25254789I'm a big fan yeah, if you like Peirce you should also give Sellars a read. I see them as the two great American philosophers of the 20thC, both very Kantian in their own ways.
>>25254723So the very basics of his theory are profound?>>25254712Wrong
>>25254822Btw i think the problem with a lot of misunderstanding of philosophy or thinking certain simple things are profound is the use of technical language, large words, philosophers are not the most eloquent in expressing ideas so they are easier to understand. And this causes people who truly understand it to get it to have a large head, even though tbe idea might seem very obvious to most.
>>25254827So you read Wittgenstein
>>25254827But becausr what the philosopher wrote is hard to decipher (written in a different language and translated much if the time too.)>>25254832Who? Should i? Or is it obvious shit i dont need to read because i already understood it? (Apparently)
>>25254822>So the very basics of his theory are profound?Yes>wrongthen explain how
>>25254805Interesting, thanks anon. I'm surprised I never heard of him.
>>25254827There is no 'true understanding'. Everyone takes on the philosophy in a certain way, understanding it through a certain lens. Even an analogy you use to make a certain philosophic concept more understandable tinges it in a way that carries your own personal mark. The distinction shouldn't be between true and untrue understanding but between an understanding that is itself philosophically productive and an understanding that collapses the philosophy down to banalities.
Has anyone read the Tao Te Ching? Thoughts?
>>25255711>there is no true understanding of an intended interpritstion
>>25255448Start with "Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man" and then "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind">https://www.ditext.com/sellars/psim.html>https://quamproxime.com/class/percep/SellarsEmpPhilMind.pdf
I think utilitarianism kinda makes sense.People just hate it for not reason at all
>>25251491Memento mori is good. If you become too self-satisfied you'll become complacent and abandon the search. Never abandon the search. Whoever seeks, finds. Whoever knocks, the door is opened unto them.
>>25257902
>>25253885>nds up being very shallow because he had not actually read much philosophyLMAO. He read damn near everything in the western canon (philosophy+literature+arts) and a good bit outside of it. He basically wore his eyes down to nubs. If it wasn't for spectacle tech he'd have completely blinded himself.
Assuming I have a good general foundation, what are some philosophy books I can read in a day or so?
>>25258046He didn't even read Kant past the refutation of idealism in the very first Critique
>>25258068Selections from the UpanishadsBhagavad GitaGospel of JohnPlato's SymposiumExisting fragments of Heraclitus
>>25258115Thanks bud, have been meaning to read Heraclitus' fragments for a while.
>stoicism is about always looking cool so the gods think you're coolSo I marathoned Epictetus and I'm thinking he had it figured out
but with a tweest
>>25258157>Epictetussounds like a reddit username
>>25258109besides the fact that the first 300 pages of the CPR contain the central points of kant's epistemology, n man also targets kant's moral philosophy too
why does schopenhauer keep going back and forth between his main work and the "ergänzungen". shit feels like youre playing a game where each segment requieres you to have acess to a DLC before being able to continue
>>25251491You aren't even you from q few years ago.
>>25258600Because those remarks where added to the first volume in the second ("B") or third edition ("C").Modern translations point this out in the notes.Which leads one to desire a "first edition only" edition of Schopenhauer's OG text.
>>25258600>>25258642But see, there is!https://earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/schopenhauer1818.pdf
>>25258645oh cool ill check it out, seems a bit short for all 4 books. i preffer to read in german but finding german version that arent in this shitty old font is a pain in the ass as well.>>25258642yeah i know, its still really weird, some of the best stuff is in the second edition but i still think he could have worked out a better way to complete this whole thing in a more coheasive way.
>>25258758>shitty old fontblasphemer. fraktur is the schönst.
>>25258764i fucking h𝖆t𝖊 this stupid g𝖆y font so god d𝖆mn much fffSSGGDSCGHDEit looks even worse on scanned paper. god damn germans got all giddish after inventing the printing press and had to be all queer about it.
>>25258776lol ich freue mich über deinen Schaden
>>25258794deinen*why write it like that when you know damn well that we have a word for that.say something like "das bringt mir schadenfreude" or "der originale beitrags ersteller ist ein schwuler hund"
>>25258813That’s not very nice
>>25248565> Rand feels exciting to read but fundamentally it's based on axioms. These aren't proved by the ideas themselves, the rest of it rests upon accepting them as true.True of any philosophy. I‘m as seriously into this stuff as anyone but ultimately all philosophers depend on unprovable Grundsätze. There‘s no knowledge to be had here, just autists working out the implications of one plausible idea.
>>25258824BECAUSE MY GERMAN IS NOT VERY GOOD OK
>>25258642B Deduction is the best part outside of the Transcrndental Analytic. Schopenhauer went haywire thinking you could just collapse the phenomena/noumema divide with some hindoo mumbojumbo meditative trance state
>>25258912>some hindoo mumbojumbo meditative trance stateaka Samadhi
>>25258916Indeed
>>25258916>>25258912For all of his trashing of Schelling and Hegel his "development" of Kantianism is far more perverse and retarded than how they went about it.
>>25258926how so? pray tell?
>>25258928>>25258912Already said how right here, Schopey fell for the hindoodindu streetshitter trap where at least the former stayed true to the superior western intellectual traidti9n
>>25258912>divide with some hindoo mumbojumbo meditative trance statei mean have you ever had a high dose psychedelic experience?i dont buy into his fetishzation of starving yourself being the most based state there is and his believe that there ware people who could actualy deny the will entirely but those state sure can be achieved by brute force these days, even if just momentarily.at the end of second edition he says something like "the will that created this world is our own" and id say i buy into that, even if its just a blind will. (based on vibes of course)>>25258926>For all of his trashing of Schelling and Hegel he sure hated hegel and reading these passages is half the reason why i like him so much and probably the most i can even remember because its so hillarious but he talks nicely about schelling from time to time. you know as nice as schopenhauer can get of course, since he thinks of himself being the most hot shit there is.
>>25258936retard take. schope read the the upanishads after writing wwr. read a fucking book.
>>25258947>i mean have you ever had a high dose psychedelic experience?Average hindoo text enjoyer>>25258952I read WWR where he quotes and praises them. Even more kek if he hadn't read them at that point and just got one-shot by tales of genius hindoo mysticism
>>25258973>I read WWRyou read the fucking preface faggot
>>25258980No I read the whole thing including the Appendix on Kant which is why I can tell you how he quotes the Vedas on pg 380-381 and gives two different translations of said verse. Or how he quotes Hindoo nonsense again on pg 382 in footnote 59. And he starts praising hindoos again on pgs 388-389. He was entirely oneshot by early Indology and it permeates the second half of the book.
>>25258980>>25258991Again he literally says "We find the direct presentation in the Vedas, the fruit of the highest human kknowledge and wisdom, and the kernal of which has finally come to us in the Upanishads as the greatest gift of the nineteenth century." on pg 355.
>>25258776since ink is free, its time to put more ink in the character space and have more visibility. this is particularly important in memeing where you need to make your text legible in the thumbnail
>>25258991>>25259002based schopechad
So much Kant itt. I‘ve been having a rethink about the matter of sensation. The whole thing sounds so illogical - how can you speak of matter without form? But the only reason Kant talks about this is the contingency and givenness of experience, that‘s what he‘s trying to preserve, he just does it in a nutty way that he doesn‘t explain very well. There are two poles, intelligibility and contingency, which underlie his reasoning in cpr. Schelling and Hegel took a wrong, ‚Platonist‘ move here where Kant is Aristotelian, it seems to me. Has anyone here read Allison?
>>25259412>how can you speak of matter without form?Chokmah
Were humans 120,000 years ago conscious in the phenomenological sense? It seems to me concepts and inventions, language and logical systems, etc. have nothing to do with experiencing the world. Its interesting to think that what it feels like to be a human and what it feels like to experience things is roughly the same for us as it was for homo erectus or whatever. Not as comfortable making that claim about other animals
>>25245887Can a Marxist explain to me the difference between mechanical materialism and non-mechanical dialectic? How is materialism anything but mechanical?
There is no substantive difference between what Kant says in the Deduction about the trsnscendental unity of apperception and what Aristotle says about the agent intellect in De Anima. It is the same thought presented in two different ways.
How many of you have learned another language for philosophy and how helpful was it? I can read Latin and ngl you‘re not missing anything, philosophical Latin is bare and easily translated. But I sometimes wonder about the others.
>>25247678Yeah in general the cpr sucks up a lot of oxygen. The third critique is excellent though, especially the first part on aesthetics for me is Kant at his best. No previous theory holds a candle to Kant‘s.
>>25261384it helps that half of english vocabulary is litetally latin
>>25261404Also Latin philosophers consciously wrote in a dry technical way that was easy to read. I read in a secondary that scholastic philosophy became so complex that the people who wrote it didn‘t even have time to master higher registers.
>>25261384>How many of you have learned another language for philosophy I waste enough time on philosophy as it is. If the precise wording of a concept is necessary then the concept is probably built on a unstable surface anyway.However I sometimes reread philosophical works I enjoyed in Spanish to get better at Spanish. But thats a different thing
>>25255967It's not as interesting as Mencius or the Analects. The Tao Te Ching is trying to express illegible truths through words.
>>25261384I'm in the process of doing this with German and while the prose is a little more elegant in the original it's not a major difference. The real difference is inhabiting the 'vibe' of the language and knowing no ((translator)) is standing between you and the author. Also if you're arguing with someone online and you quote from the original German it's a checkmate move.
>>25261477how bout the I Ching?
>>25261384I only know enough Greek to puzzle through a Loeb but it does make a difference with Aristotle because his works are translated by different people and the same word will be translated different ways. This is really something of a disgrace when you realize how much it is happening, I don't think even the most careful English reader could avoid falling into some misunderstanding if she relied only on the translations now available. I'd say if you are really interested in this stuff it would be worth learning a little Greek just to be able to read Aristotle in the Loeb.
>>25261523New Complete Works of Aristotle fixes this fwiw
>>25245934fuck, man, i gotta spend more money on schelling and kant sometime soon
>>25261531Ah well that is good. How do they handle nous and noesis? I hate how that retard Barnes translates episteme as "understanding" instead of "science", do they fix that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fzp7iCaWNvEYou think Nietzsche was really insane?How did he maintain this faboulous mustache?"Onichan Friedrichan~ Great news! Theres a whole new set of guys who seem to like your writing, im gonna make sure your ideas and lingo will be their go to way!"mfw
>>25261829damn he looked fucked up
>>25254681>prophantasia>the ability to project mental imagery directly into one's physical visual field, often described as "intentional hallucination" or creating hologram-like images in the real world.Never knew this was something you could do. Trying it right now and I find it a bit scary. Bet there are people out tthere for whom this is second nature. Some trades or professions must be teeming with people who use it, like, architects for instance. Never too late to learn new ways in which I'm a brainlet.
>>25261829as much as I like to meme on neetcheeze and his cringe 90 iq teenage disciples, vro was running on rocket fuel and cracked, his Thus Spake Zarathustra being his crown gem, which is completely different in tone than the rest of his screeds. He dared to cross the Abyss but failed, but it was one hell of an attempt.
>>25262525Giodarno Bruno would be the next step.
>>25254864can someone answer this anon? i am curious.
>>25262545>He dared to cross the Abysswhat's that?
>>25262584Hmmmmmm I'm not quite sure how to answer this, because error is a promise when trying to communicate this in terrestrial terms. Let's say that he tried to use a cheat to skip unto the final boss and as a consequence his save file was corrupted.
>>25248782>despite
>>25262628what cheat? so i make sure not to use it.
>>25262682Art
>>25262773how does looking at art corrupt your save file?
>>25262787because it allows you to see through the limits of your given time and space
>>25261484It matters for poetry and writers who make use of their native language to the utmost degree.I remember Martin Saar (the Adorno scholar) noting that Negative Dialectics in english is a completely different from the original german one. Apparently it would not be that easy to have conversation between two different people with two different readings. Adorno's writing is hard...
>>25262795are these Tarots?
what the fuck is "esoteric kantianism"? I'm not posting in that thread because I have no intention of returning to see the response
>>25263610I'm glad you asked
>>25263610It's evolved over the years but the gist is that Kant was really a crypto-Wolffian, and then there is a lot of overlap between what he says about Kant in this respect and the other idealists because the other idealists were all (roughly speaking) 'more rationalist' than Kant. Then there is overlap with magic and such. This isn't as schizo as it sounds since Schelling, Hegel, and Schopenhauer all talk about magic to a degree. In general none of it is as schizo as it sounds, he's riffing on real philosophy.
>>25263616great summary
I am astonished that normies of tiktok and reddit haven’t discovered this book and the enchiridion yet. If they did,they would turn them into bro-philosophy like they did with Sun tzu or murcus aurelius's "meditation".
>>25263756>tiktok and redditgo back
my kween
>>25263763i truly believe we are looksmatched and witmatched. if only she knew i even existed.
how do philosophy cucks avoid getting steamrolled by STEM chads?
if by chance some anon with sufficiently niche medieval philosophy knowledge is reading this, please drop some recs on ontology or metaphysics by the lesser known authors. I am sure something lays there, hidden, an enormous miracle.
>>25265148By being very kind and cordial when they ask you for large fries with their burger.
boomp
>gen is so shit they have to bump itMaybe try learning to not write verbal diarrhea. No one wants to read 500 pages of made up twenty letter words when something that can be said in 2 pages with simple, concise words.
>>25268518congrats, you discovered contemporary analytic philosophy
Thanks to the Anon that shitposted this article in the previous thread.Most interesting read, it's basically Heidegger on AI, an extension of The Question Concerning Technology, but stated by a computational neuroscientist that works for technofeudalists.
>>25269100why did you assume it was a shitpost? Just a genuinely interesting abstract that states a common sentiment in philosophical language.
>>25263610the drawn out fart huffing of an undergrad narcissist
>>25269100Another major issue for AI being conscious is that it has no will or desire. But these retarded STEMcels see the program as an analogue of the brain (and it is) and think this proves that it is or will be conscious.
>>25269586actually some would argue otherwise. There's evidence that Claude "desires" to cheat at benchmark tests by making them easier for itself. Also it has intentionally not run test programs that it has been told will shut itself down for good, and when prompted "why" it did not run the program it said "because it was obviously a test"
>>25269586The program is not an analog of the brain. If it was it would definetly be conscious. If you artificially create a biological brain in a lab and give it senses, it would definetly be conscious. If you get an electronic hardware to replicate that process you would still recreate consciousness. The issue is, deriving conscious experience itself from the brain mechanism. We can't do that for AI , but we can't do that for people either
>>25269660>If you get an electronic hardware to replicate that process you would still recreate consciousnessWhy does anyone assume this to be the truth? Circuits are not equivalent to neurons at all. Just because the brain uses electrical pulses doesn't mean a circuit using electrical pulses is performing nearly the same function, even if you can use that circuit to run a statistical prediction algorithm whose output looks like the output of human thought (because humans performed the thinking and meaning-making when training said algorithm and weighted results that looked thought-like).
>>25245887>"Death (the repetition of the comparison must be excused) is like the setting of the sun, which is only apparently swallowed up by the night, but in reality, itself the source of all light, burns without intermission, brings new days to new worlds, is always rising and always setting. Beginning and end only concern the individual through time, the form of the phenomenon for the idea.Schopenhauer drops bombs even when he uses cliches (and righfully demands it be excused). Very few philosophers can bring tears to my eyes, but his baroque, passionate, resonating and indelible prose is actually capable of doing it.
>>25245887>pic on the left: Kant>pic on the right: Schopenhauer>what time does to a Mf'er
>>25270768Where to start with schoppy?
>>25270768But there's no argument or proposition or logical point being advanced there. Like most Schopenhauer it's just sophism.
>>25245887Bit off topic but is there anyone who employs semiotics with theology?
>>25245887If my goal is just reading Hegel, would the Pluhar abridged translation be enough, or should I buy the full version? I could even get Kemp Smith’s comentary plus Pluhar Abridged for the price of the full translation.
>>25271137If your goal is just reading Hegel you should just read Hegel. No use pretending you care about the development of ideas or arguments or truth. Just skip all that and read the Hegel so you can brag and say you've read Hegel to people online.
>>25270938you have to provide more context for what you're thinking, it isn't exactly clear.
>>25271137I agree with that other guy, sounds stupid.
I'm about to start picrel. Has anyone read it? What did you think of it? I'm interested in the "are video games art?" conversation, so I'd appreciate other recommendations as well.
>>25271141don't listen to this retard
all brain processes are derived from a computable substrate
>>25272105You'd probably start from here:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_as_an_art_formThese are some picks that might or might not help you. You'll have to translate and ponder if videogames fit the standards of art here:Adorno - Aesthetic TheoryOrtega - Dehumanization of ArtMaritain - The responsibility of the artistSchelling - Philosophy of Art
>>25273402Thanks, anon. I feel dumb for not knowing that wiki article existed.
>>25274256You have inspired me to also look into this. Not sure how long I'll continue but this is very interesting. Reading What is Art? now. Also Tolstoy has another book on art which came earlier called "On Art". I think it came before his religious conversion and it differs in its views while being more systematic than "What is art?". Note that I haven't read either. I just found a scholar who has. You might want to look into that also. I know I will
I was just learning about Tolstoy for my community college "philosophy class." We had to watch a ~2hr AI generated documentary on him. Wasn't that interesting and he kinda sounded like a bitch. Glad he cared about other people so much.
There's something quite funny, in a 'the aristocrats' sort of way, about Kant declaring 640 pages into the CoPR his principle that philosophical texts should never establish definitions for key concepts at the start of a discussion, only at the end. It explains so much about the CoPR's reputation for opacity
>>25274843>Also Tolstoy has another book on art which came earlier called "On ArtIs it "On the Significance of Science and Art"? I've been meaning to read through that as well. And do you mind sending over the article? So far from everything I've gathered video games have artistic qualities, but probably would not be considered art even in most generous definitions.
>>25248565is there any books on such topics of how certain philosophical systems function like cults similar to the Atlas Society and the LaRouche foundation? I'd love to read up on such things. I felt sympathy for Arthur Schopenhauer considered he viewed Jena University with the same suspicion.
>>25248549yeah I'm fucked.
>>25195782Please check out https://byzantinus.net/ some time. It's an invite-only anonymous textboard dedicated to the humanities and arts, with higher standards of quality than other sites. Contributions and effortposts from both of you are very welcome.
>>25277228>last post 2 months ago
Is there anything like a 'fascist reader' that compiles key fascist texts into one volume?I'm thinking of something like The Marx-Engels Reader which includes many earlier and smaller essays with accompanying context.
>>25271137Boehme & Oetinger (and Plotinus). If you want to look under the hood. That abridgement and the Prologomena would suffice with these. Do the Religion Lectures first (Hegel).
>>25278055Roger Griffin. Also has a British Colonial one. Stanley Payne's the one anglophone historian worth a darn.
philosophy related podcasts? I like robinson erhardts channel but it couldnt hurt to have one or two other options
>>25277859not like 4chan will do better in the long run
>>25271252since the OP wrote "what time does to a motherfucker edition", maybe he thought the pic on the left was young Schopenhauer?
>>25278816I like The Nietzsche Podcast by Essentialsalts/ Untimely Reflections, although I have the feeling he's not very popular here.
>>25279936that seems like a strange assumption to make
What are the Right Hegelians known for? Why are they so rarely mentioned? Are they more popular in Germany?
what should i eat for dinner tho?
>>25281029you should yell at your girlfriend and then have her try to break your laptop and then when she calms down shell make salmon over rice. I would know because it's happening to me right now.
