relaxing river meadow edition>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 >>25285042
>>25317851Nihilism is gay and fake
Socrates is annoying to me because he's so obviously doing mental gymnastics to justify what he thinks is "true and beautiful" rather than what is just true. To me this is, at the very least, hypocritical
>>25317851>Phil majors consistently score among the highest on the LSAT, GRE, and GMAT.gay as hell framework value conformity
>>25317856That's usually what people are looking for when they make criticism of philosophy as a major. it is one of many ways to justify its value, but it is the easiest to understand for normies who probably dont even know what philosophy is.
>>25317852Why is materialism nihilistic?
1s in the chat if I should keep making and maintaining these threads
>>25317859Normies should be filtered. Normies normiefying philosophy is the worst that has happened to it. It should go back to being a less popular endeavour only traveled by the most passionate for it.
>tfw you want to read an untranslated text
>>25318376you sound like youre 14
>>25318376>It should go back to being a less popular endeavour only traveled by the most passionate for it.I don't know that it was ever that, or even that its not currently that. What normies engage with currently is not "philosophy" it's just comfort quotes.
>>25317851Asked a thread or two ago about pragmatics in the philosophy of language. Noble pursuit or waste of time?Also that frogposter with the crass ethical dilemma made me think about act utilitarianism. I consider myself closer to deontology and virtue ethics, but is there any books that argue for it in a political philosophy context? Primary sources are fine.Also interested in the philosophy of history, particularly counterfactuals. Any interested anons throw book or articles at me.
>/phil/ - Philosophy General #6
maybe one day this general will have activity again, in the meantime peace out and love philosophy
>>25318487no u
>>25319635Activity here tends to fluctuate. Every once in a while someone will chime in with something interesting.
>>25319635the philo in philosophy already means love. philosopher: lover of wisdom.
>>25319685love the love of wisdom
>>25319305thanks for the bump, chump
>>25319676I asked a few questions and got nothing.
>>25320198I would expect that to be the case at first, but perhaps people will gradually begin to haunt and reply to stuff. Probably too very few people on this website are actually knowledgeable/willing to share their knowledge
>>25320316Yeah I mean i just wanted to know about pragmatics at most.
>>25319698No problem! Gotta keep a pseud containment thread on a board with 10 pseud threads going at all times up!
>>25318726For pragmatics, I recommend Acting One by Robert Cohen. In one chapter goes over the practical techniques of speech and how that speech offers implications in Part IV: The Actor's Technique. Here's an excerpt.>Emphasis>Emphasis is the stuff of oral interpretation, the decision to make one word or syllable more important than another. Almost any line can be read with a variety of emphases. Look, for example, at Macbeth's line to his wife, after murdering Duncan: "I have done the deed.">*I* have done the deed. [It was *me!*]>I *have* done the deed. [You thought I wouldn't didn't you?]>I have *done* the deed. [It's all over now.]>I have done *the* deed. [It's the most *important* deed I've ever done.]>I have done the *deed.* [It's just a "deed," nothing more.]>All of those emphases are justifiable, but you can play only one of them. Which one fits the interpretation, stimulates the action, and best serves your production of the play? Should there be subemphases or equal emphases, such as "I have *done* the *deed*"? Emphasis, in a produced play, may be indicated by the director; more often, however, you will have to make these selections yourself.(1/2)
>>25320842>Guiding your choice of emphasis should be the question, What do I want the other characters to hear and understand? Like diction, emphasis is a communication device; it should stimulate the right kinds of responses from the other person. What does Macbeth want his wife to understand from his utterance? If he worried that she is taking too much control, he may emphasize *I*. If he thinks she may want to turn back, he may emphasize *done*. If he thinks she may become hysterical, he may emphasize *deed.* Emphasis, then, is closely related to GOTE [Goal, Obstacle/Other, Tactics, Expectation] components, to the goal of your character, and to the tactics [inductions or threats] you choose to implement that goal.
