Do I need to read a whole stack of Greek and western philosophy before reading Schopenhauer? He’s the only philosopher that really intrigues me.

>>25374110
Schopenhauer co-opts a good deal of Kant's philosophy and makes it somewhat his own. What Schopenhauer recommends you read first of Will and Representation is the appendix which itself is a critique of Kan'ts critique. If you want to read Will and Representation, you should know some Kant. If you want to read some of his selected writings or aphorisms or whatever, I'm not quite sure what you would need.

>>25374110
Just go for it, you can supplement by consulting references as you go, you don't need to understand every last paragraph, and if you find you truly can't make head or tail of it just set it aside and you'll have a much better idea of what exactly you need to read up on to give it another go.

Be bold! DO it! Go read Schopenhauer you clever bold self-authorized reader you! Don't wait for permission!

Has anyone ever made so much of an attempt at decyphering what Plato's unwritten doctrines were?

File: brainlets-talk.jpg (87 KB, 971x565)

87 KB JPG

>/phil/ - Philosophy General #7

>>25374123
Look into the Tübingen School. But I can't give you very much more than this. Not my area of specialization, i just know that thry exist and read a few things that crossed my path.

do any of you guys have experience writing scholarship applications? Im being considered for one but this is my first time applying to something specific rather than a general application.

>>25375227
Just don't write some variation of "I want to help others, I overcome my own problems, I'm tough". Don't dress something up as a narrative that's a list. Keep it tailored and relevant and simple and if possible, short. And most of all, be sincere and authentic.

I don't subscribe to Julius Evola's ideas, but I like him to read because he believes them and comes across as authentic even if I think he's a little mad. I've read other books that seem embarassed just to be talking about their ideas. That authenticity is what you need to get across.

>>25374123
You could try looking into the works of his successors in the Platonic tradition.

>>25374123
I second >>25374906, it's their whole shtick and focus, and >>25375719, where Plotinus and Simplicius both discuss the Dyad. That said, it's not really exciting, the principles are the One (= the Good) and the Dyad, and by acting on each other they produce numbers, the Forms, and the beings we ordinarily encounter. But how exactly it worked and why it was such a secret are still puzzling.

>>25374034
got roped into a debate with this one guy who believes that properties must be defined people before knowledge and I struck back that defining things absolutely is where something ceases to be philosophy and becomes ideology.

Why doesn't the Stanford encylcopedia of philosophy have an entry on Dostoevsky?

Ples recommend some good resources that break down his philosophy and views in depth.

Is there a book on comparative soul modeling of individual cultures? Plato's tripartite model, the egyptian model, the chinese model, etc?

>>25376663
because Dostoy is a novelist first philosopher second.

>>25376691
I'll have to look.

>>25376691
try Ancient Greece and China Compared by Lloyd and Sivin. that's the best I could do.

>>25376810
Shame. I'll have a look a d hope for more responses. Thanks.

Can anyone recommend a starting basic overview text for philosophy? Similar to Esotericism in Western Culture and counternormativity by Haanegraf if you have read it. A brief outline of positions and meanings and a little history.

>>25374123
>>25375801
Either of you have opinions on Cherniss? His lectures on the (so-called) unwritted doctrines seemed to me to make a pretty solid case for their nonexistence

>>25374110
Schopenhauer himself requires familiarity with Kant before reading him, and optionally recommends familiarity with Plato

>>25376880
>Esotericism in Western Culture and counternormativity by Haanegraf
Looks interesting, will add it to my reading list

I've always found the assertion, that Kant is refuted because of the "discovery" of non-Euclidean or n-dimensional geometry, perplexing. From what I've seen of non-Euclidean geometry it's either a subset of Euclidean geometry, or is a purely algebraic abstraction.

For example spherical geometry is a subset of Euclidean geometry because a sphere must be contained in a Euclidean space. We can then talk about geometry on the sphere's surface but to even conceptualise a sphere we have to contain it in Euclidean space.

Admittedly I don't know what I'm talking about so I could be completely wrong.

>>25377430
It's quite good. The man's politics unfortunately come through loud and clear (of which putting the reconquista in quotes as though it's a grand lie is the least) but outside lines on specific figures It's a useful quick reference and history. The man does quote himself over and over again though.

Where can I find philosophy study groups online or even IRL?

Ideally ones with a certain focus on Marxism but I'd be okay with anything.

It's becoming really tiring to just learn everything by myself and have no one to talk to about it.

>>25377453
>For example spherical geometry is a subset of Euclidean geometry because a sphere must be contained in a Euclidean space.
It's not a subset, in either the technical or colloquial meaning of subset. Maybe it is true that the only way we can think about it visually is by imagining a subset of E3 but this doesn't mean we can't conceptualise it mathematically, but just not visually.

I wouldn't say you get purely algebraic abstraction, at least, insofar as E3 is already abstraction; higher dimensional spaces, and spaces without the parallel postulate have immediate application in physics. Maybe not always representing Space, but rather an abstract "space," and maybe you would say that's where Kant is still right because it's all only "space" by analogy to actual IRL Space. But I guess I'm saying it's not purely algebraic abstraction or a subset, but a genuine extension or generalisation of the principles of our space. Maybe it comes down to whether you think that generalised space (n-dimensional, arbitrary parallel postulate equivalent) is more fundamental to our specific space (3-dimensional, Euclid's parallel postulate) - except of course maybe GR would suggest that our space does not in fact obey the parallel postulate...

I don't know enough about Kant to say if this means these people are right or wrong so you should comment on that but maybe between us we have the right knowledge haha

I just can't get into continental after being analytically trained. Anything post Kant is just drivel.

>>25377670
So don't. Is Nick Land going to break into your house if you don't stop masturbating over kant?

>>25377681
I don't masturbate over Kant, I like the groundwork and PP especially, but his transcendental idealism paved the way for all the other batshit crazy germans (and french).

>>25377670
I went the opposite and see no issues with analytic philosophy. Sounds like a skill issue.

>>25377690
>his transcendental idealism
but that's the best part

>>25377655
Well for instance spherical geometry. It's true that on the surface of a sphere a spherical triangle's angles don't sum to 180. But if I'm a person living on a sphere (which I am), I can go up off the sphere (by jumping) or down into the sphere (by digging). In other words the sphere is contained in Euclidean space, I'm not trapped on its surface.

But is it possible to have "spherical space"? To me that only seems to be possible if we say space is finite and enclosed by a sphere shaped mould, which doesn't make sense to me. The idea of finite space makes no sense, what prevents it from extending, what's holding it in, and what space does this border occupy, being itself the container of space?

So when I said subset i just meant a sphere is only possible contained within what we normally think of as space, so spherical geometry is to Euclidean geometry as ornithology is to zoology.

Stop making general threads you fucking retarded nigger.

>>25377554
join a uni honestly

>>25377750
What if there's no Uni's where I live

>>25377768
Move to where there is one. There really is no substitute to discussing philosophy with peers in either the classroom or in a bar. I've tried talking philosophy with intelligent friends, but they just don't get it. You need a certain type of people and those can generally only be found in academia.

>>25377745
>calls people retarded niggers
>enters the retarded nigger thread
Take some responsibility for fucks sake

>>25376802
But he's better than most so-called philosophers.

>>25377835
Maybe so, but he's writing novels, not making a systematic argument. Even if his overall conclusions are sound, he's not providing a set of logical steps by which he reaches them.

>>25377781
not that anon, but what would argue is the thing that makes people "get it"? I'd be curious to know why otherwise intelligent people don't seem to appreciate philosophy

I spent $75 to order the paperback copy of The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics
how retarded am I?

>>25377400
I think he gives good reason to at least hold an agnostic position regarding them, given the lack of perfect clarity of the Academy and Lyceum following Plato's death (why don't the Platonists, who claim Speusippus and Xenocrates wrote on the Dyad, quote those writings for authority and detail over Aristotle's and Theophrastus' summaries?). But I'm not sure his thesis entitles us to more than that, barring something from Herculaneum turning up that gives us more direct evidence of Academic views. (On the other hand, Cherniss is a decent challenge to taking Aristotle at his apparent word.)

>>25377835
I wouldn't go that far

File: Screenshot_20260701_23463(...).jpg (630 KB, 720x1600)

630 KB JPG

>>25377655
You will contemplate the icosahedron rotating inside of a sphere, you will learn to construct this and comprehend it with your minds eye

>>25377954
Philosophy can become really abstract really fast, and oftentimes it can be dismissed as wishy-washy or vague. But in my experience, the thing that people have the most trouble with is arguments. When trying to engage in philosophical discourse, you often try to attack a weak premise in an argument. If the conclusion doesn't logically follow, the argument is simply invalid. This process is not intuitive for many people, and because people unfamiliar with philosophy are unwilling or unable to engage with this process, the entire exercise becomes frustrating. Ironically, these people pride themselves on being "logical." I usually just limit myself to philosophical themes rather than actual argumentation. A lot of people have an interest in philosophical themes, but not necessarily in philosophical methods and rigor. So that's often the limiting factor.

>>25377725
>But is it possible to have "spherical space"? To me that only seems to be possible if we say space is finite and enclosed by a sphere shaped mould, which doesn't make sense to me. The idea of finite space makes no sense, what prevents it from extending, what's holding it in, and what space does this border occupy, being itself the container of space?
If space were spherical, and I think there are valid cosmological GR solutions where it is, then it would simply mean lines eventually converge. This talk of borders and containers is you presuming that it's just a funky surface wrapped in normal 3D space but embedding is not necessary to describe it, mathematically. I think there are GR theories where the curved 4D space is embedded in flat 5D but that is not necessary for the space to be understood.

I think you probably need to understand the mathematics first, in order to understand the results; you can intuitively apprehend (sorry if that's a technical term in Kant) E3 and then geometry in E3, but you have to put in a lot more work to understand geometry in other spaces, and only then will you have right intuition about it, it's in reverse.

But, yes, I think spherical space would imply it's finite (although hyperbolic space would not be) but your problems here are as I said depended on imagining it only as an embedded space. If all lines converge in the distance, then it just means there's a farthest away you can get between two points. No need to imagine some kind of bouncer who stops them at the "edge." Generally in GR they wouldn't consider "space" to be it's own thing either, just representation of coördinates of things, but I understand this may not be Kantian. But there would be no boundary or container, except insofar as we would imagine one when we draw out a map which, in E2 or E3, would have empty space around it.

>>25377750
I want to go to uni to study philosophy but I'm concerned about the effect of AI upon education. I have read so many news stories about students using AI to write their essays and even teachers using AI to grade their students.

>>25378492
Unless you go to a garbage tier uni, I doubt teacher AI use is going to be an issue. If you're doing philosophy for the love of the game, then why use AI to write your essays for you? The joy is in writing, synthesizing ideas and constructing arguments. Also, there's AI checks in unis. Not talking about automated checkers, but indepth 1 on 1 discussions with your professors, in class peer reviews, tightly controlled exams in essay format and detailed presentations. It's unlikely you're able to get away with just letting AI do all the work for you. But again, why even study philosophy in the first place if you don't want to do the work.

>>25378490
What you're saying kind of makes sense in the abstract but it still seems to go against my intuition. Are you yourself able to visualise spherical space without containing it in a Euclidean mental imagery?

>>25378512
Well obviously I myself don't want to use AI. I have a Bachelor's in Mathematics and Philosophy. During my studies AI was just becoming popular and I went to a good uni yet the school nevertheless had to put out a PSA telling people not to use it because they were.

>>25378521
I don't doubt it some students want to use AI, but that shouldn't really affect your decision to study philosophy. If you're worried about AI use devaluing a philosophy degree, then I'd say that it's unlikely you'll be able to obtain a masters in philosophy from a reputable university while relying on AI to write everything for you. Now AI acting in a supporting capacity is a different matter, but honestly, depending on the parameters here I'd argue that this is permissible behavior.

>>25378513
Sort of. I think back when I was actively studying GR I was able to, to some limited extent, but lack of practice eats at it. The thing is visualising is not the end goal, and in fact maybe visualising anything necessarily "euclideanizes" it since all your sense info is from everyday spaces. Definitely you can have intuition/understanding which is, depending on what sort of value you think it has, beyond or before visualisation.

>>25378546 (myself)
Maybe it will clarify if I say that it's like how you can understand music without needing to visualise it, and if you had to visualise every harmony or melody it would probably be an inferior experience to just apprehending it musically, because hearing is just different from seeing/sound from extension.

So visualising can be helpful and it makes sense to go for it, but it's not the end of understanding, I think. IDK if that helps explain what I mean.

>>25378546
>>25378549
Yeah that makes sense

>>25378533
>If you're worried about AI use devaluing a philosophy degree, then I'd say that it's unlikely you'll be able to obtain a masters in philosophy from a reputable university while relying on AI to write everything for you.
Maybe now, but what if the technology keeps improving? An OpenAI model recently solved an unsolved problem in mathematics.

>>25377745
why?

>>25374034
Humanity hasn't convinced me it's worth being publicly philosophical. I am a recluse philosopher.

>Why study philosophy formally?
Don't. Institutional structure will ensure you remain destitute without your life if you make it far enough to gain an actual philosophical education or coherent world view.

But on the other hand, don't believe that, just because there are big problems with higher education and institutional authority and gate keeping, doesn't mean that you can "better learn" philosophy alone.

It takes a lot of structured discipline and competitive peers that you interact with regularly to accomplish.

Anyone who sticks with it today long enough to find the value at the end of philosophical inquiry has sacrificed the time and energy required to acquire enough resources to be relevant.

Treat education like what it is, a purchase. but a purchase that also requires a large amount of time, and, if we're being thorough, the energy it requires to emotionally develop. That is work too that you must invest, along with your time and money. So be clear on what you're getting out of it.

Having a coherent worldview that means nothing to recruiters or publishers or whatever figurehead you must sell yourself to is no consolation.


>>25377554
You will have to consider these tradeoffs. Also just find the emails of modern day philosophers and stuff and open dialogues. If you're enthusiastic and have actually shown consistent effort and interset in philosophy you will likely be more interesting to respond to than 99.99% of their students. Especially at community colleges.

A lot of my professors had public websites with "contact me" pages.

>>25376880
How to read lacan by zizek

>>25378533
Phenomenology of Spirit is one of the best explanations as to why AI use should be delayed until a proper intellectual development has taken place.

If you have even a partial grasp of Phen de Geist you will begin to see what future generations are going to be missing if they jump straight into using artificial intelligence, without learning how to add numbers together on paper and pencil, or at least study the history of computing or the first instance of machine language.

Philosophy might not be recognized as such, but AI has made a classical philosophical education one of the most intellectually valuable contemporary pursuits.

>>25378476
Yeah I'm more interested in reading philosophy self help then doing any kind of rigerous work with proofs or any of the retarded western philosophy now fuck that shit

>>25379349
What exactly is Hegel's argument against AI?

>>25379605
You're being glib. I never said Hegel argued against AI. It's a reasonable extrapolation from Hegelian concepts found in the Phenomenology..

My point is that Phenomenology of Spirit shows consciousness isn't educated simply by receiving correct answers. It develops through a historical and experiential process in which earlier forms of understanding are overcome rather than skipped.

My concern is that if AI becomes a surrogate for inquiry itself, future generations may inherit conclusions without participating in the conceptual labor that gives those conclusions meaning. That's a Hegelian concern about the formation of consciousness, not a prediction that Hegel somehow anticipated AI.

>>25379331
what did you do with your degree ?

>>25379725
I didn't finish the degree. I eventually got a job through a friend at a consulting firm. It took a long time

>>25379331
So this post is basically:
>Don't worry about Truth, Goodness, and Beauty, just prostitute yourself

>>25377697
analytic is gay because it's so normie coded

>>25377960
very. it fucking sucks. i'm also a retard for buying it. just buy the first critique and work from there.

>>25379732
Hume wrote an extensive history of England that made him wealthy and enabled him to begin writing philosophy.

Wittgenstein was an aero-engineer before going to Cambridge, and would eventually tell aspiring philosophy students that they should go become tradesmen

>>25374110
Yes.

File: 1777503971652103.gif (437 KB, 400x300)

437 KB GIF

>>25377745

>>25379737
How is it normie coded?

>>25380118
analytic philosophy is raped. nothing wrong with that, but its raped.

Is Nicomachean Ethics the best greek source to learn about Arete?

>>25374034
Why does Rorty cause so much seethe?

[Wall of unnecessary text that any normal person can say in two sentences]

>>25380486
he agreed with the French

>>25380591
Not always a good thing

>>25380469
what does that even mean?

>>25380089
Writing an extensive history of England is not exactly equivalent in its potential for edification to being a tradesman.

Wittgenstein was a trust fund baby, the equivalent today would be being born to Elon Musk or Warren Buffet. Of course from his lofty tower he was positioned at the appropriate vantage point to look romantically upon the labouring peasants below.

As someone who's worked as an Amazon delivery driver being bullied and harangued by the gangster management, pissing in bags full of cat litter to meet deadlines, or in construction as a labourer shovelling putrid smelling trash and cleaning toilets, I can say without hesitation that despite whatever romanticism could be injected into the situation by the far-off rich photographer with his zoom lens the most important injunction I would give my children is to flee, flee, flee work -- especially manual work -- at all costs.

Everything -- drug dealing, armed robbery, suicide, prostitution, begging, gambling -- is superior to work.

>>25380474
And if so, what's the best translation? I've heard everything from Sachs to Rowe.

>>25380926
FWIW I really like Sachs' other translations and his commentaries. I haven't read his Ethics and I don't remember whose translation I did, whoever did it for penguin in the 80s I think.

You can find many Sachs essays online, the IEP has one on hexis & virtue that might interest you, and you might compare it to what other translators have written, if you can find their stuff online.

>>25381037 (myself)
>whoever did it for penguin in the 80s I think.
This one was okay as far as I recall but at the time I read it I wasn't very clued up on philosophy so it's possible I would have a less ambivalent reaction to it now.

>>25380809
I'm using raped in my own particular way here, I guess, so that's a fair question. What I mean is that analytic philosophers are "raped" into thinking philosophy has to emulate mathematics and be as rigid and sound as possible.

Picked up the myth of sisyphus, as absurdism/existentialism really pique my interest. Not very far in and I find myself rereading passages and still not really understanding them. Ive heard that starting with plato and his students is recommended. Would reading earlier western philosophy aid in my understanding and comprehension or am I just too retarded for philosophical reading.

>>25383128
idk I think I read some of that shit myth of sisyphus and it just sucked and wasnt written that good imo

>>25381479
Analytic philosophy just focuses on clarity of prose and logic. It resembles mathematics only insofar that logic is used in both. You're not gonna see formal proofs in analytic texts. But why wouldn't you want your philosophy to be sound? That's the entire point, no?

>>25383128
Starting with Plato is good to understand the vast majority of Western philosophy but you can do without it for Camus. His starting assumptions throw out most prior philosophy and aren't rigorously defended because he's really more in-touch with the feeling of the times. IIRC he references Kierkegaard and Nietzsche a fair bit in TMoS so you could probably watch some videos on them and see how they all link up. Kierkegaard especially.

>>25383592
I like both, and I don't think the divide is very clear, even if the extremes are. Analytic autism can get in the way of discovering the truth when dealing with certain questions. Not everything can be expressed in that way and we have to allow room for more creative thought

>>25383642
What kind of questions?

>>25383592
Anon said "as ... sound as possible". That doesn't mean he wants unsound philosophy but that his primary emphasis isn't on soundness itself. Continentals might place greater emphasis on the integration of diverse forms of experience, hence their frequent references to literature and the other arts, which don't necessarily produce the soundest of arguments (how can one speak of apodicticity in a reading of Kafka?) but that are nevertheless true (or perhaps 'true enough').

>>25383648
phenomenological questions, mayhaps

what are you guys reading right now?

>>25386370
David Lewis

>>25387399
never heard of him

>>25389048
One of the greatest philosophers of last century.

>>25389090
He's not. He was particularly derisive of philosophy as a discipline, openly proclaimed its inferiority to mathematics and science, ridiculed those who thought otherwise, and promulgated absurd theories like modal realism to really drive home the point that philosophy is worthless and you can just say anything as a philosopher. No other discipline is full of such self-hating freaks as philosophy. Every artist will tell you that art is divine. Every mathematician will talk to you about the beauty of mathematics, despite its seeming pedantry and rigidity. Every scientist will tell you about the importance of their field. It is only philosophy, inhabited by demonic reddit creatures like David Lewis, totally buckbroken and cucked to materialist scientism, that will smugly denounce their own chosen field of work.

Who is your favorite non-Christian Ancient philosopher that's not Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle?

>>25389334
He's a good writer and his work on properties is interesting. He's not a self hating philosopher, he just thinks that mathematics and science have an important role to play in philosophy.

>>25389349
so does every other analytic philosopher trying to legitimize their work, no?

>>25377453
Non euclidean geometry exists but I don't understand how it refutes Kant.

>>25389360
Given the limited epistemic role that many analytic philosophers assign to a priori reasoning, theres often little recourse but to draw on science or formal methods.

Do I need to learn italian to read Machiavelli or is there a good english translation of his work?

>>25379706
AI isn’t going to stop people from learning foundational material, any academy worth a fuck will still require students to work their way from the beginning. AI might make that faster or change how it’s done but it won’t just supplant all need to learn.

>>25390708
I read it in English, a penguin book.

>>25390708
holy shit I kinda breezed by this post first time I saw it and didn't think much of it. This has to be a troll.

>>25389337
Epictetus. Shame most people don't really understand his flavor of hedonism.

>>25383592
Analytic philosophy "focuses on clarity" in the same way a Reddit faggot that keeps repeating shit like
>I only believe things that are vetted by science and experts
>I only believe things that are supported by evidence
>Think for yourself
>Always fact check claims
is "being rational," namely, he's smuggling in all sorts of assumptions while really being a midwit. Analytic philosophy supposedly strips away all assumptions and prevents new assumptions from being smuggled in, and yet all it can do is hover around an eerily homogeneous and unchanging mid-20th century Anglo worldview.

Even when it tries to explore serious metaphysical ideas it is (a) blind to 98% of the important ones that have been explored throughout history, showing that it can't handle (let alone indigenously generate) most of them, (b) prone to getting stuck on stock formulations of stock problems (even while thinking it's examining the logical bases of these problems themselves), and (c) prone to over-formalizing and putting the cart before the horse by endlessly tweaking sub-variants of the formalizations instead.

Basically analytic philosophy can endlessly ask questions like "what is the logically correct number of windows to have in a duplex?" but it can't even begin to conceptualize questions like "are we sure we need to live in duplexes at all? what about yurts, dachas, and igloos, just for sake of argument?" If you try to write your dissertation on yurts, you will be laughed out of the room and ten people writing on whether Smitherson's duplex bay window theorem counts as having 7 total windows in the duplex or only 4. And then David Lewis will come in and steal half of those people away, to waste their lives writing about how to infinitely subdivide the number of panes in the window.

If you go back and read analytic philosophy at its conception it's good. Guys like C.D. Broad are great. Even Russell's early stuff, on Cantor etc., is surprisingly subtle. It's when you get to the generation influenced by the Vienna circle in the '30s that everything goes to shit. Watch Ayer's interview with Bryan Magee, it's interesting since he says the smug overconfidence of that moment (see Collingwood's Autobiography) was brief and basically a sign it was already dying. By the late '30s and '40s the best people were already breaking away from this autism and you could already see that things like the later Wittgenstein, Quine's Two Dogmas, Sellars and other neo-pragmatists, postpositivism in philosophy of science, etc., were inevitable and imminent.

The generations of students taught by Quine et al. were just typical insular Anglo cunts for the most part, most of their hostility to continental traditions was English-cultural and not philosophical, although they gussied it up as the latter. This really did a disservice to multiple generation of Philosophy graduates because they were raised to have smug disdain for everything outside their stagnating departments.

You cannot do theology without philosophy.

In fact, when universities were first established in Europe, theology, medicine, and law were the major fields, while philosophy was considered the prerequisite for each. In the understanding of the time, “Theology was the Queen of Sciences” (read: academic disciplines) and “philosophy is the handmaid of Theology.”

Philosophy is the “love of wisdom”; theology is the “study of God”. These two go hand in hand. Theology is, after all, “faith seeking understanding” - basically, faith plus philosophy, or a faith-driven philosophy.

The difference is that philosophy does not require belief in God or religious faith, even though philosophies can include both or examine each. Theology requires knowledge of and engagement with philosophy, but also is done in the context of religious faith.

Many of the so-called religious conflicts of history were fundamentally differences of philosophy, especially of the economic or political sort, but sometimes as simple as tribalism or ethnic exceptionalism - which are philosophies: structures of understanding the world. The worst violence of history, in the 20th century, was the result of philosophies run rampant without the context of religious faith - the World Wars, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.

One could argue that theology is a subset of philosophy, or that philosophy is a necessary but (by itself) insufficient tool for, or element of, theology. Theologians will always philosophize.

>>25393770
what do you think of the analytics in ethics and political philosophy?

Have any of you found effective methods for reading difficult material when your focus is off? Some days I breeze through passages and others I’ll struggle to get through a page without my mind wandering.

Only thing I’ve found that helps me is to have two books I’m reading at any given time. Something deeper, and then usually something simple, typically a narrative-heavy nonfiction. If I’m struggling with focusing on philosophy, I’ll break off and read a chapter of the other book and sometimes it helps put my head on straight

>>25389337
I guess Epicurus, even though I'm Christian

>>25395253
IDK but Im going to have to start practicing soon. I start as a philo transfer next month in a difficult program.

I find that whenever I hang out with people or do something fun that is memorable, or if something bad happens that is memorable, I have difficulty focusing. I have a tendency to mull over things to no end. I can keep better focus by keeping a routine and trying to keep out of the ordinary experiences to a minimum.

>>25396398
Thankfully I’m not in school and just enjoy reading philosophy recreationally, but it gets frustrating when you read through a couple pages and realize you took almost nothing in. That’s usually when I change gears and pick up something lighter for a bit.

>>25374034
can anyone tell me if this is a real book or a schiphrenic rant? every time i try to approach it i feel sick my stomach

File: anti-oedipus.jpg (85 KB, 480x700)

85 KB JPG

>>25397435
sorry forgot pic related

>>25397436
>>25397435
idk I read a little bit of it and I don't think its that crazy.

>want to read Hegel
>realize I probably need Kant
>realize for Kant I probably need Hume, Descartes
>realize I need Spinoza too
>realize I probably need Plato and Aristotle then
>feel uncomfortable about skipping medieval philosophy, so add that to my list
>also think that it might be worth reading chinese philosophy
>make a grand plan of how I will read every single more notable philosopher starting from the Greeks that will take me 10 years
>try to read Plato, but think I might need the Presocratics, so I stop
>for them I probably should read Homer
>but then I should read Hesiod and the rest of Greek literature
how do I stop doing this shit, I feel so uncomfortable just reading Hegel or Aristotle or Kant without having read everybody else who came before him. I don't actually want to spend 10 years on all of philosophy before Hegel
I can't even properly read books because I get obsessed with background reading, can't decide on who to read, then end up hating whatever I read
I'm obsessed with making these huge plans that don't go anywhere

>>25400154
just read it all

>>25400154
This used to be a concern of mine as well but after watching a video from Dr. Greg Sadler on YouTube (I think) I learned that this kind of infinite regress is always going to be a problem and the best way to solve it is to recognize that yes reading Kant would help you understand Hegel but at the same time the specific project that Hegel is embarking on in his books is different enough that if you commit yourself to reading and engaging with his works, it's not really going to stop you from getting something out of his works irrespective if you have background information down to the most minute details. Be patient with yourself and read what you like. Don't like reading Hume? Fuck 'em. It's your life senpai.

>>25374123
Interesting, never heard of them.

i am reading heidegger for the first time. i think dasein is a thing or like thinghood for entities for whom being is an issue. i'm still not sure how to use the plurality of dasein. and if there is one dasein or many daseins. and if the board generally thinks of heidegger as an existinentialist or a phenomenologist.

also if i was ever in, like, say abu ghraib getting tortured with, like, car batteries and sleep deprivation and getting my balls whipped because the state wanted me to rat on /lit/. i would never rat on lit. but they might break me.

>>25400154
Literally just read what you like, stop being obsessed with someone elses idea of what you should be reading, knowledge is like a tree that bends back in on itself, rather than some kind of infinitely tall skyscraper which requires some absolute foundation.

If you need to study foundational material, dont start from the foundational material, start from what you enjoy reading, then if you find some question about something you don't know about, THEN pick up the book which tells you that, this creates a much higher incentive that won't be tediously maddeningly boring.

File: Hegelisthebest.jpg (400 KB, 1280x1280)

400 KB JPG

>>25400154
>I don't actually want to spend 10 years on all of philosophy before Hegel
sweet summer child

>Everybody allows that to know any other science you must have first studied it, and that you can only claim to express a judgment upon it in virtue of such knowledge. Everybody allows that to make a shoe you must have learned and practised the craft of the shoemaker, though every man has a model in his own foot, and possesses in his hands the natural endowments for the operations required. For philosophy alone, it seems to be imagined, such study, care, and application are not in the least requisite.
- Hegel, Encyclopedia Logic, Intro. Section 5

>>25401306
He uses Dasein mostly to refer to humans and their way of being. He does kind of go back and forth in using it in its usual sense of existence, but it's the term he prefers for humans over (thinking) subject. He was read as an existentialist by other thinkers, but he rejected that association in his Letter On Existentialism.

I sometimes wonder if Hegel and Kant would have just necked themselves at birth if they knew what insufferable tards their fans would be.

>>25400154
>want to read Hegel
Why? Just read secondary literature if you want to read his ramblings. Honestly the SEP entry is good enough.

Anyone here into meta ethics?

File: Screenshot 2026-07-15 at (...).png (175 KB, 1346x578)

175 KB PNG

>>25389349
>He's not a self hating philosopher, he just thinks that mathematics and science have an important role to play in philosophy.
Why do you lie so blatantly you worthless lying rat bastard? He did not merely think "mathematics and science have a role to play in philosophy", he specifically, with derisive, mocking, hateful language, lambasted philosophy as a discipline, declared its abject inferiority to mathematics and science, and laughed in the faces of anyone who would suggest otherwise. Like all of these modern philosophers he was a Reddit cuckold who worshipped the "hard sciences" because his normie buckbroken mind could not think confidently without the reassurance of consensus, the warm embrace of dogmatic collectivism that only the "hard sciences" are able to produce. He was a man without confidence, without genius, without individuality of thought, and even his "serious" theories are like Modal Realism are nothing more than smug, Rick-and-Morty level "what ifs", designed to induce in the reader a "woah, mind blown" response similar to that produced by pulpy science fiction novels. If I had the chance to ever see this piece of shit before his fortunate death, I would unhesitatingly have reproduced the action of that brave Austrian doctoral student who executed the founder of Logical Positivism, Moritz Schlick, in the grand stairway of the University of Vienna, because of the danger posed by the latter's anti-metaphysical views.

>>25403856
>cannot into real ethics so have to do meta ethics

>>25404084
explain

>>25403856
Moral realism is dumb, non cognitivism is where it’s at.

>>25405585
Thats what satan wants you to believe.

May I use this as an reliable guide?
I found this philosophy project in the wiki.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927072710/https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub#expand

>>25401670
why do you say that?

>>25401486
This post actually made me feel ashamed of being lazy.

>>25406423
good

>>25401486
Correct. It follows that you shouldn't discuss philosophy at all if you're not in the academy or possess academic training in philosophy, and this holds true of most /lit/ posters.

>>25401486
This is really dangerous though. It paralyses you from saying anything or endorsing any thought because who's to say when you're educated enough to form an opinion? Surely there's always more to learn? On the other hand yeah you dont want retards who never read a book piping in so its a difficult one.

>>25409032
>who's to say when you're educated enough to form an opinion?
welcome to the human condition

I read Heideggers "what is metaphysics?" lecture and found it pretty unenlightening. His whole idea of anxiety and whatever being a shadow of the "nothing" we cannot conceptualize just did not resonate with me. Felt like I was reading some boderline continental slop.

>he has to study metaphysics because he doesn't understand real physics

File: 1783633037931896.jpg (1.22 MB, 1300x1104)

1.22 MB JPG

How do I convince the STUPID RETARDS who make up humanity that moral philosophy DEMANDS a technological end of converting all the matter in the universe into conscious substrate that maximizes pleasure felt per unit mass? At this point I'm kinda hoping AI takes over and replaces us because it seems more likely to do this with the universe than humanity would be.