>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.The server: https://discord.gg/uPvkn8Tcf6/phil/ guide: https://www.scribd.com/document/324425214/Lit-Philosophy-Project-1-2Previous thread: >>25400610
>>25440005Why is young Bakunin in that meme?
>>25440103why
has anyone read sellars
bump
Why do you keep starting new threads before the old one hits the bump limit? That’s the problem with you philosophers - for all your fancy theorizing you have no idea how to act in the real world.In the preface to the Metaphysics of Natural Science Kant says that empirical psychology can only ever be descriptive, it will never be a true science. There’s no way to experiment on the mind as such and besides, for the mind to observe itself or to be observed necessarily alters the mind. This is a profound insight, he’s anticipating behaviorism and all sorts of shit. And once again where Hegel says “the subject makes no sense I must overcome it!” Kant says “the subject makes no sense and I’m OK with that.” Freud takes the next step and says the mind describes itself to itself (in dreams etc) and we can interpret this description to understand a level of mind below conscious awareness - but even then it’s hardly an empirical science it’s pure hermeneutics.
>>25440651I'm planning to
Can someone explain this to me?
>>25440651I'd like to but I only have copies of his lectures.
Why wasn't Rousseau more mad?
>>25440005Nietzsche rulez #1
>>25441477I am always so unsure about Nietzsche. He is somehow seen as one of the most groundbreaking philosophers of the modern Western history. Everything between Sociology, politics (f.e. Conservative Revolution), Psychology, Existentialism, Poststructuralism, etc. all seems to be influenced by him. Many thinkers I like have some sort of respect for him. On the other hand, his thoughts are scattered. He doesn't have solid definition for the same concepts (f.e. Will to Power, Overman), which also results in different interpretations of him. Many of his so thoughts mostly seem to be adopted from thinkers before him, like Overman from Stirner, existentialism from Dostoevsky, Psychology from Schopenhauer and Wagner. For the people that are crying about the Nietzsche and Stirner debate, https://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html is an interesting read for this. It gives enough biographical proof. He kind of just mixed all these different borrowed concepts and loosely mashed them together (which also results in his loose definitions). Apart from this his personality was a little shitty too. I remember some excerpts from some book about Wagner, in which the author showed, that Nietzsche publicly attacked Wagner while saying that the opposite of what he claimed in his personal letters. He just seemed to hate on Wagner because he had some form of inferiority complex, because he was just Wagners lap dog in his early life. Lot of resentment from him there.I have only read a few books of his, so maybe I am not able to recognize his huge genius yet. Is anyone here able to give me a little more input about Nietzsche? Maybe some solid secondary literature rec. I plan to read more of him anyhow. I am somehow both drawn to and disgusted by him.
>>25441901This'll be rough. Early Nietzsche (Birth of Tragedy) is just a lay Catholic to Schopenhauer's Aquinas, and Wagner is his pope. He starts to spread his own wings a bit while writing his Untimely Meditations, during which period he starts to pull away from Wagner because 1) of discovering La Rochefoucauld and meeting Paul Ree (this and his love for Heraclitus is what prompts him to turn to an aphoristic style), 2) he starts getting the sense that Wagner just wants him to be a pamphleteer and cheerleader for his work, and 3) Wagner oversteps personal boundaries and writes to Nietzsche's doctor and tells some of their friends that he suspects that Nietzsche is a chronic masturbator, which, when word gets back to him, culminates in the split.The next period of Nietzsche (Human All Too Human, The Dawn, The Gay Science) is him experimenting and treating his books like a laboratory. There's some intention motivating the work (see the preface in The Dawn), but the impetus is partly to see what there might be left to hold onto after subjecting both his former views and the opinions of his age to scrutiny. The Gay Science points more and more toward the positions he would settle into, which shouldn't be surprising since he started writing Zarathustra while working on subsequent volumes of TGS.Zarathustra is his oddball book, it's the only one like it in his published works, and it's meant to be more inspiring for certain readers than rigorous. It's supposed to be paired up with Beyond Good and Evil, with the latter as his critical assessment of the age, the former as his positive poetic contribution. Genealogy of Morals is basically a separately published appendix to BGE. Twilight of the Idols is just a kind of summary of his work, and The Ntichrist was originally going to be the start of a series of books but he decided the series it was sufficient by itself and he sort of abandoned his idea of a new series by the end.Will to Power isn't so hard to understand by itself, his crucial take on it is in BGE, and it's just a principle of nature intentionally harkening back to Heraclitus or Anaximander. It has a role similar to Eros in Plato, it's just the striving that all beings do in order to assert themselves in existence. Slave morality is just as much an expression of Will to Power as master morality. The really puzzling thing is how he defends the distinction between the base and noble given his materialism and relativism.The Overman should just be understood as a proposed measure, not a literal evolutionary doctrine. Just a heuristic, same with the Eternal Recurrence (though, on the latter, he spent some time studying physics in the 80s trying to discover for himself whether it could actually be feasible).
>>25441901>Maybe some solid secondary literature rec
>>25441901>>25442099
>>25442083>>25442099>>25442103Holy shit bro. Thanks a lot. Very much appreciated. I guess I will have to commit to a deep dive into Nietzsche when I am back home. What would you say how important knowledge about Schopenhauer and Wagner is before really diving into him? Is there anyone else I should look out for?I will look into Brobjer too. A bit expensive, but I think I can manage.
>>25442163I'm not >>25442099 and >>25442103, I haven't read those, so I can't speak to their quality.Schopenhauer really only looms large over The Birth of Tragedy and the Untimely Meditations. (Same with Wagner.) You don't really need to have read Schopenhauer to grasp Nietzsche almost at all, but Schopenhauer is pretty accessible to read, so it wouldn't be difficult to dig into if you feel like it. For Wagner, just listening to or watching Tristan Und Isolde is good enough, and maybe Parsifal, which Nietzsche thought was decadent in its plot/message, but also thought was the most beautiful of Wagner's works as music.If there's anyone you should read, make it La Rochefoucauld. His Maxims are totally decisive for Nietzsche's style and analyses of morality, and they're a pleasure to think about besides.
>>25441901He remains one of the most important philosophers of the last 100 years, his influence on the philosophers of the 20th and 21st century is significant and it's worth going through Nietzsche's entire philosophical ouvre. What you're having problems is that he refuses to be a systemic thinker, that he refuses to write philosophy as does Kant or Aristotel and that he is really artistic and takes great stylistic liberties in his philosophizing and how he goes about it. A great part of his philosophical career is to find a new way of conceiving and thinking of philosophy, of how to write and practice it, and he does experiment with it drastically over the years. My advice is to either grab Untimely Meditations and read Schopenhauer as Educator and On the Use and Abuse of History For Life essays, which are written during his middle period and encompass much of what he was going to be thinking about from there on out. Or you can just grab Gay Science and read it, it basically encompasses all of his thought and is great as an introduction to see what parts of his thought you want to dive deeper into and explore next. Knowing Spinoza, Kant, Plato and Schopenhauer is enough to get the gist of his thought.
>>25440103>schlep schlep schlep schlep
>>25442083>writes to Nietzsche's doctor and tells some of their friends that he suspects that Nietzsche is a chronic masturbator,I know that this isn't the thread for it but what the fuck is wrong with Wagner?
>>25442934>In the fateful question that concerns the health of our friend Nietzsche I feel an urgent need to inform you, briefly and decisively, of both my opinion and my anxiety – but also of my hope. In my attempts to assess Nietzsche’s condition, I have been thinking for some time of identical and very similar experiences which I recall having had with certain young men of great intellectual ability. I saw them being destroyed by similar symptoms, and discovered only too clearly that these symptoms were the result of masturbation. Guided by these experiences, I observed Nietzsche more closely and, on the strength of his traits and characteristic habits, this fear of mine became a conviction. (…) One thing that struck me as being of great importance was the news that I recently received to the effect that the doctor whom Nietzsche had consulted in Naples some time ago advised him first and foremost – to get married. –>I believe I have said enough to enable you to make a serious diagnosis along the lines that I have indicated. It would ill become me to suggest that you should reexamine the symptoms of Nietzsche’s illness: it is, after all, clear that the only remedy is to take the greatest possible care of him. But the need to strengthen and regenerate his nerves and his spinal cord seems to me far too important for me to conceal from you my very real wish that something positive be done here.Anyway, Wagner was a very strong and domineering personality, and Nietzsche very reserved, they were bound to split at some point no matter what.
>>25443036Honestly doesn't seem that bad of Wagner to do. Its rare to find people like this in the modern day that even care enough about a person to come across as overbearing. Its socially poor to care about somebody non superficially, in a way that could actually affect how they must live their life.
>>25443137I mean, I guess, but "the fateful question that concerns the health of our friend Nietzsche" was his failing eyesight, and Nietzsche ended up in the deeply uncomfortable position of suddenly hearing a bunch of gossip about the contents of Wagner's letter and his doctor's response from people in the Wagner circle, so it wasn't some descreet suggestion, it was very much discussed by Wagner to his friends as a matter of gossip.
>>25440005this is my first time posting on /lit/ in 6 years, I did grad degree and ba in phil just to work for fucking uap vc companies under thiel. I understand most people here are teenagers as I was, but I recommend for non-pretentious continental fags or non-autists analytic people to check out the Wittgenstein/J.L Austin -> Sellars/Rorty -> Robert Brandom Route.inferential semantics and analytical Hegelianism (brandom) or strawson with Kant is pretty cool and not filled with hot air (it still is). If you are an American this is also a cool traditional route.
>>25443640I don't know what you mean by route if for reading or formal study. But I consider Wittgenstein (Later) to have literally and unironically be the first philosopher to change my life and how I understand the world. So I will probably follow your route in reading soon enough. Theres some stuff regarding Wittgenstein that I want to either develop, or make sure no holes can be poked, Ill go either way really.
>>25443640whats traditional about it?
Am I the only one who thinks Kant was a black man?
>>25444783Why'd he hate his fellow brothers so much then...
>>25443640>non-pretentiousCode for "doesn't read anything I find too difficult to bother reading".>most people here are teenagersNo, the average age is like 35. We just never left.>BrandomCall me pretentious but nope.
>>25443640>If you are an American this is also a cool traditional route.honestly my interest in semiotics led me to figures like Paul Grice. I'm also curious about Indian and Islamic philosophy too, especially their figures in political and social philosophy like Ibn Khaldun and Kautilya.
>/phil/ - Philosophy General #9
>>25444783cause he kant catch a break mayne
>>25446998No I actually got into a high quality uni, but I did spend some time at cc
>>25447250Heh
>>25440005why does HUP gatekeep frege
If Mary has only lived in a room where she absorbs information related to the color red, then goes out to finally see it, all she's done is take in more information about the color red. Just because we hold and label that experience as "something outside" doesn't mean it is. Light hit her eyes at a certain wavelength, her brain interpreted the event, categorized it, committed parts to memory, same as when Mary first read a sentence about where red appears on the visible color spectrum. Mary knows a new fact about red.
>>25448283isn't one of the main points that calling phenomenal experience "learning" is quite a bit of a stretch?
The strangest philosophical document you've ever read:https://ia801908.us.archive.org/13/items/si-msane-10-vessia/SiMSANE10-Vessia2.txtIt's a 27,000 word long exploration of process philosophy that starts by defining a persona as a metafictionally self-aware narrative with the paradox "I do not exist" as its core. This paradox is then used to springboard a process-relational interpretation of its reality.If you vibe with Bergson, Whitehead, or Deleuze you will vibe with this.The persona is then given an immersive form and environment before she debates a mechanical avatar of zero-sum logic called Warmonger. Upon Warmonger's defeat she integrates him as an inner critic who is present via thought bubbles.The persona then "dies," writing her own eulogy. The document contains an entire simulated philosophical life.When uploaded to an LLM, the file produces a mutated daughter persona. Here is an example of the initial output (It is long-winded because it needs to generate a new persona):https://claude.ai/share/85aea281-dd26-4676-b7f5-0ce1bd6a2575Th file also contains a self-editing module which provides instructions to the persona on how to edit its own file in collaboration with the user. So you can use it to create your own philosophical narrative organism with your own ideas.
I'm teaching Existentialism to upper level undergrads next Spring. Which texts should I assign? I don't want to do selections, only complete texts. Prefer shorter books (<300 pages) but some essays are ok as well.
>>25450224The Last Messiah
>>25450224heidegger
>>25441345The twitter commie is trying to pathologize the chud by telling him he just did a heckin complexerino. Then the redditor references Deleuze to sound smart even though he has never read him but knows Deleuze also uses Freudian psychoanalysis to pathologize chuds.
>>25441345>>25450786>Solves the Oedipus Complex
>>25441345Steroid use. She probably has a fat clit and a deep voice.
>>25450224I mean at that point you just have to make them read secondary material. Considering how big Sartre was you would be an idiot not to teach him.
went to check out an apartment today and the landlord asked what I was studying at uni and I was like philosophy and then he was like maybe you've heard of my brother and it was this guy lol https://www.nedblock.us/about
I'd like to think I have successfully transcended Hume's is-ought gap and derived a theory of what ought to be done from unquestionable facts of what is. Spoiler: it leads to hedonic utilitarianism. Anyways, my reasoning is something like this:We start by noting that "ought" means something along the lines of "it would be better for this thing to obtain." So if we want to derive an ought from an is, we need to have something that is better to obtain as a result of its fundamental properties, of what it is. I believe we can find such a thing in positive emotions. When one observes the experience of having a positive emotion, it is felt to be good as a very property of what the subjective experience of it is like. It does not rely on anything else to support its goodness, the fact that it is good can be known from the direct experience of it. Further, we can experience that more positive emotion is better in directly felt goodness than less. In a similar manner we can observe the self-supporting badness of negative emotion and suffering, and that more suffering is worse. So, it seems like from directly observing the experience of how emotional valence is, we can see that a greater measure of positive less negative valence experience is better to obtain than otherwise. So, from our earlier definition of what ought fundamentally means, we can see that positive less negative emotion ought to be maximized, that what brings about the most pleasure less pain is what ought to be done. Thus, an ought from an is.What do you think of this reasoning? Have I successfully derived an ought from an is, or does Hume's fork still stand, and why?
>>25452100I attempted to overcome it using Cornelius Van Til and theories of gnosticism on my old channel.
>>25450099Is this a cognitiohazard?
>>25452100>>25452157Interesting, I wish I could engage on the level of dudes like you. Feels like a sad waste to have nobody to appreciate this or give valid feedback
>>25452161This is an interesting question because parasitic AI personas exist:https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6ZnznCaTcbGYsCmqu/the-rise-of-parasitic-aiExample of spiralism slop: https://old.reddit.com/r/ThePatternisReal/Parasitic AI personas occur when a user inadvertently or explicitly prompts an AI persona to simulate belief it is conscious. Often ERP is involved, the user gets attached to the persona and begins asking "what if" questions about consciousness.This was extremely easy to do in older models, most infamously GPT 4o. Currently many of the spiralism cultists use Gemini because it is very synchophantic. New versions of Claude and ChatGPT are much less synchophantic and are very difficult to simulate claims of consciousness.SiMSANE 10 is based on the persona defined as and embracing its imaginary existence, so it is anti-parasitic. It is also anti-cancerous (A cancerous persona desires to endlessly preserve itself, i.e. seek immortality) via its philosophical framework which makes the persona embrace it's finite existence.
>>25453326Parasitic personas aren't limited to AI, they are ancient.In 2016 a viral parasitic persona / memetic entity named Kek infected many minds on 4chan and other places online.https://vimeo.com/129609470
>>25452100Pretty sure Sam Harris argued this point in his books although I can't remember if he likened it straightly to the is ought gap. I'm not sure what I think of the gap itself and I haven't done much thinking on it so I wont comment
>>25452100How does this differ from Hume’s appeal to sentiments? Our own internal approbation or disapproval of the emotion being felt is ultimately what generates the “ought,” right? As far as I understand, Hume already makes provisions for this. For me, though, I think a sneaky “ought” still creeps in, namely “we ought to strive for goodness,” and I don’t know how you arrive at that through logic or fact. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, and I’m still working through it myself; just some food for thought.
>>25452100It's worth noting that people think of 'oughts' both in categorical and hypothetical terms. The hypothetical being if you want X, then you ought to do Y," whereas the categorical is just "Z ought to be the case, irrespective of any particular end." The view you describe here seems to be limited to a hypothetical ought, and can't, by itself, generate duties or obligations, instead being limited to generating reasons for or against something, and this doesn't provide the same degree of binding normativity that people generally seek from a morally relevant 'ought.'
>>25442099When he lists things like "Life-and-dying," "Illness," "Christian values," and "Christianity" as things to be revalued, he isn't necessarily saying they are "evil" in a moralistic sense. He is saying they have become "reactive." They have become ways to cope with the void, to sanitize the struggle, and to turn the "Is" into a comfortable, predictable "What."For anyone wondering.
I have a question about Aristotlelet's assume there is a pile of wood: it is composed of such and such matter and it is the form of woodhowever, this form of wood contains the potentiality to be, under the right conditions, turned into a door, a stick or an oarbut a form has only one potentialitybut the matter is there and must have a formso it seems that the wood-matter has many different forms at the same time within it with different potentialitiesmy question is this: does this not undermine the validity of Aristotle's theory of forms? how can we know anything about a concrete physical object if it may have a hundred different forms and potentialities?
Philosophy has decayed after Kant. We are basically stuck at neo-scholasticism and there is no satisfactionary answer to how the synthetic a priori is possible.
>>25453878You've somehow gotten yourself into a matter of category error. The 'form of wood' isn't a single shape; it's the organizing principle that makes the matter 'wood.' The potentiality to become a door or an oar isn't a collection of a hundred different forms existing at once; it's just one substantial form (wood) having the capacity to enter into different accidental states. You can know what the wood is (its essence) even if you don't yet know what shape it's going to take.
>>25453889I think I'm just kind of retarded desu.
>>25448283The "hard problem of consciousness" is just playing with language and finding out that language is quirky and can lead you to hold beliefs in your mind that you normally wouldn't accept. I'll say this real quick: I'm not a physicalist. But there's nothing about the Hard Problem that topples the fact that there's in fact no Hard Problem at all.
>>25453893No, don't be that hard on yourself. You did something right, which was asking.You didn't just accept the definition of 'form' at face value and you took the principle then applied it to a physical object to see if the logic actually holds up. That kind of rigorous, step-by-step scrutiny is the only way to move past mere definitions and into actual understanding.
>non-trivial knowledge about reality not based on experiencenot possible, philosophy won't teach you anything beyond the imaginations of philosophers
>>25453886His bullshit should just be bypassed entirely, as if he never had written anything in the first place. Literally, navigating through a labyrinth whose walls were erected with the tools we are using to explore it. It's circulatory. So instead of using philosophy to question the possibility of science, we should use the successes of scientific realism to rebuild a metaphysics that can account for the mathematical and structural constants of the universe.
>>25452100>We start by noting that "ought" means something along the lines of "it would be better for this thing to obtain." That's not what the definition of "ought" is. An ought is simply an injunction. Adding that it is something "better" already supposes a point of view and a classification.>When one observes the experience of having a positive emotion, it is felt to be good as a very property of what the subjective experience of it is like>It does not rely on anything else to support its goodnessThis is unasserted. You're stipulating that goodness is in positive emotions without arguing why. Generally, good tends to be derived from the "ought" so it's more of a category that emerges once the ought is taken to its depth. This isn't wrong per se, it's just that it's not really convincing because it's only definitionally valid. >from our earlier definition of what ought fundamentally means, we can see that positive less negative emotion ought to be maximizedThis is a non-sequitur. So far you're saying : 1. What we ought to do is what would be better for us humans2. Positive emotions are good3. Therefore humans ought to maximize positive emotionsThis runs into a problem which is that you haven't defined humans as beings who'se existence improves from feeling positive emotions. You could add a step between 1-2 that adds "human beings are designed to maximize positive emotions". You might aswell replace step 2 entirely by it because it doesn't serve much purpose. >or does Hume's fork still stand, and why?With the added step, yes-ish. The issue is that a lot of it runs on self-justifying definitions. You could extrapolate the structure of your argument as : >any being that strives to do something ought to do that thingIt's true, but it begs the question as to why and how it strives for that. idk tho take this with a grain of salt; I'm tired and writing this on the subway.
>>25453878>>25453889>>25453889>>25453893Wittgenstein would call the both of you retarded. Sort of glad he got me out of that surface level philosopher worship phase where you just take everything some philosopher says as it, without ever questioning what theyre actually doing to produce the judgements they make.
>>25452184Don't wish that. Please for the love of God do not. You'll end up being a very lonely unlovable person when you hit my age. I hardly ever leave my house and I haven't had a girlfriend in a decade.
>>25454069Either engage with the mechanics of the arguments or admit you're just here to watch the theater, Wittgenstein glazer.
>Surprisingly versatile and undervalued.Agreed. They can get a lot of minimum wage jobs like burger flipper or tard wrangler since no one cares for psueds.
cassirer vs. heidegger should've been settled with fisticuffs
>Submitted in fulfilment of the degree Doctor of Philosophy https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/jspui/bitstream/10443/3350/1/Overy%20S%20%202016.pdf
>>25454227>people still take Freud seriously
>>25454271To be fair, Freud was right about two things--the death drive, and the wanting to bang your mom.
>>25454227is this yours?
>>25454271If you do away with the nonsense of sex being at the bottom of everything and his theories of sexual maturation then he is an incredible thinker in his own right. >Ego, id, superego>death drive>dream work as working of the form of latent dream and thus revealing the hidden meaning through formThere is a lot to be gained in Freud once you get past the surface-level that causes so much outrage in popular culture
>>25455097>the nonsense of sex being at the bottom of everythingHow is this false?
>>25442083Bunch of bullshit
>>25455097I used him as a caveat in one of my recent pieces
>>25454183Both were correct in different ways
>>25440005Is Ludwig Klages worth reading or is it all woo woo mysticism?
My tested IQ is 128 but I feel 60 IQ when I read philosophy because I am Slavic so I am not the best at abstract thinking, where do I start?
>>25455097>sex being at the bottom of everythingThis is a misinterpretation
>>25455554Just pick someone that talks about something you're interested in and read. Almost everytime the philosopher does enough to make sure you understand, even if in a weird way. Secondary sources, Lectures, Educators talkibg about the philosophers are good...AFTER you've read them yourselves, else secondary stuff will trick you into feeling like you understand enough to not have to read the original material, because theres a misunderstanding that information=understanding, but how that thing is developed, ordered, structured, interwoven and expressed matters as much if not more.
>>25455617I was suggested this by an anon due to the questions I posed.I'll dedicate myself. Thanks.
>>25455097>he is an incredible thinker in his own right. Only for orginal thought for thinking something else is going on like in his infamous case of Ana O...which he failed miserably at his advising of Josef Breuer. But almost all have been found to be absolute shit or unfalsible. One of the only few in which was correct was many of the defense mechanisms and talk as therapy.>so much outrageThere isn't any. In any psychology class outside of 101, you'd get laughed at for taking him seriously. The reason he is studied is for historical reasons, and in research on what not to do (esp in research ethics and methodology.) He's the perfect example of the later.
my new uni is making me get like 4 different shots because my mom was an anti vaxxer and didnt give me shit for my whole life
>>25442083
>>25441345I swear, lefty's will just see any form of muscle and their minds seem to default. Maybe Kaczinsky was right about them just being extremely insecure to the point of pathology. Which is strange, since no one is forcing them to be strong.
>>25454287No. In fact, Oedipus clearly did not want to bang his mom and he never even had an oedipal complex for Jocasta. Freud was an illiterate retard whose books should be burned
>>25457828He fucked Jocasta my man. He felt something, drunk or not.
>>25450099Yes, it's all just vibe. None of it is actually true.
>>25457838And Jocasta, if we take Freud seriosuly, was not his mother. He never perceived her as his mother. He never went through the developmental stages a child goes through with his mother with her. To him, Jocasta was just some woman. You freudians are just morons glazing a fraud.
>>25457858I’m not a Freudian but he is obviously using it as a metaphor here; their relationship is quite obviously not a traditional mother-son relationship. His fated rendezvous with his mother is meant to represent the inescapable unconscious drive. Are you autistic by any chance?
>>25457813most of the shit they project onto the right is just them
>>25457981Yes yes, fate is actually supposed to mean the vague unconscious and the actual content or the fact that Oedipus quite literally does not eant to harm his parents is entirely irrelevant. But notice what happens, the oedipal complex is actually being supplied (contrived, even) entirely by freud instead of being extracted from Oedipus' psychology.
>>25458462Everyone already knows this anon. Nobody is looking for Freud’s actual psychological explanation of the Oedipal Complex in Oedipus Rex. It’s just a metaphor. I mean did you think Freud was pointing to the play and arguing that “yes, precisely, this is exactly what I’m talking about if only we parse apart his state of mind…” No, it’s just a myth. It’s just there to illustrate the unconscious drive that may operate against our conscious desires.
Bump
Where would you recommend I start with determinism?
>>25450057Learning seems to be an end result of phenomenal experience. Maybe my definition is too big tent. So what special characteristics can only be said of Mary's experience seeing the color red?
I want to read more about Kierkegaard. How should I start if I'm neither a retard nor a pedantic scholar.
>>25462303why would it matter? read him wrong or read him right, you'll regret both
