>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-1-2
There’s a “physicalist general” happening in /his/ rn, tho as with the usual nature of the board it’s about one physicalist schizo seething at any philosophical concept that isn’t completely physically halal
Not quite philosophy but psychoanalysis. Still I think anons will get a kick out of it.>The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-semitism; for even in the nursery little boys hear that a Jew has something cut off his penis - a piece of his penis, they think - and this gives them a right to despise Jews. And there is no stronger unconscious root for the sense of superiority over women. Weininger (the young philosopher who, highly gifted but sexually deranged, committed suicide after producing his remarkable book, Geschlecht und Charakter), in a chapter that attracted much attention, treated Jews and women with equal hostility and overwhelmed them with the same insults. Being a neurotic, Weigninger was completely under the sway of his infantile complexes; and from that standpoint what is common to Jews and women is their relation to the castration complex. - Freud, A Phobia in a 5-Year-Old BoySnip snip. I like this passage because Freud can respect the talent and genius the oddball genius Weininger while recognizing that his weird hangups re: Jews and women come from the failure to grow into full maturity. The castration complex is our coming up against the hostile realities of failure, people not liking us, our desires being unrealizable or not themselves desirable, etc.Where's the philosophical connection? I'm a transcendental idealist and transcendental idealism is all about the insuperable conflict between the is and the ought. Freud's castration complex is simply this conflict expressed in psychoanalytic terms. Antisemitism and misogyny (and racism for that matter) represent the right-handed dogmatism, the dogmatism that denies sensibility, or that ignores being in favor of pure thinking. It can't stand that things aren't exactly as it thinks they ought to be and turns into hatred. Obv. I'm playing fast and loose with idealistic terminology here but Fichte said we should never have any fixed terminology and I'm not actually as unmoored from the primaries as it might sound.>The conditions of sensuous intuition, which contain in themselves their own means of distinction, [Leibniz] did not look upon as primitive, because sensibility was to him but a confused mode of representation and not any particular source of representations.Hence noogeny, as opposed to Locke's noogony. But this is false and unbalanced, it falls to critique.
>>25626558>Freud can respect the talent and genius the oddball genius Weininger I hate it when your post gets marred by some retarded typo or repetitiveness reeeeeeeee.>noogenyRight-handed dogmatism. The world is in some sense literally created by thinking. Hegel, orthodox Marxism are good post-Kantian examples of noogenetic systems.>noogonyAs Kant says in the Amphibolies Locke. Evolutionary psychology. Anything that denies thinking in favor of being, that bottles thought up into being and nature and denies to thinking its power. The noogeny/noogony distinction is again from Kant's Amphibolies though he only explicitly names noogony. Both noogeny and noogony are inherently systems of bondage because they pretend to answer everything in terms of what now is, or what the philosopher sees in what now is. They deny the 'gap' in which freedom can be found.>In one word, Leibnitz intellectualized phenomena, just as Locke, in his system of noogony (if I may be allowed to make use of such expressions), sensualized the conceptions of the understanding, that is to say, declared them to be nothing more than empirical or abstract conceptions of reflection. Instead of seeking in the understanding and sensibility two different sources of representations, which, however, can present us with objective judgements of things only in conjunction, each of these great men recognized but one of these faculties, which, in their opinion, applied immediately to things in themselves, the other having no duty but that of confusing or arranging the representations of the former.>NietzscheGenuinely breaks out of noogeny/noogony just too poetic and insufficiently autistic for my liking. A true heir to Kant, along with Fichte.
>>25626558what a great example of over intellectualization
>>25626575How can we not intellectualize? As finite rational beings we have to make sense of things, it’s a sacred task. The guy who is content to say “it is what it is” is the loser here. Even if it is true that, for instance, women have x, y, z qualities why should that lead to hatred of them?
>>25626575It’s not even thatvintellectual.>some men hate women for their womanly qualities. But if you think about it this line of thinking is similar to Freud’s castration complex and Kant’s dogmatism, and antisemitism as well. All of these things are sort of related.I wouldn’t call that hyperintellectual it’s just a shitpost really.
>>25626567>NietzscheHis critique of dogmatism becomes sheer anti-intellectualism and generates hordes of insufferable pseud followers who think any philosophy that’s not accessible to a 5th grader is some sort of trick or ruse. In the Lame and Uncool Science he expresses regret that he did not do more serious reading in philosophy. His anti-intellectualism also becomes an egotistical denial of intersubjective ethics, as if giving a damn about your fellow man is a sign of weakness. He was a pseud, the king of pseuds, a mere sophist and rhetor.
are there any good left takes on current aispecifically excluding any denialist crank stuff
>>25626716>His anti-intellectualism also becomes an egotistical denial of intersubjective ethicsOr, and hear me out, you're coping because you accept philosophic propositions less out of truth than from your desire that they hold.
>>25626972You could raise the same psychologizing pseudo-objection to any philosophy including Nietzsche’s. But the point for, say, Kant is not that I do treat others as ends (on the contrary) but that I *should*. What would it mean to NOT desire that we *should* treat people as ends? Psychopathy. You guys are shallow thinkers, simple as.
>>25626990 (continuing)The crucial point is that reason is transcendent and points beyond the self. Yoir response is a skeptical “nuh uh”. But the fact that in fact we do not appear to succeed at this is just where reason comes in. But I am positive that most of the Nietzscheans here are too retarded for anything but the philosophical equivalent of picture-books and grandiose fantasies and I won’t waste any more time trying to spoon-feed you.
>>25626990>What would it mean to NOT desire that we *should* treat people as ends? Psychopathy.>>25626996>I am positive that most of the Nietzscheans here are too retarded for anything but the philosophical equivalent of picture-books and grandiose fantasiesThese are very funny things coming from someone who spent the last week schizing out, praising Hitler, and talking about shit getting in your eye.
knowsoda.com/philosophy for a fun philosophy type quiz. apparently my guy is some guy ive never heard of but he seems cool
>The general idea is always an abstraction and, for that very reason, in some sort a negation of real life. Human thought… can grasp and name only the general significance of real facts, but never their material, individual side, palpitating, so to speak, with reality and life, and therefore fugitive and intangible. Science comprehends the thought of the reality, not reality itself; the thought of life, not life. This is its limit, its only really insuperable limit, because it is founded on the very nature of thought, which is the only organ of science. - Bakunin, God and the StateHere the revolutionary anarchist and idealist philosopher accurately summarizes Aristotelian nominalism and anti-realism. I absolutely love this guy.
>>25627138I didn’t praise Hitler I mocked Hitler. Shit didn’t get in my eye it was an “obsessional neurosis” a la Freud. Basically an elaborate joke mocking a certain way of looking at the world. Shame it went over your head I thought it was pretty damn blunt as far as sarcasm goes.
>>25628992 (continuing)Again, in Marx there is a straightforward dichotomy between idealism and materialism. For Bakunin theoretical materialism by negating reality leads to practical materialism (servility and barbarism); while practical materialism as first moment leads to theoretical idealism about human nature. He is advocating for the second. The division is not “which is first, thought or matter” but rather “do we begin from experience,” (critique) “or from celestial identity?” (absolute idealism, Marxism being a species). This perfectly aligns with my own views. Fichte’s starting points in the Jena systems is always simply self-consciousness, the wall, the furnace, even if self-consciousness *becomes* an otherworldly telos as the investigation proceeds. Kant begins with simply experience. But Schelling and Hegel start from an assumed identity. Fichte and Kant deny reality to this identity.Of course if all you read is picture-philosophy this seems like nonsense. If you think a philosophy that can’t be summed up in a paragraph or expressed in plain language is a waste of time then stay away, German idealism will be a huge waste of time for you.
>>25629003Spent a day workshopping that cope? Like you weren't schizo posting when you scribbled all of>>25612814>>25612893>>25613632>>25613720>>25613776>it was muh jokesWeird how all of the crazy shit you never post sober amounts to a joke when you're staying up days on end in a manic episode.
>Philosophy General #16
I’ve finished my first Jung, “The Psychology of the Unconscious”. In comparing him to Freud I would say first of all that there is no right or wrong in this sort of hermeneutic psychology, we’re in the realm of aesthetic interpretation, with the psyche as the art-piece being interpreted. There is simply no way to settle who is “right” about the unconscious for example. Jung illustrates this quite well when he interprets a dream now by Freud, now by Adler, and then claims that both are correct in different ways. Rather than look to the different conclusions of Freud and Jung it’s more illustrative imo to look at their methodology. Jung is a theorist seeking symmetry, he always steps back from the immediately given psychological phenomenon to seek the “sonething else” that makes it a whole. Freud is just the reverse, he has his big Jewish nose ground down in the symptoms. He is devoted to the method of free association; this means theory is always secondary to clinical experience. So Freud has this odd, disturbing jigsaw quality while Jung is more of an orb. You see this for instance when Jung criticizes Freud’s libido theory because it “ignores” that life involves death; Freud outsources death to the ego-instincts, reality principle, death drive. But when we desire do we really desire death? To me Jung makes too much sense, Freud is more interesting because more disciplined. And both suffer equally from the fault of egotism.
>>25631312>egotismImagine dreaming up an ego psychology over a century after Kant’s Paralogisms and Fichte’s Deduction of Representation had retroactively refuted any and all notions of a “self!” Ha ha ha! Tarte a la creme! Ego psychology! Just think of it! Ha ha ha! Tarte a la creme! Tarte a la creme! Tarte a la creme! Is the ego in the room with us right now, Freud and Jung? Ha ha ha! Tarte a la creme! Tarte a la creme!
>there are people who still take Freud and Jung seriously
>>25631452>for something like psychology to be real it must be quantitative; each person must be put onto an indifferent plane with every other person.Would it be going too far to characterize such a mentality as genocidal? Fuck it, it’s 4chan. This is genocidal sir you are basically a Nazi.I’d say Freud/Jung gain more than they lose by being unscientific and all the philosophy I love most is unscientific in the same way. Hegel said that quantity is characterized by an “indifferent” limit and this is nothing less than a falsification of reality, a mortal sin.
>>25631617 (cont)You see this in Freud’s uneasiness toward wuantitative verification of psychoanalysis. His perspective is “each of these cases is so different and the failures may just be people with narcissistic fixations who are unsuitable for snalysis.” Some see nothing but cope in this. Just think for a moment about what “le scientific method” leaves out, what sorts of thing are not subject to experiment. Have a good long think on it.
>>25631617Both Jung and Freud (or at least Jung, I don’t know Freud very well) considered the frequently encountered abhorrence to their findings to be well explained by those same findings. The conscious portion of the self tries to suppress any inkling of its other portion; and the whole Third Reich fiasco was/is considered a perfect demonstration of this at the collective level. All of the slurs and negative characterizations of other people you see on this website are a very obvious example of this projecting—all those violent, stupid, ever do threatening darkies who will defile our pure and perfect women/race/civilization/etc.
>>25631657Yes, it’s resistance to an aspect of your own self that society/education has led you to bury and abhor. Hence blacks come to represent this animalistic side of life and retarded racists are terrified of it because it is an aspect of themselves. My gay zoomer friend reacted negatively to my reading Freud, “he’s the guy who says I want to screw my mom!” No, he’s the guy who says you *don’t* want to do this and questions why there are these intense resistances around incest in the first place. No wound, no scar; there is no prohibition of something people do not on some level want to do. But not necessarily consciously. And besides (rambling now) we have all had “those” dreams, Plato writes in the Republic about dreaming about sleeping with his brothers (gay lol).Now reading Jung’s “The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious”. Better organized than the first or I may just be sinking into Jung’s headspace. “Why does the unconscious have to be this buried sewer? Why can’t it be something that actively confronts us as well on its own account?” Interesting shit for sure. And I appreciate that Jung is more broadly read than Freud. Still love the sheer weirdness of Freud.
>>25625843Where is the god lacan in all of this I often think that if lacan was as popular for pop pseuds as jung and freud /adv/ wouldn't be a board and incels can finally chill the fuck out
>>25631749What would you recommend as first readings in Lacan, and in what way do you think he provides a superior psychological framework compared to the big boys in Germany?I am not trying to be derisive or condescending, genuinely interested. I like Jung but am not devoted to him or anything.
Jay Dyer is the greatest philosopher of our time.
>>25631749I will read him. But do us pop pseuds an effort post, one to two paragraphs not too jargon heavy on why you like him.
>>25631767I recommend "how to read lacan" because it's confusing until you get what he's saying and then it's extremely simple almost too simple. He is saying this to put it in my words: when you are born into language you lose immediacy to yourself. Because language always contains something extra. You refer to yourself through language you think through language you are structured through language. Because you act through a filter of language and language is imprecise and cannot fully capture any subject there is always uncertainty in everything. This is called lack. You can never ever be sure of anything. If a girl texts you and says "I love you" you don't just simply say "me too" u might think "is this a joke, what does she mean like romantically? Is she making fun of me, is this a prank, is she crazy" there is always a surplus and the implications of this are extremely extremely far reaching. He answers all the big questions through this structure it becomes obvious what religion is, it becomes obvious why we self sabotage you can literally understand how ritual develops organically and what it means, for me it's an attempt at a gurantee which is a concept that only exists in fantasy. Because language is so imprecise there is no guarantees. But have you noticed, if you ever had a girl you were obsessed with but u could not ask out because of fear what happens? U might see angel numbers you might see her name on a coffee thing etc these are attempts to secure a gurantee. U might play mind games u are enjoying the surplus of language. That if u just so a sequence correctly she will sleep with you. This keeps your fantasy alive. Anyways that's a mish mash of his graph of desire I'm saying things like a schizo but lacan's model in my opinion NOT good for psychoanalysis but for life? It's overly-alive it's so alive I encounter it every day of my life. It's extremely powerful.
>>25631819Thanks anon, this idea of a “lack” relates to concerns I’ve had since Aristotle, about how language always misses the This, the This is the ground of everything and yet by definition (lol) it eludes language and universality. In transcendental idealism, too, the noumenal object (the Good) is a This like that but as soon as you try to pin it down theoretically it is gone. And yet you must pin it down, you can’t help yourself. I know Lacan was heavily influenced by Hegel… sounds based af basically I really look forward to reading him. Though idk when exactly I will as I have a lot going on rn including re-reading what I consider the main idealist holy books, learning about soviet economics, Freud, Jung, Deleuze, etc. There is so much cool shit to learn about in this life.
