File: wallpaperflare.com_wallpaper.jpg (1.01 MB, 1360x768)

1.01 MB JPG

>>84216174
I fucking love chat's counterattack!

>>84216259
hell yeah! this thread isn't just for show

File: 1749067218722743.png (274 KB, 720x541)

274 KB PNG

>>84216327
did you read the book it was based on? honestly had to read it to fully understand what was going on in the movie.
also I think this is where the uc time line should've ended or at least everything related to char should've ended

>>84216357
Beltorchika's Children? No I have not read that. Hi-Nu> Nu
Sazabi > Nightingale
though
there's also a prequel to CCA/BC that takes place a few days before, I think it's hi-streamer but it might not be hi-streamer

>>84216373
no actually hi streamer is the book the movie was based on, beltrochika's children is based on a script tomino suggested for the movie (or something like that)
basically both books are different versions of the same story, personally I preferred beltrochika's children because amuro has a son in that one

>>84216357
i wish they would continue the IBO timeline but yeah UC should have ended there

>>84216394
oh, i had only read the first chapter of Hi-Streamer so I guess I assumed it was just a prequel, but yeah i guess it goes past that too.
doesn't amuro's son generate a fucking forcefield while it's still in the womb or something? kind of silly. maybe that doesn't happen though idk

File: disgust 201.png (92 KB, 484x480)

92 KB PNG

>he reads philosophy

anyway, do you guys have a favorite philosopher or subfield/topic?

>>84216401
>doesn't amuro's son generate a fucking forcefield while it's still in the womb or something? kind of silly. maybe that doesn't happen though idk
yeah that actually happens, in the movie they change it to that T shaped thing (psychoframe?) generating the force field

>>84216419
oh yeah... that makes sense though because psychoframe is actually supposed to be able to do stuff like that, whereas newtypes it's just like they can do whatever they want but every time you take a ball out of that bag the series gets worse apparently

>>84216434
but enough about gundams

The topic of discussion - Nietzsche. A philosophy that lets us have power, or a symptom of barbarism.

>>84216471
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Truth_and_Lies_in_a_Nonmoral_Sense
i'm gonna read this right now

>>84216471
>Nietzsche
Babby's first edgey philosopher.

that's because i'm an undergraduate

Is this going to be the new philosophy gen on /lit/?
>pseudo-intellectual crap
>26 letter invented words that has a word already for it that is 3-5 letters
>graduates of Philosophy 101
>gigantic wall of text that takes up 8 posts all hitting character limit when it could be said in three sentences
>no application of the KISS principle
>no application at all to the real world even back then
>women's pussies drying up within a 10 mile radius from the "philosophers" in the /phil/ gen

>>84216551
as with any intellectual thing there's a lot of ego involved i guess

>>84216174
I don't really get philosophy.
I like Schopenhauer as a person. I agree with a lot of the things he said and stood for.
I tried looking at his 'philosophy' once - the world as will and representation, and all that. Absolute fucking nonsense. Basically religious bullshit without the gods or worship. Literal 'im 14 and this is deep' level horseshit. Much like fantasy football, I cannot fathom what anyone gets out of this, nor why they would engage in it. It is supposed to be a thought experiment? If so, why dress it up as anything else? Is it supposed to be taken seriously? I can't see how or why any reasonable, sane person would be capable of that. No. The only logical conclusion left to me is that it's something that's supposed to make people feel smart and special despite their lack of intellect or exceptional qualities. I suspect the man knew this and was deliberately exploiting it to ensure he was remembered, because I can't imagine him wasting time on it sincerely.

>>84216838
Schoppy doesn't make sense unless you've read Kant though, don't you know the meme (in fact he started it himself)?

>>84216925
I didn't say it didn't make sense. It makes sense. He's talking about how our perceptions differ on levels we can't really even compare in a meaningful way, and about the nature of want being insatiable. I just don't understand what value anyone finds in 'studying' religiously phrased explanations of things that are painfully obvious to anyone who bothers to give them a moment's thought, or in turning those very obvious things into a psuedo-religion.

>>84216956
he's not a good philosopher, for one. he's a good aphorist though

>>84216973
I see, perhaps it was a bad example of the subject then. Like if someone wanted to get into reading and picked up Twilight.
Can you tell me who's a good philosopher, and more to the point, what the point of engaging with philosophy actually is, and what I'm supposed to get out of it?

>>84216174
let us study something up-to-date in the 21st century.

>>84217114
>what the point of engaging with philosophy actually is
there's different views on that...
>and what I'm supposed to get out of it?
it's supposed to make you a more well rounded person, but that's kind of not that important. i mean what if i asked you what i get out of playing video games? what would your answer be?
>Can you tell me who's a good philosopher
Spinoza I guess, who is actually very similar to Schopenhauer anyway

>>84217131
https://philarchive.org/rec/STATIW-2
been meaning to read this

>>84217147
>https://philarchive.org/rec/STATIW-2
sounds like pseudointellectual hoopla to me. verbal masturbation isn't good.

>>84217134
>it's supposed to make you a more well rounded person
I have autism, being well-rounded was never something I was capable of, between the black-and-white thinking and the 'spiky profile'.
>i mean what if i asked you what i get out of playing video games? what would your answer be?
If you asked me, I'd say that at their core they're supposed to be stimulating and rewarding, either through giving you puzzles and problems to solve, or through elevating your heartrate enough to evoke an adrenaline response in a 'safe' environment and allowing you to overcome a challenge. But I'd also concede that my ideas and standards for them are dated, and that there's a lot of modern games built around turning the player into an addict by taking advantage of dopamine responses, and that my idea of what someone should get out of games is going to differ from that of a zoomer who's grown up with a phone in their hand.

But I see what you're saying. Maybe the better question would be, what do YOU get out of philosophy?

>Spinoza
I might check that out.

>>84217181
>sounds like pseudointellectual hoopla to me. verbal masturbation isn't good.
that's always a tastier pie, anon

>>84217254
>The neglect of transcendental idealism is no doubt partly due to lack of clarity about
what, precisely, transcendental idealism is.
the fuck does that even mean? No shit there is no clarity in this made up horseshit. None of it is true or real. Just a waste of time and money.
>transcendental idealism
my ass

>>84217264
read footnote 22

>>84217265
>Williamson argues, contra idealism and verificationism, that "elusive objects" are possible. in my terminology, elusive objects are objects that are not possibly intuited by any intellect. If the possibility in question is metaphysical possibility, elusive objects present no counterexample to this form of idealism...

there is no point in reading any futher. this is suck a mindfuck in a bad way.
>elusive objects are objects that are not possibly intuited by any intellect.
non existing shit doesn't exist. breaking fucking news.
TL;DR: It means nothing, alright.

Schizo-Autist horse shoe theory, is it valid or not?

>>84217134
Philosophers try very hard to justify the usefulness of their field. Some reasons I've read:

- Background knowledge/paradigms to establish breakthroughs in science or just help your creativity. Einstein said that the idea of relative/differing perceptions among people gave him the idea that sparked his theory of relativity.
- Your beliefs subconsiously influence the decisions you make. If you don't believe in free will, that may make you a less motivated person. If you do not believe in altruism and that humans are ultimately selfish, this may make you spend more than your more trusting competitors on security, but may also make you more impervious to sabotage.
- It gives you tools on how to think and informs you of standard courtesies in argument. What I've found:
-- Knowing and spotting a bunch of fallacies is good for debate (and using those fallacies and hoping other people don't notice, can win you a debate if you're a dirty player).
-- Something like, if you are wondering if cats make you crazy, then you can work backwards by saying that it is more likely that sane people own cats than cats turning everyone crazy.
-- The Principle of Charity, Occam's Razor, The Black Swan
-- Knowing what you believe in can make decision-making easier. In Philosophy, one belief leads to another (or so I've been told). So if you believe in utilitarian ethics and someone throws the trolley problem at you, then you know that you'd pull the lever to save more people.

But it's easier to give broad reasons why Philosophy is important than to read about people arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and convincing yourself that this is going to change your life.

>>84217287
>If the possibility in question is conceptual possibility then Williamson is baldly asserting that it is conceivable that there is something that is not conceivably intuited.
if there is an [object] and a possibility for anything to be an [object] and there is an [object] you can't intuit then you can't intuit an [object] which means some [objects] are not [objects] but are [objects]

>>84217292
>to give broad reasons why Philosophy is important
nta. philosophy was used as a tool to describe the unknown while it was unknown. much like religion and mythical/fantasy believes did in general. None of it is applicable in the world of science and technology. Completely outdated.

>>84217292
how come if i make a music thread no one talks about how unimportant music actually is?

>>84217314
detractors of the discipline are often fine with calling everything an anorak, but that is not good practice because at some point there has to be something that goes beyond the one-dimensionality of giving things names

>>84217291
autist: how can i rape this person to death?
schizo: i will be raped to death soon

>>84217292
>Knowing and spotting a bunch of fallacies is good for debate (and using those fallacies and hoping other people don't notice, can win you a debate if you're a dirty player).
I can't say debates are ever interesting when they devolve into accusations of fallacies, and if you need to knowingly rely on one then that says to me you need to examine why you're even debating for this thing in the first place. Finding the truth of the matter and expanding your understanding is far more important than 'winning'.

>So if you believe in utilitarian ethics and someone throws the trolley problem at you, then you know that you'd pull the lever to save more people.
I believe the reality of the trolley problem is that the answers people give from the comfort of their own homes and what they'd actually do in that situation vary greatly, and reading about a belief structure isn't going to change what the subconscious you chooses under pressure in the moment. There is often a vast difference between who people have convinced themselves they are, and who they actually are, as one is often an attempt to deny or disregard the other.

Reading you talking about it makes me think that perhaps there's value in it just in exposing myself to new ideas, but then you mention people arguing about 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' and I go 'Not those ideas.'

>>84217348
the knowledge of how the universe technically functions is important, what name you give to a specific phenomena is irrelevant.

>>84217314
This makes sense, and helps me contextualise it better. And ironically makes it more appealing because I now understand it to be people's attempts to make sense of their own world and can appreciate it for that. I was under the impression these were things that were still considered to be relevant in the modern day, but this makes it seem more like reading Freud even though his ideas have been disproven.

>>84217374
sure, to that extent it's important to know what is more general: where everything comes from or what it is made of

>>84217379
>things that were still considered to be relevant in the modern day
very much relevant to the masses who can not accept the reality. and looks like will be for a very long time, if not forever.
>why are we here
is the favorite one, right? The technical answer is; no reason, freak accident, and it does not matter. But people have a hard time coping with and accepting being an irrelevant medium sized object of the universe that will cease to exist in a 100 years.

>>84217384
technically it is the same question. basic physics and chemistry. everything comes from a sort of a big bang and is made of residue/aftermath of it.

>>84217364
Doing the prep work can help you make the correct decision when the time comes. Say you've told yourself, I believe in Kantian ethics and that I can only do something if everyone can do it. Then you get a chance to steal a lot of money from someone else, on the condition you donate it to charity. You know why it's wrong (if everyone did it, there would be a problem) and that it's wrong.
It's something like the idea of making decisions when you're cool-headed, like in Thinking Fast and Slow.

>>84217391
>why are we here
The only real answer, to my mind, is 'we cannot know one way or another, so why even bother to ask the question?'
I've never really understood this fascination people have with that question, or even with that kind of material in fiction (like the silmarillion, or every other fiction universe wasting a bunch of time establishing some canon creation myth). It simply isn't relevant or important to know why. We are, that's all that matters.

File: ferret.jpg (619 KB, 1080x1031)

619 KB JPG

i looked inwards and found nothing, but now i'm stuck in the raft. how do i leave this water behind me?

>>84217397
that's not really an explanation of which is more general though? you've already separated the big bang and the aftermath. my question is which one is more perceptible to a wide array of enttiies

>>84217413
>that's not really an explanation of which is more general though?
this question makes no sense, because it isn't clear what you're trying to find out. the fuck does "more general" mean? nonsense.
>you've already separated the big bang and the aftermath.
because there is a timeline of events. that's reality. time is real. measurement of time is human made up subjective blah-blah, who cares. but all of things do not happen at the same instance. ergo there is a spread between that can be measured.
>my question is which one is more perceptible to a wide array of enttiies
both are. we can literally see how an exploision of the dying star causes elements to be created and transformed.
and then there is the background radiation too.
>https://science.nasa.gov/mission/wmap/wmap-overview/

>>84217412
if you can't know why something is it may be because it hasn't appeared yet, which is just to say that either there is a reason for your overthinking or you exist to overthink

>>84217404
You've given me something to think about with that response.

>>84217435
>the fuck does "more general" mean? nonsense.
general means widest possible application. i'm asking you which of physics or chemistry (using your words) applies to more things. if they apply to the same amount of things, why are they separate?
>because there is a timeline of events. that's reality. time is real. measurement of time is human made up subjective blah-blah, who cares. but all of things do not happen at the same instance. ergo there is a spread between that can be measured.
ok, but the principles that apply to each are vastly different.
>both are
ok, so you agree that everything is an object because the big bang and the aftermath, effectively everything that can possibly, are both perceptible to everyone, right?

File: file.png (57 KB, 702x700)

57 KB PNG

What area of philosophy did you have in mind anon?

/lit/ is the board for that

>>84217474
tell me what a body without organs is and DON'T dumb it down

>>84217455
>general means widest possible application.
everything there is and is to come in your life. isn't wide enough?
>if they apply to the same amount of things, why are they separate?
because it is easier for humans to structure and categorize and narrow down the fields of study. that's human made.
>effectively everything that can possibly, are both perceptible to everyone, right?
false. the universe is not perceptible by a human. you barely PARTIALLY perceive, for example 100 square feet, at a time, around you with your limited and inferior puny human senses.
>perception
>human perception
are largely fucking meaningless. which is exactly where the philosophy and religion both fuck up in major way. not being able to comprehend and refusing to accept that nothing is centered around someething as irrelevant as a humanoid form of life.

>>84217486
a fruit without seeds

File: 1685041862241478.jpg (242 KB, 1334x2048)

242 KB JPG

>>84217486
Since a body is entirely composed of organs... an image?

>>84217487
>everything there is and is to come in your life. isn't wide enough?
asking which principles are more general between physics and chemistry (your words, not mine), seems like an easy thing to do
>because it is easier for humans to structure and categorize and narrow down the fields of study. that's human made.
i don't disagree, but that is the point of having objects at all- they are the basis for building more complicated things. and then you have to ask where objects come from?
>false. the universe is not perceptible by a human.
anon, i know what a whole is

>>84217486
A medical school prank.

>>84217500
>they are the basis for building more complicated things.
you don't know what basis is. nobody does. scientists have been trying to figure it out, but humanity tends to find even more basic things. time and again. phiolosphy based on perception of molecules is wrong, because there are atoms. based on atoms is wrong, because there are more particles. fundamental particles? what are those? currently? quarks and shit. correct real answer is we don't know for sure just yet.
>and then you have to ask where objects come from?
same as above. you don't know, nobody does. and it is irrelevant. what matters for humans is can they and how they are to be manipulated to benefit humans.

>>84217500
>>84217520
p.s. perception is important. but not in the philosophy and science discussion, because human perception is useless there. in this you don't perceive, you can't even picture a million light years as a human. you have no use for it. but such a distance does exist. you don't perceive qunatum. you don't even fucking perceive the bacteria in your own body, but they're all real and functioning.

>>84217520
if you can't explain everything in the universe how can you say the universe is a general touchstone for things in it? you're basically saying there are things that have no explanation that gave rise to things that do have an explanation, which is kind of like saying minds exist because the origin of things or the constituents of things are both the same thing, which is kind of like saying something else entirely...

>>84217531
>if you can't explain everything in the universe how can you say the universe is a general touchstone for things in it?
because of what we do currently know, yeah, duh. New knowledge is embedded in the old. A rock is hard irrespective of your perception or knowledge about it.
>you're basically saying there are things that have no explanation that gave rise to things that do have an explanation
I'm saying there is knowledge we have, and knowledge we don't have yet. There is a category of knowledge that we will never have to. For example it seems like we will never know who has invented the wheel. On the other hand, does it really matter? No, because it is irrelevant.
>the origin of things or the constituents of things are both the same thing
I have made no such claim. You're confused. Things do change their form, yes. It's foundantional knowledge, foundantional reality of the universe. Matter into energy and back as an example.

>>84217563
>because of what we do currently know, yeah, duh. New knowledge is embedded in the old. A rock is hard irrespective of your perception or knowledge about it.
so why were you so quick to discount your own perception?
>>84217563
>I'm saying there is knowledge we have, and knowledge we don't have yet. There is a category of knowledge that we will never have to.
yes, and all three of these options are conceivable in principle- someone, for example, knows who invented the wheel
>I have made no such claim. You're confused. Things do change their form, yes.
matter is a physical thing, not a chemical thing

>>84217448
I'm very happy you left this on a happy note.

>>84217572
>so why were you so quick to discount your own perception?
because human perception doesn't perceive the universe. it only partially perceives a slice of it somewhat relevant to the human.
a human is fundamentally not a descrptior nor a knower of the universe. we started to in our attempts to fight the entropy.

>>84217590
ok... so if our perception doesn't understand the universe we are obviously understanding something in the universe instead

>>84217593
>our perception doesn't understand the universe we are obviously understanding something in the universe instead
we? as in homo sapiens (sapiens)? It is a good time to remind you that there brilliant people are an exception and they rather a freak accident. Very smart humans are very few and far in between. 80%+ of masses are blissfully ignorant and just live like the animals they technically are. Even in this thread you can see some lack of some knowledge about the modern day physics, such as, the extensive descriptions of the timeline of how the elements have formed and the general timeline, even though, this is open and free knowledge available to any human in 2026, for example.

>>84217612
objects are knowable and everything is an object and we know what objects are: we know the future
objects are knowable and not everything is an object and we know what objects are: we don't know the future
objects are knowable and not everything is an object and we don't know what objects are: the universe remains unexplained

>>84217640
define
>object

>>84217646
something that can be said to exist a certain way

>>84217662
this one
>objects are knowable and not everything is an object and we don't know what all objects and non-objects are: the universe remains unexplained

File: spreadinglikeavirus.jpg (60 KB, 638x307)

60 KB JPG

>>84217684
objects are knowable: we can have perception and understanding
not everything is an object: some things don't abide by general principles
we don't have an exhaustive list of objects and non-objects (even though that's not really what I said): we don't know everything that falls under general principles, because understanding is not a general principle, because we don't know what understanding doesn't apply to, but understanding is not the existence of general principles, because not everything falls under general principles