/lit/ - Literature

>>22361611
>What is the most recent philosophical work you’ve read?
Reasons and persons
>What philosophical system do you find most convincing?
Physicalism & Utilitarianism because I'm an adult with consistency.
>What is philosophy?
When you think about it, thinking about thinking is the hardest sort of thinking there is. Which makes you think.

>Last Read: Bonaventure's Tree of Life
>Current Read: Ulrich's Homo Abyssus
>Philosophical System: Post-Modern Phenomenological Vitalistic Hermetic (Neo)Platonic Augustinian Christian Roman Catholicism Trinitarian Radical Orthodox Nouvelle Liberation Radical Theology
>What is philosophy? An ever present origin of tradition, an ongoing interpersonal series of discoveries, a personal quest and way of life, the water we swim in, the totality of thought and how we relate thought to everything else of which thought is a part

The Cynic epistles
Probably Epicureanism
The study of thought, the nature of (insert everything and/or nothing), and a way of life.

>>22361611
>Gorgias
>I don’t know
>Love of wisdom

>>22361643
>>22361769
Who are you quoting?

>>22361611
>What is philosophy?

>Philosophy is the system of all philosophical cognition. We must use this term in an objective sense, if we understand by it the archetype of all attempts at philosophizing, and the standard by which all subjective philosophies are to be judged. In this sense, philosophy is merely the idea of a possible science, which does not exist in concreto, but to which we endeavour in various ways to approximate, until we have discovered the right path to pursue—a path overgrown by the errors and illusions of sense—and the image we have hitherto tried in vain to shape has become a perfect copy of the great prototype. Until that time, we cannot learn philosophy—it does not exist; if it does, where is it, who possesses it, and how shall we know it? We can only learn to philosophize; in other words, we can only exercise our powers of reasoning in accordance with general principles, retaining at the same time, the right of investigating the sources of these principles, of testing, and even of rejecting them.

>>22361611
>Ethics by Spinoza
>Emergent Physicalism
>Thinking about the most general and abstract questions conceivable in any field of thinking or at all.

>>22362107
>if it does, where is it, who possesses it, and how shall we know it?

>>22361611
>Most recent work?

Finished World as Will and Representation Vol. 1, on the B Preface of CPR right now

>Most convincing philosophy?

Atheism, determinism, immoralism, transcendental idealism

>What is philosophy?

Philosophy is the study of the grounding of all experience. I would agree with Kant somewhat that philosophy that is not natural science is just reason trying to understand itself. The Nietzschean idea of philosophy being a way to determine values is also correct in this way.

>>22362148
>Atheism, determinism, immoralism, transcendental idealism
one of these is not like the others

>>22362123
>tfw through effort and grace noetic intuitions purify human reason and grant super-human hyperreason and yet Kantians think they're smarter than you
Sad times bro

>>22361617
pseud

>>22362230
Please enlighten me.

Atheism = no belief in god, which would be a metaphysically unknowable thing consistent with transcendental idealism

Determinism = human activity appears to be causal, for a choice to be free would mean randomness, so for real choice we must act deterministically according to wants and desires

Immoralism = morality is only relevant in regards to valuations, which are arbitrary and therefore not universal

Transcendental idealism = objects conform to our senses, not vice versa, we can know things about how appearances will appear (e.g. causality) but not the transcendent objects themselves.

The only problems I can see are perhaps the determinism and transcendental idealism, where causality is phenomenal and not noumenally justified, but even then I would just specify that point, everything appears to be causal in phenomena, for example when you notice that serial murderers have a high correlation to lead levels, head trauma, and child abuse, it seems clear that their actions are being caused in some form by this.

>>22362788
Not that anon but you're either ignorant or lying in defining atheism. I know a lot of atheists do that to proselytize though.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief or no belief, they don't believe or know whether or not there is a God or any gods. Only an agnostic could say they lack a belief, but you could also say they believe they don't know and that's a belief. And some go further to say therefore no one else could know and that's undoubtably a belief, even if it's incorrect.
A- without, gnosis- knowledge.

Atheism is a belief that there is no God, specifically the God of the Bible, they're never really that concerned with the other gods but they'll claim to oppose all equally.
A- without, theos- God.

Atheism is also self-refuting in a naturalistic world view (which practically all atheists have because that's the religion tax-funded and taught in schools). The atheist must believe on blind faith that God does not exist outside of his knowledge. The naturalist must believe on blind faith that purely physical processes can account for everything. The atheist also believes the scientific impossibility of spontaneous generation and that nothing created everything or otherwise the scientific impossibility of an eternal physical universe. I could elaborate more on it, but it's just common sense when you consider the known laws of science, (which they'll also say "evolved" then stopped evolving once life could be sustained--they all have so many weird scifi fantasies and creation stories; I've even heard some say ayylmaos seeded life on earth, lol).

>>22362788
>morality is only relevant in regards to valuations, which are arbitrary
read the second critique

there was a time I would have debated with retards to show them the error of their ways, but now I'm content to give book recs and post relevant quotes.

>>22362847
I do not believe in a god. I am not a theist. I am an atheist. An anti-theist would propose that "no god exists". As you pointed out, agnosticism is about whether or not knowledge is possible, not belief.

However, why do you theists repeat the same tired lines every single time? "Bro...we don't believe on faith...athiests do! You believe on faith just like us! You're just as retarded as we are, therefore I win!" Nowhere in atheism does it entail any of the other propositions you outlined that do not SPECIFICALLY and ONLY deal with the belief in a god. "The atheist also believes the scientific impossibility to spontaneous generation-" you unironically have a special-education level non-intelligence if you don't realize you are the one who believes this, except with magic man. No serious atheist thinks that something came from nothing. You are unable to think for yourself, repeating the same midwit lines your apologist leaders like William Lane Craig give t to you as you suck their smelly dicks.

>>22362874
How does Kant argue that valuations are not arbitrary? Why should we care about human valuation? I will read the Second Critique if it has anything to say about this.

Bump

>>22362847
>>22363087
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?
Depends on how you define sound. Arguing about the "definition" of a word is only useful in enumerating them to write in a dictionary. What's important is having common understanding of what they other person means when they use a word so you can communicate an idea.

>>22361611
>Wow a philosophy general, cant wait to have a dedicated platform to interact with like-minded men of reason
>Utilitarianism
>Realize I have been surrounded by retards all along
John Stuart Mill was a positivist nowit who had a blatant misunderstanding of philosophy and religion, and his utilitarianism is democracy at its finest, amoral and degenerate. I hate you. Even if you are a clever troll. I hate you so much

>>22363094
Kant is a psyop to pretend religion and reason is comensurable. He has been therefore been misappropriated by both religionists and rationalists for their nefarious circlejerk cabals. They do not understand him yet it is simple. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. He was a autist who wrote a more absurd system than even Hegel and which really has more holes in the walls than a trucker rest stop bathroom albeit obscured by mind-numbing prose (tho prose implies taste which is utterly lacking in his blind idiocy) hence the immediate proliferation of post-Kantian idealisms. But anyway he just says you gotta do the normative as prescriptive cause like whatever society over individual and maybe God exists but you should pretend regardless cause it helps be honest and moral in life. But this is found through practical reason and morals even tho ethics is pure reason. Deontology. Which is among the worst conceived.

>>22363087
>I don't believe in something from nothing
>it's something from unknowability -- thank goodness bing bang theory science misinterpreted after created by Catholics

>>22364487
This is what I thought from reading Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, etc. I didn’t realize the disparity was so bad until reading through the Critique of Pure Reason itself where Kant almost slam dunks any hope for morality kek

>>22364492
If you are implying I am not sure whether something came from something or nothing, that isn’t true. I don’t think time is shown to be noumenally real, so our inability to make sense of the origin of the universe using time speaks nothing of the actual truth of the matter.

>>22364418
>>22363087
Atheists go around boldly proclaiming "there is no God". Stop being jewish and drop the pilpul, semantics, schizo strawmen, and word games, you faggot pederasts.

>Bro...we don't believe on faith...athiests do!
Nobody says that, tranny.

>You believe on faith just like us!
You could know half of everything, God could still exist in the half you don't know. You will never understand this, will you? Room temperature IQ retard.

You sit down in a chair or bench in a park and believe on faith that it will support you. You don't inspect it and test it to see if it will support you, you just sit down and have faith it will support you.

You're a dumb subhuman animal who doesn't even know which of your own beliefs are based in faith. You're so fucking retarded, atheists are the lowest of IQ and the middest of wits.

>You're just as retarded as we are, therefore I win!
Nobody says that, you schizophrenic tranny retard. You are so beyond brainwashed, no wonder you believe so many retarded things.

>You are unable to think for yourself, repeating the same midwit lines your apologist leaders like William Lane Craig give t to you as you suck their smelly dicks.
That's a lot of projection and perversity. Atheists are low IQ subhuman dogs.

No really, atheists are subhuman animals; that's their religious belief, they believe on blind faith all life shares a common ancestors and nothing magically made everything and they believe on faith God doesn't exist outside their knowledge. They're too fucking retarded even to understand an argument and respond to it.

> "The atheist also believes the scientific impossibility to spontaneous generation-" you unironically have a special-education level non-intelligence if you don't realize you are the one who believes this, except with magic man.
I believe an Almighty God created everything, you believe nothing magically created everything; and the only "argument" you trannies ever have is personal attacks and ad hominems because your retarded religion you falsely call science is literally scientifically impossible.

Atheists are low IQ subhuman dogs.

>>22364492
Something can’t come from nothing therefore…Jewish rabbi from 2000 years ago did it! Literally fucking retarded. Please stop infesting every thread with your elementary school midwit understanding of the world

>>22364536
>Please stop infesting every thread with your elementary school midwit understanding of the world
Take your own advice, low IQ hypocrite.

>>22361611
I've been reading Lakoff and McGilchrist. It seems that according to what I'm reading in neuroscience and philosophy of neuroscience autistic people and people with semantic dementia (left brain hemisphere impairment) who view the world literally (trouble understanding sarcasm, metaphor) are naturally closer to the raw reality than healthy brains because their right hemisphere dominance gives them access to raw data normally unconscious and filtered by the left hemisphere (to give raw data meaning), and they don't create false memories or see patterns not there. You can also induce savant abilities by inhibiting the left hemisphere. However, savants seem to still believe in God from what I've seen.

>>22364584
Literally (metaphorically) metaphors are literal and all literality is metaphorical. See: Philosophy of As If, Social Construction of Reality, Metaphors We Live By, etc.

Deleuze "there are no metaphors"
Lacan "there is no meta-language"

The only thing that can truly be said to exist is a sort of pure passive awareness, the container or space in which phenomena exist, like a cup being filled with water. Thoughts, perceptions, sensations, reasoning, etc are all phenomena, and they do not affect this awareness. You can't tell if you're thinking or just experiencing the phenomena of thinking.
The thing that twists my noodle is this: when there are no phenomena to be aware of, the state of the awareness is indistinguishable from nonexistence, as when one is unconscious. An empty cup, if you will. It is also self-evident that the awareness does not generate the phenomena. From where, then, do they originate?

>>22364625
Awareness and phenomena are interpentrable. The light creates the void to play. A empty container is not you. No more than the cosmos is empty space. You are a faggot orientalist.

>>22364642
Maybe I wasn't clear.
You can verify what I wrote about simple awareness yourself if you think about it, imo it's fairly self-evident, whether through meditation and yoga and shit like that or just by becoming derealized a little. Advaita followers and the like identify this simple awareness with God/Atman/whatever, but to me that's a logical leap; it's closer to Leibniz' monads than the Absolute. My awareness certainly isn't anyone else's as I only ever experience my phenomena.
As to whether that awareness is you, it depends on your definition of "you." Things like identity, thought, personality are more transient and contingent than awareness, yet persist much longer; when emptied of phenomena, as in sleep, the state of your awareness is not distinguishable from nonexistence. The question then becomes, why and how did the situation in which an awareness exists and is filled with phenomena arise?

>>22364599
That's what people with healthy left hemispheres would think.

>>22364676
Take meds. Or admit this all unverified personal gnosis and not traditional according to most eastern or western traditions you mention.

>>22364677
Pretty sure my doctors said I needed meds cause left hemisphere was weak and right over dominant but I suppose I appreciate that left can now be seen as healthy.

>>22364694
Read Iain McGilchrist.

>most recent
"Multidimensional Adjectives" by Hedden and D'Ambrosio, forthcoming in AJP
>most convincing system
Sellarsian non-reductivistic scientific realism
>what is philosophy
the speculative fringes on the tapestry of science

>>22364702
I already read Bicameral Breakdown. Plus Matter with Things is espensive and long. Doesn't seem too innovative. Maybe I'd listen to an audiobook if I had a credit.

>What is the most recent philosophical work you've read?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb - The Bed of Procrustest.

>What philosophical system do you find most convincing?

Biological-Determinism. Because it is observable, testable and replicable (you can see or test it multiple times and the result will be the same--meaning it has reliability and consistency).

>What is Philosophy?

An inquiry for truth (Russ Payne).

>>22364625
> The thing that twists my noodle is this: when there are no phenomena to be aware of, the state of the awareness is indistinguishable from nonexistence, as when one is unconscious. An empty cup, if you will. It is also self-evident that the awareness does not generate the phenomena. From where, then, do they originate?
I think that you would find Hegel’s answer to this question interesting. He was the first to make the claim that being is nothingness. I.e. that a state of pure being is indistinguishable from a state of pure nothingness and that it is only the contrast between the two which gives anything form. A couch has negative space (places for people to sit) in the same way that math or philosophy does. It is only through one that we can know the other and this ties into the more interesting point for me that the abstractions themselves of pure being or nothingness are theoretical contrivances without any reality to them. Meaning, that the “essences” of objects are phenomena. We abstract from phenomena to reach a universal but these universals are deficient without proper recourse to their application in phenomena. Yet, these universals are necessary to know one phenomena from another at all. The universal’s deficiency resides that it must be applied to phenomena to have reality and the phenomena’s deficiency is that it must have universals to know itself as distinct. It is this constant chafing between the universal and particular which gives thought its animation and grounding. We come back to the particular being the “essence” when we realize that the universals find necessity in their contingency and never the other way around.

What are some books for me an underage twinks from Republic of Brasil to read before they become a men

>>22364534
Christian love in practice <3, I hope you feel warm and fuzzy when you go to your Sunday sermon and hear Christ talk about love and humility you fucking emotional retard.

None of my beliefs are based on faith in the way you keep equivocating. If faith means confidence, you are wrong because I don’t base the belief on confidence, I base my confidence in the belief on evidence. If you mean the Hebrews 11:1 definition, you are even more retarded because you can use rational and empirical evidence when you sit down on a park bench. I have sat down on probably 200 different park benches and none have collapsed on me. I can clearly see that the park bench I intend to sit on is made of metal or wood of solid constitution. I have never seen a park bench collapse. I am 150lb and live in America, so if the bench was not broken by fatties by now I am probably fine. There is no faith or hope as evidence, only actual evidence from my senses and reason. If I hope that stepping on a landmine that says “KABLOOEY!” will not blow up, it has no bearing on the fact that I will die.

>durr you don’t know if god in other half of univerd! yeah! so he exist!

Are you actually incapable of reading? I said I do not believe in god, not that I believe there is no god. There is no real evidence or proof of his existence. If you assume everything that you haven’t disproven secretly exists outside of your sight, you are delusional and schizophrenic. That would lead me to believe in almost every religion, every mythical creature, aliens, and even things I have not cognized and no human will cognize. You Christians are incapable of putting forth one coherent argument that is not just female level emotional hope that a magical sky daddy will punish people smarter and more honest than you because you are a fat fuck who jerks off to anime girls and feels bad afterwards.

>>22364982
Whole lot of assumptions (projections?) there. Anyway, you clearly have values yet value and meaning and communication are impossible without God so don't worry he loves you and we will welcome you back with open arms when you tire of your childish rebellion. Bless.

>>22364871
That's a very interesting view on things. I haven't read anything of Hegel's yet but I have a copy of Harris' Hegel's Ladder somewhere.
The tension between the universal and the particular reminds me a little of the drama and interplay between the one and the many/One and indefinite dyad seen in Platonic stuff.

>>22362882
That's because you stopped understanding along the way (and everyone can tell).

>>22364435
Nice argument. "He was a dumdum!!!"

Have you guys read anything by David Bohm?

>>22365129
>impossible without God

Please justify this claim brainlet. This has to be the most retarded shit I have ever heard

>>22365129
I don’t hate you or any other Christians, but I am happy your brainlet religion is dying off and will hopefully be archaic in the next 50 years. Christianity has been the midwits (60% of the pop.) commonly accepted worldview and arguably developed into the cringe leftist globalism we have today. Truly the most plebbit taste of all time

>>22364508
>Critique of Pure Reason itself where Kant almost slam dunks any hope for morality kek
you skimmed the first critique, got hopelessly filtered, and didn't read any further. stfu and actually read it.

>>22365470
Is/ought can only be solved by divine command and natural law

test

>>22365505
Look, it's delusional.

>roma aeterna

>>22365505
>developed into the cringe leftist globalism
it's not the development of Christianity, it's a lukewarm pick-n-choose rejection of it without any metaphysical grounding.

>>22365539
You probably got that impression because you read the shitty Dover version and not the superior Guyer-Wood

>>22366075
false I have both and also pluhar

>>22365561
How so? “god said so” is not a justification for morality. If god said “thou shall rape!” it would not be moral in most people’s eyes and I doubt even yours. Furthermore, god’s morality is dubious at best considering he permits slaves, and the fact that he has to make multiple covenants shows he is changing and not objective in his morality.

>>22366084
Of course it is, just not a very good one.
But you have to stop the infinite regress of justification somewhere

>>22365785
The general gist is the same, being meek and wimpy is celebrated but being a chad is bad.

>>22366097
Or you just realize justification is a made up idea and not a metaphysical fact

>>22361611
>recent
as in when the work was published or what have I read most recently?
I'm assuming you mean the latter, and its been Von Herder's Treatise On Language and Schleiemacher's On Religion. hermeneutics and general philosophy of language and philosophy of communication have taken an interest in me, I've read McCluhan's Understand Media and I have a work by Walter J. Ong I plan to touch on. I have also had a renaissance of interest in Thomism and Personalism, and piqued an interest into existential psychology

>philosophical system
generalized contract theory a la Hobbes and Rousseau with nods towards Freudian pleasure principle, along with a generalized distrust of the mob mentality by way of Jose Ortega Y Gasset
>what a philosophy
much harder to define, I would rather put in the terms its a form of critical thinking and analysis put to a system.

>>22362882
baaaaaased

>>22366181
I like how certain people who accuse Christians of cherry-picking the Bible do the same thing themselves because unlike Christians their supposed religion or lackthereof doesn’t require them to be consistent, but hypocritical even. They’re not held to the same standards because that is not “their” holy book. Oh well.

>>22362882
Why do you always post this picture with this file name? Didn't Kant reject the possibility of intellektuelle Anschauung for humans?

>>22361611
>5 minute youtube summaries
>gnostic cynicism
>philosophy is where you say shit and piss and fuck but it means something else

>>22365171
>Nice argument. "He was a dumdum!!!"
Im guessing you havent read him or understood him and his intellectual milieu. But you're probably a negative wit freethinker who thinks everybody and their ideas are equal and doesnt deserve ridicule. U freaks and ur ropes of sand.

>>22367286
>Didn't Kant reject the possibility of intellektuelle Anschauung for humans?
indeed, but by rejecting he ironically (imo covertly intentionslly) pointed out the direction to be taken.