Alright guys, so I want to educate myself more. I've come to the realization that I know more about geometry and algebra than history and philosophy. I want to learn about the great men of history and the most influential philosophers of the world. I hate how our education system blows all of this stuff out the window, like why the fuck am I learning the god damn pythagorean theorem and unit circle? It's fucking retarded and honestly immoral. I just want a better understanding, to be more enlightened (fedora), and more importantly I want something to fucking stand for. I want to stand for something I truly believe in. I can't fucking stand for the pythagorean theorem! There's no substance! There's no god damn heart in it! I'm young and I need to make up for lost time while I still can, so please, show me what you've got.
give like your five most influential books or texts, or more even. I thank you in advance and I'll take a look at everything you post.
>implying anyone replies
>>1208402
>I want to be logical
>But I can't do babies' first logic
>But I'm still smart since I'm an atheist
you should kill yourself
>>1208447
This
>doesn't have the discipline or basic intelligence to learn babby's first geometry lesson
>thinks they can understand and put to use some of the most influential books in human history
Grow up OP.
1 The Republic by Plato
Contains ethics, metaphysics and the philosophy of art as well as being one of the first and greatest works of political philosophy.
2 Meditations on First Philosophy by René Descartes
Descartes' pretence that he is approaching the problem of knowledge of certainty afresh makes the Meditations an excellent starting point
3 Dialogues and Natural History of Religion by Hume
Hume presents a sophisticated critique of the argument for God's existence from design (that is, from the observation that the universe is ordered and its parts seem to serve purposes). It goes on to examine the problem of evil: how is the apparent evil in the universe compatible with a God who is not merely beneficent but also all-powerful?
4 Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
Kant's first critique is a turning point in the history of philosophy. It shaped European philosophy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and its concerns are in many cases surprisingly similar to those of modern analytical philosophers.
5 On Liberty and Other Essays by John Stuart Mill
These essays show how philosophical problems about value and freedom link with practical political concerns. Now, when political correctness threatens free speech, On Liberty makes especially timely reading.
>>1208501
Thank you, I'll check all of these out.
>>1208501
>Learning philosophy without a foundation in math first
ISHYDDT
>>1208402
>>7911800
here is the bombshell: reflexivity permits us to see that the belief in rationality, induction/generalization/categorization, imagination, intellect, reason does not lead us to the good life.
animals are rational just like us, but they lack reflexivity since they fail to see that the faith in abstraction to reach knowledge/truth/objectivity/reality/universality is sterile since it brings only conventions which are, thus, always fluctuating through, at least, time and space... what rationality, the Normative reason brings is disappointment.
Most rationalists, especially scientists wondering about what they are doing, know more or less this and they choose to support Popper : that the induction is useful for disproving thesis [=if it does not work once, it never works]
Most scientists do not care about what they do, because they do not know anyway. Nobody on earth knows what the scientific activity is useful for, beyond easing our lives, aka for hedonism. Nobody on earth knows what inferences ''are correct'', what ''are not, or less correct''.
the point of reflexivity is to notice the failure of ANY rationalism, to embrace PURE empiricism, that is to say, to stop fantasizing about a collective reality [fantasized through induction through space, time and comparison of what we perceive, in order to identify things or in order to separate things, then to infer explicit statements about these identification and separations], but rather to stick to personal phenomena in analyzing them.
the point of reflexivity is to make us wonder what do we want.
>>1208512
>Most scientists do not care about what they do
What are biologists and ecologists (and some from all other fields).
>>1208511
I do. You are assuming that in my post I'm saying I can't learn math so I want to jump into philosophy which is not the case as I've stated before.
>>1208512
Flaws in the argument:
A1: Fails to account for the case where neither a property nor its negation is positive, (Axiom 1 is not falsifiable but a weak statement)
A2: Also fails, I can construct positive properties off negative ones, (Axiom 2 is falsifiable)
D1: Assumes that for some positive properties x and y, x does not preclude y or vice versa. (D1 is falsifiable)
A3: Another assumption, even assuming A2 is correct it only shows that should some positive property P1 require a property X2 then X2 is necessarily positive; it doesnt then imply that a property X1 that requires a positive property P2 is positive. Hence the above argument does not require the positivity of a god.
C: As shown above, any being that is godlike is not defined as per the above argument.
A4: A non-statement
D2: Whoops, you just constructed a set that contains itself, this argument is no longer strictly of a logical form
T2: Again, trying to use self containing sets here
D3: Now we're trying to double down on self containing sets
A5: And we did it we've got a second set that contains itself
T3: Using our flawed logical structure we've managed to claim a bogus result.
>>1208595
Let's try that one again;
A1: Let an object have a set of properties {x1, x2...xn}
A2: The Essence of an object is the set of all those properties; E = {x1, x2...xn}
At this point the above structure argues that E = {E, x1, x2...,xn}
Then we get Necessary existence as
N(E) = N({x1, x2...xn}), which is a meaningless statement and would imply the notion that simply because E may be represented it "neccessarily exists" which is a word game played on the function N, which we could have just as easily have called gobbledygook at which point it's not distinguishable from E.
The above argument then goes on to try and claim that N = {N, N(E), x1, x2...xn} = E and because all E is positive then N(E) is positive and god must exist, however the astute reader will note that we've redefined E twice since we defined it and that our initial condition that "for some god's E, all objects in E must be positive" only applies to our original {x1, x2...xn}.
>>1208402
Has summer break already started?
>>1208402
>I can't fucking stand for the pythagorean theorem!
Brainlet who burned out in math and now tries to salvage his self-esteem by "learning" humanitites detected.
Read a book you retard. The fuck is "there is no heart in it!" even suppossed to mean?
Listen here man:
1.) You do not know shit about geometry and algebra yet.
2.) Our education system is exactly the opposite and does not tend enough to STEM if anything, so any idiot who writtes a shitty philosophy report thinks he is a genious.
3.) To be more "enlightened" you should not ask this board and actually search on your own, thinking for yourself is a huge part of it.
4.) I'm young and I need to make up for lost time does not make any sense.
5.) Are you a fucking NEET? You sound like one. Stop being a NEET.
>>1208684
Don't be an asshole.
>"How do I be the best possible version of myself?"
Literally this song 2bh (2bh)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mhtJduoCZ0
>>1208684
1) I'm sure I don't.
2) I agree.
3) So asking for advice is frowned upon? Okay.
4) no I'm not, I'm in high school.
I knew you're feel of wanting to know more about history and my school does not teach anything about it. I usually make up for it by playing history related games like Europa Universalis 4 and Victoria 2 sometimes but I also like finding out about history by watching YouTube videos by certain channels that are amazing for that (they even add little pictures so you don't get bored if your that kind of person).
Some examples
John green crash course
Jabzy
John d ruddy
The rest you can find just by looking around on youtube
As for books or texts just go on /lit/ they have historical stuff
>>1208402
>like why the fuck am I learning the god damn pythagorean theorem and unit circle?
You need the unit circle to truly understand chemistry and the physics of atoms, there are also several thousand other reasons
>It's fucking retarded and honestly immoral.
you're honestly pretty fucking retarded
go buy some books and educate yourself on history if it's important to you. It should be. Your education is up to nibody but yourself you mong.
>>1208402
Here OP, if you want to start with philosophy you'll appreciate this chart. Atheists tend to love Aristotle, Avicenna and Hume, if you're feeling your inner deist you'll appreciate Plato, Spinoza and Aquinas. Most major texts are freely available online.
>>1211038
Aristotle's tripartite soul concept is really pretty simple. Like a simple three-step pyramid, or the "triune brain" theory, you need the basic and unglamorous steps before you can effectively move to the thinner zenith of experience.
>>1208402
Same happened for me but i was really young.
Now i dont know any math and dont see any point in humanities.
I want to kill myself everyday of my life, i feel like a complete waste of space and a dishonor to my parents.
My advice is to stay away, you will be happier.
Humanities, not even once.
