Dumping what I have.
DUDE STAR STUFF LMAO
>>429676
Could someone explain the difference between analytic and continental philosophy to me?
>>430209
>>429653
Rand was an ethical egoist not a psychological egoist.
>>430209
Worst part is I've seen this posted unironically.
>>430221
How does one quantify religiousness?
>>430221
Russia and Sweden very non-religious. Kind of throws off any correlation.
>>430265
It's a survey of people I believe.
>>430257
i'm pretty sure it was posted unironically, knowing this board
>>430266
Yeah sure, just ignore 90% of the thirld World being super religious
>>430221
>Turkey more religious than fucking Iran.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAA!
>>430291
I suppose you could argue about which way the causation goes. Or what defines a 'religion'
>>430296
Iran was partly secularized by the shah.
>>430311
dude, I posted the image to make a stupid, vapid argument against a stupid and vapid image.
Just ignore it, if you want.
>>430317
this was supposed to be the one board on 4chan that wasn't stupid and vapid. I'm trying to raise the level of discourse out of the dung pile it has so quickly fallen into.
Definitely the wrong thread for this question, but how much of a philosopher/phy would I need to read in order to know the long and short of that philosophy? Could I read the seminal work of Kant or Plato or whoever and have most of the knowledge I need to contemplate their teachings, or would I need to read interpretations by other philosophers and what not to get a better understanding
>>430320
you're posting that in a philosophy humor thread
I'm also posting in actual decent threads. What are YOU doing beyond doing petty complaints?
Also sage, because fuck this stupid meme thread
>>430325
if you want good summaries of stuff written by experts try iep.utm.edu
>>430333
contemplating creating a greentext badly described historical events thread.
I don't see any decent threads just bullshit religious arguments of /b/ quality.
You just know some real piece of shit made that image, OP.
>>429653
>reddit.
OY VEY
Nah Badphilosophy is p cool.
One of the best things that /lit/ ever produced.
>>430386
If this image is typical of his posting, I'm not favourably inclined.
>>430392
If I were to show this to 1000
individuals. How many do you think would even remotely understand what the fuck is being said. The very fact of knowing so many people wouldn't laugh at this, makes me sad.
hey cool, it's that pic i made and posted on badphilosophy awhile back.
>>430426
Good job, /u/deinflow , I wish I could upvote you.
>>430426
You fucked up. Rand's not a psychological egoist. She believed you can be altruistic. Stirner would have been a better pick, but even he believed that altruism was a subversion of ego.
>>430422
Why? Don't you enjoy the fact that you can order a pizza, get your hair cut, put your garbage out and have it being picked up? Don't you enjoy watching athletes perform to the max of human capability? Don't you enjoy medicine that cures your illness? surgeons that will fix you up after you break something? Not everyone is here to study philosophy. People are valuable in many different ways, it's your job to contribute with your values, not to deride others for not sharing them with you.
>>430444
>but even he believed that altruism was a subversion of ego.
[citation needed]
>>430448
The Ego and Its Own. He states that engaging in altruistic behaviour against your self interest is putting an alien cause ahead of your self-cause. He believes that altruism can be egoistic, but it can also be something done for entirely alien reasons.
If you want a page number, get fucked. I'm not a bloody encyclopedia.
>>430458
>He believes that altruism can be egoistic, but it can also be something done for entirely alien reasons
Well of course. You made the case that ALL altruism is inherently a subversion of the ego. He definitely thought that helping people for your own reasons, because it pleased you, is a completely acceptable form of altruism.
>>430432
instead of up-voting me, why don't you let me know your opinion on one other work i haven't post: http://i.imgur.com/pcZpQZq.png (yes, i know there's spelling errors, i'll fix 'em.)
>>430466
Oh, well that was a poor choice of wording on my part.
>>430468
>posting link to imgur instead of posting image
>>430468
>posting an imigur link
Also maybe post a bigger version, so you can actually read it.
>>430476
i didn't to do that
I find it weird that the image in the OP rejects both the notion that our bodies are fundamentally mechanical, yet also rejects the notion that mind and body are separate. Is our mind a product of our body and thus a mechanical creation, or is it not a mechanical process and thus distinct from our body? Is there a third option that I'm overlooking?
>>430516
Will Nietzsche rejects the idea of a self. Like Schopenhauer he believes the basis for reality is Will. This Will is immaterial. So it's not about mind-body, these are merely instruments the Will acts on. The Will is not entirely mechanical either, it has a mind of it's own. An individual may run from the will, embrace, or be controlled by it.
Unlike Schopenhauer he believes the Will is complex and a single person will have many conflicting Will inside them.
Kierkegaard has a similar concept of self, in which the individual is far more complex than just having a mind and body.
>>430516
The OP didn't make the image, I did, so I'll give you an account on it.
There's multiple alternatives than three, but I'm a fan of phenomenology, and I partially think that the traditional duality that cuts the two "realms" is just a mistake by Descartes. The mind isn't spatially located in some private realm, cut off from reality that it's re-presenting, nor is the body a mechanical system that can be only explained through it's objective presence, as some dead thing that has extension. The problem began with having two opposing descriptions that inhibit the two from ever being together. Thinkers like Merleau-Ponty make the body something more managable; it's something that (as a whole) perceives, thinks, loves, acts, etc, and is embodied and attuned to the world in various ways.
>>430446
It saddens me that they can't understand or appreciate it. I'm in no way implying understanding so makes me superior in any sort of way, it's a pity when people can't understand something. It certainly feels terrible not knowing shit about advanced mathematics, chemistry or physics. I wish everyone could know much more than they do, and that certainly includes myself.
>>430604
I know the sentiment, but then if everyone could do that, what would be the point of people? If everyone understands everything there's no need for anything. Don't feel bad for not knowing advanced mathematics, people spend their lives mastering it, while you get to spend yours mastering philosophy, or whatever you choose.
What is the use of learning -
If obtaining it does not lead a man
To control his senses with all his heart;
If it would not make his own mind docile;
If it does not follow the righteous path;
If getting it only serves to create
Displays of eloquence before the world;
If it leads to neither glory not peace?
>>430232
This, and also psychological egoism is correct.
>>430291
Most of the third world probably agrees that grass is green.
Are you gonna tell me that believing grass is green is some kinda degenerative and archaic ideology?
>>430221
>No data on the religiosity of Rome
I bet I can guess
>>430296
Gotta look past the ruling class, anon
them younguns ain't like they parents, and they outnumber everyone else by a wide margin. The times, they are a chagin'.
>>429653
So much cringe.
>>430197
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiISBhwxaY0
>>430320
Hey, what about /lit/? Don't they have intellectual discussions as well?
>>429700
Why is he smoking a paint brush?
>>430197
Contiential is what non-analytic philosophy is called by analytics.
Analytics were a school of philosophers that basically said they were going to ignore everything and start over from scratch using logical positivism. Eventually they realized that the entire approach was retarded and literally refutes itself as explained here
>>431205
Than an analytic named Quine came out and say that the divide never actually happened and it was just symantics. So now we come back to where we started where analytic and continental are meaningless divisions.
Although there's a lot of STEMfags that are completely ignorant of philosophy and still think that 'analytic divide' exists.
>>431232
I lold
>>429653
>Sam Harris is what you get when you get everything wrong
>But not Rand
>>430221
>India
>average
This is outdated as all fuck. Right now, there are literallyroaming bands of villagers that lynch people who are rumored to have bought beef/killed a cow
>>431163
My opinion is too in that regard about psychological egoism, but it's correct as existence of god if you don't go in detail.
>>434743
damn, is that zizeks wife?
>>430257
>implying it's wrong
>>435671
Yep, an Argentinian model irrc.
>>429653
>You will never chill with Socrates and troll shit-tier philosophers
>>435671
was
>>435727
>you'll never have mad banter with Socrates and the Lads
>they'll never roast you in the Symposium because of your relativist stance
>you'll never pull so much banter you get sentenced to death
>your lads will never be willing to break the law and pay large sums of money to keep you alive
>>430296
Iranians are one of the most progressive people, if not the most progressive, in the middle east.
There is nothing funny in this entire thread.
>>430426
the jokes are terrible
please more !
>>431232
That was great
>>436686
as a joke yes, but if you believe it, it means you don't want to examine reality. It's an excercise in logic and frankly, if you are willing to accept it as a validation of your beliefs, you should be able to wander further in your rationalisations and start philosophising.
>>429668
How did you know my hat is blue
>>430422
Can you explain it at all?
I'm genuinely curious.
So, random question, why does /his/ seem to have a hate for analytic philosophy?
>>429653
Wanna hear the best philosophy joke?
It still exists in a world of science.
>>437547
Virtually every single post I have ever seen about analytic philosophy has had zero analytic philosophy and is just ranting about how they can't understand other philosophy. They don't actuall discuss philosophy, if a STEMfag wants to say they hate philosophy they will slap the title analytic onthemself to give a sense of authority. Board culture is hostile to analytics because everyone who claims to follow it tends to fuck up threads about philosophy.
>"All of this wrong. These definitions aren't empirical"
statements like this will flow from them endlessly.
Historically the analytics were pretty much giant failures. They didn't accomplish much of anything other than Wittgenstein who ended up refuting everyone else's central position. The word analytic itself is also unprofessional, since there is no real difference between an analytic philosophy and another. It's a self-imposed title. It used to be that to call yourself an analytic you had to be a positivist but that's a defunct position.
Objectivist Metaphysics
>>429653
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/reddit/
>>436969
top kek
>>437547
It's called a 'meme'.
What is wrong with being an empiricist anyway?
>>440398
Pure Empiricism is a self-refuting position; empiricism cannot justify itself. You are also hoplessly defeated by the problem of induction.
Strong empiricism with a dash of rationalism is a workable position but it's also a weak one since you need to remain silent on any issue that does not have a surplus of data.
>>440406
So it excludes you from thought exercises in a sense?
>>440414
And a lot of the more abstract concepts. Too much empersism traps you in a "can't see it. isn't there" mind-set.
Although imperialism gets information slower it's conclusions are much more solid. Emperisist evidence beats Rationalist evidence. So ultimatly it's about finding the balance. The Rationalist can provide answers regardless of the amount of data but it's an unreliable answer, while the Empersist can provide more solid answers but needs lots of data. Each of them have the moments where they must remain silent.
>>440414
So it's about knowing when to use the right tool?
>>429653
The funniest thing about this is the fact that some of you think that anything related to /phil/ is funny or can actually made funny on purpose.
