Is there any philosopher with a more DUDE WEED LMAO mentality?
WOAH DUDE THAT CHAIR, LIKE WOAH MAN SO WEIRD WE'RE LIKE NOTHING BUT PARTICLES FLOATING THROUGH SPACE ON A GIANT BALL WOAHHHH DUDEEEE
>>7678970
>Is there any philosopher with a more DUDE WEED LMAO mentality?
Yes, all of Eastern "philosophy".
Descartes and Hume are way more blazed
>>7678990
They really aren't.
Heraclitus is probably the original philosopher like that
>let me just vulgarize, oversimplify and straw-man this philosophy so I can make it look silly
>>7678998
Hey reeeeedit
First time on /lit/?
>>7678993
Descartes: There's no reality man, i don't even know if i have a body
Hume: Everything is just particles bumbing into eachother what tha fug XDDD
>>7679011
Neither of them say those things.
>>7679005
Can't /lit/ be that one board that's above shit like this?
>>7679011
That's still better than Plato's shit
>Woah dude, you know everything comes from an alternate universe where the most perfect of everything is? Also, we should have like, philosophers be the kings of cities because we're smart and think deeply about things, man.
>>7679011
Descartes: There's no way of knowing if anything's even real, man.
Hume: empirical evidence or gtfo
>>7679021
I doubt you've ever opened a vagina, you pathetic tripfag
>>7679021
I read excerpts from Meditations on First Philosophy in order to better grasp Heidegger's concept of Dasein, was then inspired to have another look at theories of language, watched a few Chomsky speeches...just because you fangirl a writer does not mean you "understand" them more deeply, tripfag
>>7679014
Descartes literally said that he didn't know for sure if he had a body. Hume literally compared the universe to a pool table. I guess he said that the particles don't actually even touch. Don't get me wrong it's fascinating, and i don't mean to denigrate any of the philosophies ITT...OP is a fag.
>>7678970
Read Nausea a few weeks ago
Really disappointed
Maybe it was all the hype around Sartre, but I don't think so
Like, who the fuck ends a book called "Nausea" optimistically?
>>7679016
Agreed. We need to up the elitism.
>>7679480
I don't know...actual human beings generally crawl towards optimism after bouts of soul crushing depression...don't get me wrong...if you want good existential fiction check out Drieu la Rochelle or Celine...less popular but mostly because they collaborated or tolerated the occupying germans...either way they were superior to Sartre and Camus imho...nevertheless i found Nausea thoroughly depressing.
>>7679011
That's an awful fucking interpretation of those philosophers that makes it obvious you haven't even taken a Phil101 class
>>7679491
What's wrong with Camus?
>>7679491
>nevertheless i found Nausea thoroughly depressing
What in it did you find depressing? I was expecting to feel that comfy melancholy of existential arts, but I couldn't find it in Nausea.
BTW what does /lit/ think of philosophers working in other mediums than literature?
Pic related, I think Béla Tarr is one of the greatest and purest existentialists of all time.
>>7679504
you realise that's a film adaptation of a book by laszlo krasznahorkai that doesn't really add anything new philosophically, right?
>>7679509
yeah but it's like seven hours long
>>7679509
>doesn't really add anything new philosophically, right?
Have read the book and seen the film?
Tarr and Krasznahorkai have collaborated intensively since the 1980's and most of their work has been inspired by eachothers
>>7679523
>Have read the book and seen the film?
yes
i mean to say that the film doesn't add anything new philosophically to the book. it's a very faithful very artistically satisfying adaptation, and i love the collaboration between krasz and tarr (and mihaly vig), but i wouldn't cite it as an example of 'philosophers working in other mediums than literature' seeing as though any philosophy is already present in the literature in this case
turin horse might be a better example, although i still feel like the meat of it is in the script and people always seem to laud bela tarr the most because of auteur theory or whatever
>>7679493
I haven't and if you think that is my serious interpretation of either of those two writers, i welcome you to /lit/ my newfriend.
>>7679502
Nothing is wrong with Camus, so to speak, only that i did not like his novels as much as the novels of other writers, and i only express that opinion because it's a little unpopular, maybe help expose some lesser knowns idk...i have a little problem with his assessment of "meaning"...how can you say that finding meaning is inherently impossible, an absurd struggle? isn't meaning self-determined? when i feel "deja vu" isn't that just me creatively assigning meaning? i don't get what is so absurd about it.
>>7679504
It was definitely more depressing than that sweet sadness you're talking about...i compare it to the actual symptoms of my own clinical depression...it lacks the texture of melancholy, it lacks the sensation...the protagonist of Nausea is essentially coping with the fact that he is *incapable* of finding any significance to his actions, his choices...he isn't renouncing it heroically, he isn't suffering the loss of it...it's more like he has a dysfunctional brain and he's suddenly gone colorblind. It is painful. And that cringey auto-didact in the library. The denigration of fucking. Sartre doesn't handle his themes well, and maybe because of that, it is even more depressing. The book is quite literally autistic.
>>7679538
>I was only pretending to be retarded!
Ok buddy
>>7679035
Nice
>>7679011
Translation: I haven't read either of these philosophers.
>>7679542
>being this autistic
>>7679564
>get called out
>can't defend yourself
>resort to ad hominem
>>7679575
how did you call me out except to say
>hurrdurr that's correct
my assessment of descrates and hume was, while limited and facetious, still accurate. also
>misusing "ad hominem"
a personal attack is not an ad hominem, you fag
>>7679584
>my assessment of descrates and hume was, while limited and facetious, still accurate
No it fucking wasn't. Descartes never implied anything fucking close to "there's no reality"
>a personal attack is not an ad hominem, you fag
That's literally the definition of ad hominem
>>7679538
>The book is quite literally autistic.
Yes, this was what I found too.
>>7679534
>seeing as though any philosophy is already present in the literature in this case
True, but I meant as in presenting the philosophy in another way than words. He visualises things in a manner that gets the point across, yet you have to see it to get it. The texture on the walls, the wind, the rain, the emptiness of the people depicted make you feel what Krasznahorkai could tell you with words.
But yes, Tarr was a bad example in this. What do you think of Bergman, Antonioni or Angolopoulos?
>>7679598
>That's literally the definition of ad hominem
it is not, actually an ad hominem would be for me to say that you could not make a sound argument on the aesthetics of your mother's cunt because you are a raging homosexual. Me calling you autistic for thinking that I was posting seriously in my initial post is just a biting observation, perhaps an insult, but it is not a logical fallacy as it makes no claims on your argument, just your personality.
>Descartes never implied anything fucking close to "there's no reality"
What did Descartes mean when he question the existence of the real outside of the thinking, logical concept of it? Can you elaborate. I probably *don't* get Descartes is the thing but you're not helping me in the least, you are trying to show off for the other kids.
>>7679601
i don't think there's anything that krasznahorkai couldn't tell me with words
>What do you think of Bergman, Antonioni or Angolopoulos?
i like the first two a huge deal, found the third boring
antonioni in particular is my favourite existentialist guy and really gets to the core of things, as well as being really artistically distinct and original in his own medium. he's a great example of what you're talking about
>>7679610
Its implying my argument is invalid because I'm mentally handicapped
Descartes did question reality for about 10 seconds before reaching the conclusion that God is perfect and exists and therefore would never fool us with a false reality
>>7679039
to be honest, your misinterpretation of cartesian philosophy is not uncommon. People often guess that Descartes rejected all certainty and that's it, because of his thought experiment that a demon could convince us of any false belief as strongly as we we can convince ourselves of any true belief. (This scepticism is more akin to Montaigne, on who's work Descartes' phiosophy is based). However, he only begins from a position of scepticism in order to show that his derivation of intuitive facts is necessary.
Your familiarity with Descartes may extend to his "I think (or I doubt) therefore I am", where he puts his existence back on the table of certainty.
Less referenced in popular culture are his other "certainties". For example, he has an ontological argument for the existence of God, as well as an argument for the existence of mathematical objects. Finally he argues that outright delusion is inconsistent with the existence of his God, and therefore our senses must be largely reliable.
Descartes was a rationalist (we can be certain with reason and logic) rather than a scepticist (we cannot be certain about anything).
I'm not familiar enough with Hume to disagree on that point, though it should be noted that his principle of Hume's fork accepts a priori knowledge as well as a posteriori.
>>7679621
Okay well I didn't read his proof of God it sounds interesting. Not really an argument is it? I mean how does one prove God and doesn't that belittle the notion of faith entirely?
>>7679615
>i don't think there's anything that krasznahorkai couldn't tell me with words
Here I must disagree. You can always describe a scene in painstaking detail, but sometimes pictures with music can make a greater impact.
Take this unscripted scene documenting drunk people. The longer I watch it, the less I have words.
Of course others might react differently, but thats life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_hUe4hl1rY
>>7679628
>I mean how does one prove God and doesn't that belittle the notion of faith entirely?
He had an actual line of reasoning despite it being horrible.
It was something like, god is perfect and Descartes mind couldn't conceive of something perfect unless it existed, so god must exist. And if god is perfect then he is good, and if he is good then he wouldn't fool us
>>7679624
Thank you, I really have not gotten far with the rational philosophers, my education was shit-tier...Is liebniz a good place to start?
>>7679633
have you read the book?
>>7679641
Yes, I've read the books Tarr has adapted, Satantango and the Melancholy of Resistance
>>7679635
I was really a fan of Kierkegaard and I guess I can see why he would be so against such an argument, but then again logic isn't my strong suit.
>>7679658
>but then again logic isn't my strong suit.
Why would a man confess this
Either a genius or completely behind the corner
Can philosophy actually influence your way of thinking so much to influence how you see and react to daily events? Has that happened to you?
>>7679681
Yes
>I've become so numb, I can't feel you there
>Become so tired, so much more aware
>I'm becoming this, all I want to do
>Is be more like me and be less like you
>>7679699
Nice dubs.
>>7679637
leibniz is not a good place to start in terms of epistemology, as he is almost entirely based on the cartesian tradition. I recommended descartes as a starting point for a friend who wanted to read philosophy so he can understand marx as he invents a new system of philosophy, which doesnt base its ideas of other people (except the scepticism of montaigne, but you can just read about that 2nd hand). There is a reason the distinction "modern philosophy" begins descartes.
Also descartes is very accessible. He's clear and concise, which means the validity/shortcomings in his arguments are clear. His entire philosophical works (I'm only with Anscombe translation) is only about 200pg. But be sure to read the entire thing, as Descartes gives us a *system* of philosophy - touching on many different topic, even including physics and algebra (though this is not necessary for you to read). The reason he starts with scepticism is to wipe the slate and start again.
p.s. if you dont mind me asking, what is shit-tier about your education
>>7679635
pretty much, this is correct. descartes finiteness and imperfection is "immediately accessible knowledge" (just like his own existence). God's infinitude and perfect is also immediately accessible. The fact that imperfection and finitude cannot lead to perfection and infinitude is also immediately accessible.
In combinitation therefore, the concept of god must be external and originates in a perfect and infinite being (we shall herein call this being god).
>>7679628
>doesn't that belittle the notion of faith entirely?
This is an important criticism of Descartes, and more generally the school of scholastism (Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Paley ect). They would say that reason has been given to us by God in order for us to know his existence.
If your interested in the critique of this concept, read Kant, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Kierkegaard.
>>7679635
>He had an actual line of reasoning despite it being horrible
Better than anselm though i suppose eh
>>7679681
Philosophical Investigations - Wittgenstein.
Immediately made clear to me why Tractatus was so uncomfortable for me to accept. From now on I see language as "correct" if both parties understand it, which has made me less of an insufferable pedant
>>7679711
My education was shit-tier because I dropped out of a southern US public high school. My only saving grace is that I'm willing to pick it up myself. It is encouraging to hear that Descartes is accessible, and I'm actually excited to get into it now. Do you think he offers a good way to begin appreciating formal logic?
>>7678996
Underated post
>dude were all like atoms and like fire and shit and god is just creating everything then destroying it. Whoa
>>7679822
>atoms
>things created by god
Read his fragments and stop foaming shit from your mouth.
>>7678970
The fact that this thread has garnered any replies at all after this frankly atrocious original post, disgusts me.
>>7679865
>implying I don't know exactly what I'm talking about
>uselessly foaming shit without actually saying anything
Good job faggot
>>7679760
I dont remember him being important in formal logic. I dont think he did any formal logic, though I may be wrong. For formal logic one has to be careful, as thats more the branch of mathematics, and so different logicians can be "redundant".
What do you mean by formal logic?
Do you mean "thinking logically, critically, consistently etc"?
If so then I suppose Descartes is good at that. He includes a section Objections and Replies in which he includes the objections by various other philosophers of his work (he sent it around to them first) and his counterarguments. This is good practice for critical thinking. Though this is not "formal logic". Formal logic is an area of mathematics:
Do you mean "(A and (A implies B)) implies B" and "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therfore Socrates is mortal"?
This is propositional caluclus which began with Aristotle, though I wouldnt read aristotle to learn about logic for the same reason i wouldnt read aristotle to learn about botany. Its out-dated, and often incorrect. Except for historical importance, I would learn this logic online.
Do you mean high-level logic like "consistency of transfinite induction to ordinal epsilon-nought implies the consistency of peano axioms imposed on the axioms of principia mathematicia" and stuff like that. If so then this is absolutely not philosophy and one should only learn this stuff from up-to-date textbooks, reliable online sources and research papers. Note this stuff is hard going and an interest in philosophy does not imply and interest in mathematical logic.
'Grats on the motivation. I wish I wouldnt let school get in the way of my education. I'll be happy to recommend you accessible stuff/ answer questions though note that I am no substitute for someone who knows their shit. Im just a pretentious child. :)
>>7678970
>DUDE WEED LMAO mentality?
Today on /lit/, a retard summarizes phenomenology and ruins it for everyone.
Also, anyone who doesn't realize the greatest ball-tripper is Hegel is a fool.
>>7678977
https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth
You're likely not going to read this, as you're self-assured that you're right and can't be wrong, and thus insulated from any attempt at expanding your worldview.
If you, against odds, choose to read this, it's not unintelligent.
>>7679945
Thank you for clearing that up so well. I am a little interested in mathematical philosophy because it relates to language and I am interested ultimately in the poetical faculty of language I would like to pinpoint just that. Okay so a specific question. Do you know what I would absolutely require to appreciate Heidegger? I have been watching interviews and I want to read Being and Time but it seems a bit daunting. Thanks for any info I am a child too I mean this is 4chan is it not
>>7680029
>I am interested ultimately in the poetical faculty of language I would like to pinpoint just that
honestly, mathematical philosophy probably wont answer any of your questions. even if one is interested in mathematical philosophy, this is not the same as mathematics (in the same way that knowledge of brush-strokes is not essential to aesthetics). All that is required for mathematical philosophy is to know that mathematics is studied, is applied and is generally agreed upon.
I may be biased, I wrote a paper for school in which concluded that logic is used by philosophers in the same way arithmetic is used by waiters, however mathematical results are no more important to philosophy than they are to the art of waitering.
Mathematical logic is fascinating and beautiful and I have far greater expertise in mathematics than logic. I would hate to turn anyone away from it, though it certainly is not a prerequite for any philosophy. The most "mathematical" philosophy that is pertainent to a study of language Wittgenstein, though I've only read "TLC" and "Philosophical Investigations" in any depth.
>absolutely require to appreciate Heidegger
Well, im suspicious of anyone who claims that any book is "absolutely required" to read any philosopher. To understand the concepts a 2nd hand discussion is enough. This can be found in a nice juicy introduction (should be 80pg+) to the book and healthy annotations. Of course, just because you understand the concepts does not mean youll appreciate why they are important, what they challenge or what they imply.
Heidegger challenges Descartes (who youre planning on reading anyway) and uses Kierkegaard Nietzche and Kant (DO NOT READ ANY POST-KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT READING KANT). There are ofcourse influences from lesser known philosophers and classical philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, later Augustine) but these shouldnt be obsessed over, and will be dealt with in a good intro.
p.s. the /lit/ philosophy guide is not as bad as a /lit/ philosophy guide sounds. It is way too strict in its requisites but its not inaccurate.
>>7680161
>mathematics than logic
^^^typo.
read: mathematics than philosophy
>>7680029
>I am a child too
I mean, atleast you've gone to highschool already
>>7680161
Heidegger said everyone should study Aristotle for 15 years before reading anything else. Not that I agree with him, but it should tell you how heavily influenced he was by Aristotle
>>7680161
>>7680161
cheers! i have read a few explanations of Kant (although nothing in depth), just as i have read a few rudimentary explanations of Hegel. Nietzsche was my vector into philosophy, so I am familiar with most of his predominant tropes. I can see how Nietzsche is an essential counterweight to Hegel (although not his opposite by any means) Kierkegaard is dear to me, but I am familiar with his apologetic work more than his philosophy (except for either/or) So, having said all of that, I think I am ready enough to read Heidegger when I am willing to do it. Poetical language is what I am looking for, perhaps to reduce it to some principal or to find a way to codify it. While I don't seek to make an exclusive, prescriptive description of it, I would like to save poetry from the morass it seems to be currently in (i.e. confessional/slam whatever) I would like to do what Pound did, except I am not Pound and this is not the 20th century.
>>7680204
I'm familiar with Heidegger's view on the importance of Aristotle, though I do not think that any more Aristotle is an "absolute requirement" than reading his plato.stanford page and the introduction to Being and Time. A lot of the aristotle will come down though the other philosophers I recommended: mainly Augustine and especially Nietzche, to a lesser extent Kant. This is not just my antiaristotlean bias. In general I think the importance of "prerequisites" is overstated. A good intro, a quick 2nd hand source and heavy annotations should get you though most philosophy unless you want an indepth study.
>>7680228
I tend to agree, just wanted to point it out. Heidegger has a tendency to do his own thing with his readings of other philosophers anyways so being super knowledgable on a particular figure might not be as helpful as one night thing when reading heidegger
>>7680208
I do not know enough poetry to talk about its philosophico-linguistic analysis. You might be hard-pressed to find any modern philosophers who argue for object aesthetics in poetry.
Plato's dialogues are heavy on the idea of good/bad poetry. e.g. Republic, Ion, Gorgias, Phaedrus. I cant think of any other philosophers on this topic atm
>>7680250
I have enough to read now as it is. Heidegger mentions poetry in one of his t.v. interviews and so that is why he is attracting me.
>>7679035
Holy shit
>>7679699
