Reccomend some philosophy to me, please. I've read Thus Spake Zarathustra and some of Plato's Republic. Still kind of a beginner when it comes to philosophy, I guess, but I wouldn't shy away from more dense/challenging stuff.
I'm also open to hybrid stuff. I read and enjoyed Steven Erikson. Loved how literary the Malaz books were, and appreciated the philosophy woven in to the story, though I know /lit/ doesn't exactly appreciate normie books.
Also, if anyone knows anywhere I can access this stuff online would be great. I know MIT has a pretty good free online database. Others like that would be excellent.
>>8114685
Kant Critique of Pure Reason
why do people never read Symposium
Is philosophy worth getting more into if one can always find cause to doubt logical systems making the search of certainty a futile one?
>>8114830
Pop a Xanax and relax. Doubt is not a reason for worry, but rather an indication of healthy thought processes. Fallibilism is the best we can hope for.
>>8114869
Well I hope things will calm down in that head of mine but until then I'll have to force myself as I have no will to deal anymore with philosophy.
>>8114685
https://warosu.org/lit/thread/8071100
>>8114903
That's great, thanks famalam.
self studying critical thinking here.
The particular section I am studying is about objective questions or issues. The examples seem contradictory to me.
Why are questions about other universes and the like invalid but questions about supernatural things like god valid? Why is considering the objective claim of whether or not god exists not the same as the one about other universes? They are essentially otherworldly.
And why is the claim that all humans desire freedom similarly invalid? Isn't it a fundamental human instinct? Or is this statement considering some sort of special interpretation like a mentally ill person who volunteers to be locked up so they do not cause harm to another or themselves?
Sorry if I sound stupid, but I am really trying to think critically about thinking and how I understand this.
>>8116925
also, pic related. it's the particular section I am studying.
>>8114685
>Reccomend some philosophy to me, please. I've read Thus Spake Zarathustra and some of Plato's Republic.
>>8116925
We're not even sure how our own universe fully works yet. To question if there are others would be making the assumption that we have a fully working and tangible definition of what a "universe" is and are able to hypothesize how multiple ones would differ from each other. We don't even know how gravity works for fucks sake. To begin to think about how fundamental aspects of reality would work outside of the context of our own universe borderlines on insanity, so most people just discard the idea entirely.
>>8114685
I got what you need fami
>>8117038
ok, but we know nothing about what "god" is really like, other than attributes we conceive it to have. we don't even have a tangible example of a supernatural force at work. so how can claims about "god" be objective and another universe not when we at least have an example of one universe despite not having a full understanding of it as a model? claims about god seem just as limited as ones about another universe to me. God exists is an objective claim that is either true or false regardless of what we believe. I just don't understand how one cannot make an objective claim about another universe existing.
>>8117088
pls resppond
Phenomenology of Spirit.
>>8117059
Holy shit, that's a real book cover.
Read the Gorgias: it is probably the best platonic dialogue and it isn't very long.
