>started with the greeks
>went all the way up to early moderns
>investigated the idealists
>fucked around with phenomenology
>hung with the hermeneuticists
>partied with the poststructuralists
Where do I go now?
What's next?
I'm extremely excited that gorillaposting has finally been brought to /lit/.
>>8117171
You write.
>>8117171
Jus b urself
>>8117171
you go back to the greeks and start the ride all over again but with a more educated perspective
Float freely through space with the formalists
realize that absolutely none of that knowledge will be beneficial to you in your day to day life.
>>8117217
sophistry is a bannable offense
>>8117223
i say that as someone who continues to read philosophy 4 years after getting my degree in philosophy.
>>8117171
>>partied with the poststructuralists
>Where do I go now?
>What's next?
AIDS testing?
>>8117235
>not applying philosophy to your everyday life
what are you doing it for then? It helps me everyday
>>8117171
You need to masturbate to the materialists, obviously.
Learn about the future
>>8117282
What kind of Phenomenology did you read?
Have you read the Pragamatists?
Stay away from Spooks, kid
cruise with the christians
Personally, I'd stick around with poststructuralism if you dig it. It's a really active field and there's good contemporary things being published.
>>8117254
can you give some examples?
>>8117709
well when i'm into some trouble i just bee myself xD
>>8117733
tl;dr existentialism
resume with the romans
annihilate with the accelerationists
>>8117709
Not him but Dostoyevsky disproved my nihilistic world view and cured my anti social behaviour, Seneca cured my anger.
>>8117777
holy guacamole
checkd
>>8117171
now it's time to continue where words end. Bach, Beethoven etc
>>8117171
Soirée with the situationists
>>8117171
get into painting
>>8117171
Read about some actual science.
>>8118182
people who have no idea what science "is", and loathe philosophy always say something like this. As if there's an easy way to master a subject in science first of all, or that science is for everyone second of all, or third of all that you're educated in "science". Might as well just add a "The" in front of science. "The Science". It'd still sound as stupid.
>>8118182
The only correct answer.
>>8118193
Not really.
>>8118194
Yes, really. Early 20th century philosophy, which OP obviously hasn't covered yet, is analytic, and so is contemporary Anglo-Saxon philosophy.
The anals are everywhere now. It is the dominant tradition.
>>8117235
Well what have you been reading? Because it seems to me that it's harder to find a philosopher who doesn't influence your everyday life than one who does. Maybe analytic philosophers fit that bill, but even then there are many exceptions and even the thought process itself, as a habit, is useful.
>>8117171
You read the analytics.
>>8118203
>and so is contemporary Anglo-Saxon philosophy
>>8117171
Swing it with the Spinozists?
>>8118209
What's wrong with Sokal ?
>>8118257
I'd say it's not him but rather that for too many analytics and stemfags a specific incident in a specific journal is used to handwave away an entire philosophical school.
>>8118257
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
>>8117686
This
You gotta read Peirce, James, Dewey.
>>8117171
Nosh with the New Sincere
>>8118307
I've only read Peirce's The Fixation of Belief and How To Make Our Ideas Clear, but those are the founding texts of pragmatism. You'll then want to see how James picks up on Peirce's ideas and then move onto Dewey.
>>8118193
The hard-line scientific approach to knowledge isn't as cool as you might think it is. In a world that's full of uncertainty it just means that you're running away to your little corner to cling to things you think you can verify, because you think that way you won't think anything wrong, but in effect you end up 'not acknowledging things that are true but can not currently be verified', so you're still biased. You'll have to learn to deal with uncertainty at some point, anon.
>>8118472
But how can you know if something is true if you can't verify it?
>>8118483
You can't 'know', obviously. You can however make the reasonable assumption that, among the unverifiable concepts there are some that are true, and try to make sense of the world that lies beyond verifiability instead of outright ignoring it.
>>8117171
You should've killed yourself years ago. You've wasted your entire life on being alive.
>>8117171
eastern philosophy
>>8118643
>>>/reddit/
>>8118496
>the most rigorous framework out there makes fewer airtight positive claims than mine makes claims overall
>this is inherently a deficiency because you can't end up verifying every last premise I like
Nigga just put knowledge unverifiable through analytics that you insist on on a second tier and believe it less strongly and for other reasons hahahahahahahaha like nigga just do more than one philosophy
>>8117177
A kid had to die for it to happen.
>>8119497
A: The kid didn't die.
B: It's not like it was a human kid.
>>8119497
Shit, I meant a gorilla.
The kid is ok. Unfortunately.
>>8119320
>not reading the reply chain and making false assumptions about the post you replied to as a result
this is what happens if you don't start with the greeks.
>>8118193
This a great poster. What's the original?
>>8118203
>contemporary dominant tradition = correct answer
spotted the idiot blindly following the zeitgeist
>>8117998
>not touring with Tchaikovsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvTYPLCQ_18
wew
>>8119749
stop listening to classical music you nob head
>>8119640
>>not reading the reply chain
But I did. Maybe you're just shit at writing clearly.
>>8117171
Battle with the spooks.
>>8119758 see >>8118193
Hardline science-fags believe that truth which lies outside the realm of verifiable scientific knowledge is something that should be left alone. They are unwilling to step into the realm of obscurity, ambiguity and emotion, and they would never go along with the secondary category you propose. That's what I'm arguing against. You can distinguish as much as you like. The question is what qualities you asign to those different kinds of knowledge you think exist.
>>8119649
It is an original; made it months ago. Thought that /lit/ had to have some kind of analytic presence and representation, since the rough majority of /lit/ is ignorant of >20th century anals.
>>8117171
poetry, it's the only benefit of all that.
And literature, drama, other art also obviously, but you can do those w/o the extensive background
