Can we have a philosophical and/or psychological thread going? Basically anything related to those two subjects is very welcome.
Recently, I've been thinking of getting into some of Kant's works. Especially his three Critiques of Pure Reason and the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Any recommendations would be interesting.
Also, there's a video I've been looking for. It's an interview about personality development, in which the person being interviewed explains the stages a person can reach spiritually. It's a rather old video with an old man being interviewed.
>>28402044
See, to get into philosophy in general, first you have to give a fuck about life
So, good luck
>>28402440
Care to explain why that would be the case? Philosophy can also be a great time waster.
>babby's first philosophy
START WITH THE GREEKS
>>28402583
It's not about being useful, entertaining or good time waster
To look into things like morality, reasoning, or the right way to live, first you have to care about your life. Simple as that
Im sure someone here will want to discuss it, but yeah good luck finding them
>>28402701
If you're alive, you must care about life to some extent. Not having the guts to end it seems like the remaining part within a person that wishes to stay alive; otherwise that person would be dead.
>>28402647
Greeks are interesting, but they keep it too general.
>>28402044
Kant is tough. I would probably start with Hume, just to get some idea about stuff Kant was referring to.
It made an important contribution to me when I was reading it, though.
>>28402044
You know the term "I think, therefore I am."?
What about, "I see, therefore it is.". Existence is comprised of conflicting truths, each truth truer than the other, as with falsities - because our mortal consciousness IS existence. Which also means suicide is more than death of the self..
>>28403920
'I think, therefore I am.' is a phrase made by Descartes, who came to the conclusion AFTER not trusting his senses such as his vision.
Though, depending on what exactly you mean by 'I see', it can be debatable whether or not it can be considered a truth comparable to the initial statement. If, by 'I see', you mean the synonym to 'I perceive' (vision), I'd argue that vision is not to be trusted as Socrates already considered the material world to be deceiving. If, by 'I see', you mean the synonym to 'I understand', the 'is' remains undefined and depends on your personal interpretation of existence itself. If the existence of something to you is the purest form of something perceivable, even if only in thought, I'd say that mortal consciousness is merely one of the many existences, but the only existence one can experience. Suicide is the end of that experience, yet not necessarily the end of existence.
>>28404178
A better, more general term would be "I perceive, therefore it is." I'm referring to perception as a whole, however. All 6 senses + consciousness and subconsciousness. Your entire ego; you.
To perceive is to exist, because without perception, there is nothing to perceive, and no existence that can be possibly perceived. This philosophy both affirms and disproves Socrates untrustworthy material world. As he perceives his existence to be, it shall be, but to him only - an illogical absolute truth / false paradox to any other coexisting perception.
>>28404714
To add:
You cannot perceive any existence that is not your own. Therefore, yours is true, and mine is too.
There is only one truth that is entirely true, exempt from paradox: mortal inexistence. When your existence ceases to be, so will theirs.
>>28404860
Well, I assumed you meant 'what you are perceiving' with the 'it is' as in, 'I perceive, therefore what I perceive is', but now it seems like you mean 'it is' as in, 'I perceive, therefore existence is', which obviously makes sense. It ends up in the same thought, but worded differently, as existence is the collection of experiences/perceptions and can thus be summed up as such.
So, I agree with you.
life is a meme and it's probably best to live it carelessly in my honest opinion desu
absurdism is the only 'correct' philosophy. supporting or living by anything else is intellectual dishonesty
>>28405265
It always always comes back to this, and yet /lit/ calls Camus a hack.
>tfw everyone on 4chan treats philosophy as a means to further strengthen their ego
Why can't I even make suggestions about certain things without being shot down right away
>>28405350
You're edgy, that's why.
>>28405265
And you'd be correct.
And incorrect, too!
>>28404860
>>28404714
>>28405308
Because he is a hack. WAAH WAWAH MY LIF EIS TOO GOOD WAAAAH. Fuck him and all that he stands for. Same shit goes for Sartre and Kafka and Nietzsche.
>>28405265
well, absurdism, cosmocism, nihilism and so on all go in a similar direction
but i do agree that out of those, absurdism is probably the most honest one
Are there any of those nifty internet quizzes that point you to a philosoraptor that your views would align with?
>>28405566
Fuck your holier-than-thou wannabe normie attitude.
Why don't you continue sucking Kant's dick and pretend to be proud while those you revere mock you.
>>28405999
>while those you revere mock you.
Pretty sure you don't know the meaning of that word duder.
>>28405566
>WAAH
Unless I've misunderstood (read Camus years ago), there doesn't seem to be any whining in Absurdism. Rather, by accepting the 'gentle indifference of the world' you acknowledge the absence of inherent meaning in life and continue on in spite of it, rather than crying about it.
>>28406085
>Unless I've misunderstood (read Camus years ago), there doesn't seem to be any whining in Absurdism
Correct.
Anon either misunderstands, is projecting, or just being a troll.
>philosophy
Literally walking in circles
>>28406244
>lowquality bait
sure man, you're right!
>>28406275
>low quality bait
Um, I don't want to agree, but in all fairness couldn't one argue that his pic is an apt simplification to some extent?
>>28406244
>literally walking in circles
>literally
wow, how dumb are you scienceman?
>>28406311
Philosophy is based around making theories and disproving those using logic. So that picture is absolutely one-sided and basically bullshit.
>>28402758
They get referenced a lot (i think) so the advice is for the porous of being in the know.
>>28405566
nice bait.
6/10
>>28406365
>Philosophy is based around making theories and disproving those using logic. So that picture is absolutely one-sided and basically bullshit.
OK. So that does throw out a lot of philosophical theories that basically come down to opinion or preference. Only the Greeks remain.
