/lit/ - Literature

Have you ever considered the idea that common philosophical ideas such as idealism, nihilism, materialism, etc are all bullshit? Philosophers often talk about nihilism as something that's self evident. People here love to complain about materialism. But at the end of the day it's just an opinion that became dogmatic in mainstream philosophy.

Nihilism refutes itself because by virtue of existing you are finding some meaning so as you don't lie on the floor and stare at the ceiling for the rest of your life.
Materialism and idealism are false dichotomies because it should be clearly evident that we live in a world that is both material and ideal.
Pessimism suffers the same self refutation of nihilism, because the pessimist finds happiness in being correct, and really just reveals more about his personality than truth

What does this mean for philosophy? It's all just some guy's opinion, that often says more about him than the ideas presented.

>>18639433
Was Kant drinking red bull? Anyway I would sit at table 2 opposite Hegel. Every time Schopenhauer and Marx attempted to speak I would silence them with a slap.

>>18563828
What am I supposed to tell normies I did on my weekend? I have a job and am obligated to speak with them.

>>14717509

>>14552102
I haven't read the Greeks. But in my eyes, if someone is starting with the Greeks, or says "I've read The Republic, what now?", it tells me this is the type of person who wants to study philosophy as a subject, to say they study philosophy. I have to wonder what is the motivation here? Philosophizing is an activity, something that someone does, and this is actually Schopenhauer's idea. Starting with the Greeks because your professor or some nerds on the internet told you to means all you really want to do is become a historian of ideas.

To philosophize you should start with the philosopher whose ideas interest you the most, because you will engage with their ideas more effectively, and build a weltanschauung that suits you personally. Now you can certainly start with a 20th century philosopher and work your way backwards gaining an interest in their influences over the centuries, this is what I did.

However if you want to read a particular philosopher, you do need to have an idea of who or what they're responding to. I guess you don't have to read Kant himself to understand Schopenhauer, but if you don't have at least a cursory knowledge of his philosophy you will be lost reading Schopenhauer, especially as you have to read his extremely Kantian dissertation before his main work.

Also let's not forget that "starting with the Greeks" is based on the outdated Reinaissance/Enlightenment idea that ancient Greece was a perfect society that we should model ourselves on. Start with the Chinese if you want. You'd probably gain as much from reading the Analects as you would from The Republic.

>>14550373
>math
>collect data and look for patterns

>>14422270
>imagine not double degreeing in a pure science and philosophy so you flex on the NPC STEMtards with your verbose bullshitting and flex on the edgelords by showing they don’t understand the foundations of basic math or why we calculate in quanta.
erbärmlich

>>14307718
No
Not at all
I think pretty much everyone agrees that science specifically refers to that which arises from empirical observation and the scientific method.
It's unfortunate that a lot of modern epistemology was originally written in German, I think that's at the root of a lot of these misunderstandings about the use of the word.
>>14307771
start with the greeks

>>14264466
>the only way to make your ideology seem reasonable is to straw man everyone else's
epic

>>13862745
this

>mom thinks she found the noumena

>>13835309
Is this supposed to be shocking?

So what’s the actual problem with an infinite regress describing the universe?
Why do WLC and Aquinas have such a problem with it?

>>13767782
How are a*alytics this bad at philosophy?

Time is not an empirical concept that is somehow drawn from experience. For simultaneity or succession would not themselves come into perception if the representation of time did not ground them a priori. Only under its presuppositions can one represent that several things exist at one and the same time (simultaneously) or in different times (successively). Yet, in delineating, nay distinguishing, unto others, all pedagogy proves useless, as the upon the spot, is lost, and becomes an hour, two hours, three hours for a cup of coffee—the preparation, deliverance and hitherto pouring of coffee (COFFEE!), is lost, and becomes an agonizing wait. *Calls out to kitchen* Where is my coffee, Herr Lampe? *pounds table* I insist it must be brought upon the spot. Herr Damen, I apologize, for this good-for-nothing Lampe. I shall exclude him from the will. No, no that would be unright but a topic for another time, dear sirs; oh Lampe, a friend in need is a friend indeed. As we wait, it should be recounted that coffee was brought to Europe from Ale-Gears—no, no no do not interrupt, that is how it is pronounced— brought to us by the Moors of Barbary. Do not get me started on them, gentlemen. A treacherous and lecherous people who did not even touch the drink. You will not want to hear this but they have no plans, awake at noon, debase themselves several times a day, they do not learn the written word, they piss on the streets, then, after weeks of idleness, they will get a ship and prey upon vessels in the Mediterranean, they take wives, live in straw huts and eat cakes all day. I hate them *pounds table* Herr, Schultz, don't look so shocked. I told that damned König what to do in my epistles. The day I see a Moore in Königsberg, I shall leave and never return. *rings little bell* AHEM. COFETVE. WHERE IS THE COFFEE LAMPE! GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU. Gentlemen, there is no coffee in Heaven. We can take solace in this fact. No time. No nothing.

>he got BTFOed on /pol/ by someone who actually read Marx and Adorno

>>12929412
>he’s a pragmatist

Based Anon has a stroke

Does anyone have that quote about Kant and how he would yell at his servant for not already having his coffee ready when he woke up?