/lit/ - Literature

I got a glock in my rari

>what if like ... things ... revealed-themselves-to-us and we saw-things-like-poets that i shall call poet-seeing
whoah
why do philosophers not think this guy is some sort of pre-krautrock buddhist hippy?

Stop reading Descartes. Stop reading Sartre.

>>12264312
It isn't their fault the Anglosphere doesn't produce any interesting conservatives and it doesn't help the best Portuguese or French conservatives haven't been translated.

My wife's son really enjoys this philosopher, guys! Recommend other philosophers he might like.

>>11490354
>implying subject-objection distinction
>implying determination of physical reality as rex extensa
>implying kant said anything descartes didnt
brb gonna smash this fat jewish puss, join the nazi party, and have everyone study me anyway because I'm that fresh. Meanwhile 'the story [Geschichte] of Kant's life is hard to describe because he had neither a story nor did he a life', wow... see you 'round, kid.

Explaining philosophy in simple terms is hard, but I'm restricted to the post limit and your attention span, so I'll start with a true story.

My father comes from a family of alcoholics, many of them died or killed themselves because of their addiction. At Christmas I brought my boyfriend over to visit my parents and during his two-day stay, he remained tipsy throughout. My mother was abused by a past husband and is hypersensitive to potential abuse. On the second day of my boyfriend's stay, he slammed me to the ground and bruised my shoulder.

So my mother tells my father. Now my father is pissed, and he starts bitching about all this to his family. After a bad case of Chinese Whispers and gossiping, my sister decides to come over and starts shouting at my boyfriend, accusing him of being a rapist.

What really happened? My boyfriend hadn't drank alcohol the entire year, and only did so then because in his family, the tradition is to drink and he assumed ours was too (there was an endless supply here). After watching WWE on TV and he thought it would be funny to try to copy some of the moves, and, being drunk, his poor coordination led to the incident.

So here we have example of cognitive biases, narratives based on different historical contexts, misinterpretations, incomplete information leading to misconceptions, lies built upon other lies, and emotions clouding judgement

Philosophers (Wittgenstein, Saussure) once viewed the problem of language as the problem of using "signs" (words, symbols, speech, art, or anything else that represents some aspect of reality) to describe reality, but failed to recognise that even if we all universally used the same "signs" and there was no ambiguity in them, it wouldn't make communication any more accurate than it is (by a substantial degree).

Then came the deconstructionists, post-structuralist, and post-modernist, who made some remarks about narratives and reality. It's true that unless we understand everyone's reality then our own is subjective. This ironically became a new dogma: instead of accepting that objective reality is difficult, we made that the objective reality. We have this tendency to want easy answers and this let us sit back and stop asking questions altogether.

I think Heidegger had the right idea for tackling this problem but he is misunderstood for the precise reasons outlined here. You see, unless you have the intuition for this kind of thing -- unless you understand the psychology of bias, the mechanism by which rumours spread and the importance of historical context -- his "theories" won't make any sense to you. How can you use text to teach someone how to overcome a midlife crisis if he is in his twenties?

Nobody understands him because you're all stuck in this series of philosophical arguments, each based on the last. It is possible to transcend this but nobody could tell you how.

>The being which is concerned in its being about its being is related to its being as its truest possibility.

What did he mean by this?

Reminder that deconstruction was Heidegger's idea.