/lit/ - Literature

why is american philosophy so dry and boring and nonexistent compared to the french and germans and greeks?

>>14163620
Molydud doesn’t even have a fsjalsopher. He's not gonna make it

>>12262057
>Is it even possible to use my 1+1=2 example to explain the concept of an Objective Morality? Or are these 2 separate ideas entirely that cannot be compared like that?

Look into some philosophy of math. Even something as simple as addition turns out to be a bit hard to call "objective."

A lot of anons in this thread have already brought up the fact that math is basically just convention, which undermines a lot of the special truth-claims it seems to have.

The best strategy for arguing objectivity (imo) is to argue for the existence of abstract objects. 1+1=2 is true, for example, because there exist abstract objects that satisfy that claim. We can see this happen in the "real world" by counting apples, but what really matters is the abstract objects that are outside our direct perception. They make the rules, and the reality we see follows those rules. Google "mathematical platonism" if you're interested in learning a bit more about this.

Plato's morality was similar —if you reason backwards from particular instances of good behavior (helping a friend, etc.), you can get to the Form of the Good, the abstract object(s) that make the rules for morality. The Republic is, on the conventional reading, an attempt at this, albeit a flawed one.

You seem like you'd benefit from reading Plato, along with a secondary source. Best of luck anon.


>>12262204
>To reject useless frameworks we need to assume egoism.
[citation needed]

I could be a Kantian deontologist, and argue that the categorical imperative requires me to develop a scientific understanding of the world, because a scientific understanding of the world enables me to better treat others as ends (e.g. giving people medicine).

I could be a utilitarian, and argue something similar.

I could be a virtue ethicist, and argue that science makes you a better person because it sharpens your reasoning and observation skills.

I could be a platonist, and argue that science gives us indirect access to the Form of Truth.

Almost every noteworthy system of ethics/philosophy has built-in ways of accepting/rejecting/assimilating other frameworks of thought. Not just egoism.

Any good books for/about giving up alcohol? I want to read but I'm always too hungover to focus on anything worthwhile. If there was something that could knock two birds out with one stone I'd appreciate a suggestion.

Here is a epic meme from Reddit, also can someone tell me why Schopenhauer is the only one not smiling

Who is the greatest philosopher present in this image?

Who is, unironically might i add, the best philosopher seen in this image? I'm starting to lean Kierkegaard desu

what is the single most dense or opaque philosophical dissertation or book? phenomenology of spirit? anti-oedipus?

Can someone please rank PKD's greatest works for me? I got Ubik and another called Valis or something from the library, and I'd like to know if they're good ones, and which ones I should get after if I like these.

>>10437124
Depends on what you/he want(s).

If all you care about is that thinker's most influential idea(s), you can probably just read one (1) history of philosophy textbook and stop there. That will give you enough insight to appreciate their basic prescription for how to live. Of course, that's receiving philosophy, not doing philosophy, but if that's your friend's prerogative, more power to him.

If you want to engage with a thinker's ideas, you can't just understand their conclusion; you need to understand how they arrived at it. Thus, the need to read the whole book. Most philosophy is 80 or 90% reasoning with 20 or 10% conclusions. To really "get" philosophy, to an extent that you can have a productive conversation about it, you need both the reasoning and the conclusions, and if that's your prerogative, I encourage you to read all you can.

What it ultimately comes down to is two (2) different approaches to philosophy: "Tell me what to think" vs "Tell me why I should think it." You could argue that the first isn't really philosophy, but, then, your friend doesn't really want to be a philosopher. It sounds like he just wants to dig up old smart people who agree with his worldview.

No. You will become wise. Here's a fixed *sniff* version.

>>10260676
I've been here for 4 years & I love philosophical discussion but, you have to admit it would be better on its own board.

So I was watching this guy talking about the top 10 books of philosophy he would take with him to a deserted island. This guy is obviously very well-read and I do enjoy watching his videos but it struck me, why even read philosophy? He now knows philosophical works, then what?

What have this guy and others like him gotten out of it, except now understanding philosophical works? Well and obviously he works and makes money with it but i'm talking about the average guy.

Is it nothing but the practice of performing thought experiments?

Btw this is not me shitting on philosophy but rather i'm trying to find a reason for it, as I was intending to picking it up. Once, I feel I had some answers to this question but no longer.

Why philosophy?

And if anyone want to watch the video i was viewing
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceqXTtcDwNI

>>15739
same this is board is the best combination

>>9251807
Half of them are about kews

>>9246966
This one ?

Start with the Greeks.

>>6906738
updated