/lit/ - Literature

The transcendental unity of apperception. Not so smug are you now, you fat bastard?

Yes, yes, well done Harris, well done.
HOWEVER

MacIntyre wrecked this fat fuck

What should I read from Hume before reading The Critique of Pure Reason?

How do I stop subvocalizing?

Skepticism, also

>>8734531

>people still take Thomas "My semantic language games prove God" Aquinas seriously
>mfw

When will bread philosophers stop denying that he killed their jobs?

>>8389635
Sure, when you realise that our preferences are all ultimately irrational, saying 'I really like this nation and I want it to be a certain way' is no more irrational than anything else.

What does /lit/ think of David Hume?

I tried reading his works, but his outdated English turned me off. Should I give him another chance?

Is "Kant saved philosophy after Hume" the biggest emperor's clothes meme in the history of philosophy?

Who is the David Hume of philosophy?

ITT: Authors you'd buy a beer to.

>>7064405
bundle theory
muh fork
morality is like a good wine, you need to have the taste for it ;)

How can one philosopher be so based?

>metaphysics: BTFO
>morality: BTFO
>religion: BTFO
>Rationalists: BTFO
>the Self: BTFO
>causation: BTFO
>induction: BTFO
>all scientific paradigms before and since: BTFO
>philosophy: BTFO

Where we you when the entirety of human intellectual history was kill?

Continental thinkers are always a few centuries behind.

>>6712958
pic related

The Jock

>mfw people unironically call him a "good" philosopher

alright /lit/
he's bullshit, right?

There are atheists who claim that them being atheist doesn't change that much, that you can find your own meaning et cetera. I agree with them, but only on the "you can find your own meaning" part. When you don't believe in a supreme being, your outlook on the world is radically different, in a negative sense. You can either love someone too much because you're depressed that there's nothing after you die, or you can be cold to everyone, or damage the society because of your own selfishness and wish for enjoyment, because after you die there'll be nothing, and you better use all this time to your maximum, right? If there is no God, everything is permitted. Everything. I've seen a person argue how there are earthly restrictions, stuff like the Police, but you can escape them, or kill them all, just if you're talented enough. There's no restrictions, everything is permitted.
Most atheists believe in science and reason, which naturally follows from denying God of any kind (be it a deist god, or a christian god). Looking at the World through the lenses of science completely, is terrible. There's natural laws which control everything, and scientist predict that in the future we will be able to find out almost everything about a person just by looking at its gene. Everything is just matter moving, you have no free will, everything is already designated, like the time of your death. The human being is reduced to a collection of matter which follows the natural laws, and consciousness exists because of the matter giving that illusion. I suggest Hume to everyone who thinks I'm in the wrong.
I'm a deist who's been thinking about these topics a lot, and who's been on the both sides (both Atheism and Theism), and I'd like to hear your honest answers, without any trolling. I know normal discussion on /lit/ is almost impossible, and that a good chunk of posters here haven't read that what they are commenting on, but let's try and have a normal discussion for once.

>implying I'm a rationalist

>>5892797
Are those eclairs? Come on in, J.J.!