/lit/ - Literature

>>21429166
>I do not give a fuck about ethics.
>fucking young slave boys is le problematic!!!!

TO FEEL CONTEMPT

>>19056181
>everything that makes my little brain go awoogabooga is nonsense!

>>18945561
>Sure thing, buddy

>>18595210
>x BTFOS y

>...because... free will................its a test bro, trust me! it just is ! bro..... God works in mysterious ways!!! really, I'm telling you!

>>17641079
>if I cover my lack of knowledge with le funny based may mays maybe I'll find some friends online

>>17609378
>he thinks the ((((((capitol)))))) was an authentic outcry of the oppressed masses

>>17546620
>nietzsche bad cuz his reception retarded huurr durrr
fuck off

>>17525580
>except Derrida

>>17282560
He's attacking the discussion of a book. It's a literature forum, you fucking mongrels. What are you people doing here?

>>16935204
>everything I feel slightly off about is jewish conspiracy

>anti-intellectualism is based XD!

>>16767470
>pleaaase reduce his complex philosophy to one simple thesis so my anglo brainlet head can comprehend something for once
how about no

>>16465643
>plato is irrelevant crap
>commenting on authors you haven't read
ah the pseudistry is ripe in this one

>>16418319
>I am confused? Do you have an issue with the word 'folks?'

>>16407905
fucking placebo bugman

>>16405796
>gay died of aids when there was no information about it !!!! LE poetic justice!!!!!

>>16241102
>>16241142
>>16241144
>>16241169
>>16241173
>>16241198
>>16241245
Where do you people come from?

>>16156954
No, you fucking retard. If you want to know what it's been about for the past hundred years, learn Japanese and read Konoe Fumimaro and Okawa Shumei write about the necessity of destroying the Anglo-American world order and expelling the white man from Asia.

>>16128898
>based! i'm still excited to read it, despite the trolling ITT
>>16128905
>You know if you want more cute anime pictures you can always just ask
The poster count hasn't gone anywhere. It's really obvious that you're samefagging just so you can save this pathetic excuse for a thread. Stop posting, delete it, and go back to /a/.

>>16115885
>Indeed, the Aufbau suggests that epistemology, based on modern symbolic logic, is concerned with the logical analysis of scientific propositions, while science itself, based on experience, is the only source of knowledge of the external world, i.e. the world outside the realm of human perception. According to Carnap, philosophical propositions are statements about the language of science; they aren’t true or false, but merely consist of definitions and conventions about the use of certain concepts. In contrast, scientific propositions are factual statements about the external reality. They are meaningful because they are based on the perceptions of the senses. In other words, the truth or falsity of those propositions can be verified by testing their content with further observations.
>From 1928 to 1934, Carnap published papers (Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie, 1928; translated as Pseudoproblems in Philosophy, 1967) in which he appears overtly skeptical of the aims and methods of metaphysics, i.e. the traditional philosophy that finds its roots in mythical and religious thought. Indeed, he discusses how, in many cases, metaphysics is made of meaningless discussions of pseudo-problems. For Carnap, a pseudo-problem is a philosophical question which, on the surface, handles concepts that refer to our world while, in fact, these concepts do not actually denote real and attested objects. In other words, these pseudo-problems concern statements that do not, in any way, have empirical implications. They do not refer to states of affairs and the things they denote cannot be perceived. Consequently, one of Carnap's main aim has been to redefine the purpose and method of philosophy. According to him, philosophy should not aim at producing any knowledge transcending the knowledge of science. In contrast, by analyzing the language and propositions of science, philosophers should define the logical foundations of scientific knowledge. Using symbolic logic, they should explicate the concepts, methods and justificatory processes that exist in science.
>Carnap believed that the difficulty with traditional philosophy lay in the use of concepts that are not useful for science. For Carnap, the scientific legitimacy of these concepts was doubtful, because the sentences containing them do not express facts. Indeed, a logical analysis of those sentences proves that they do not convey the meaning of states of affairs. In other words, theses sentences are meaningless.

>>15971275
Too obvious.

>>15952698
You're definitely on the wrong website.