/lit/ - Literature

His argument for free will can't be refuted

>>22891345
Yes. My new years resolution (for reading at least) is to dive into Pragmatism and read biographies of all the founding fathers.

>>22626303
>Hegel's own logic, with all the senseless hocus-pocus of its triads, utterly fails to prove his position. The only evident compulsion which representations exert upon one another is compulsion to submit to the conditions of entrance into the same universe with them—the conditions of continuity, of selfhood, space, and time—under penalty of being excluded. But what this universe shall be is a matter of fact which we cannot decide till we know what representations have submitted to these its sole conditions. The conditions themselves impose no further requirements. In short, the notion that real contingency and ambiguity may be features of the real world is a perfectly unimpeachable hypothesis. Only in such a world can moral judgments have a claim to be. For the bad is that which takes the place of something else which possibly might have been where it now is, and the better is that which absolutely might be where it absolutely is not. In the universe of Hegel—the absolute block whose parts have no loose play, the pure plethora of necessary being with the oxygen of possibility all suffocated out of its lungs—there can be neither good nor bad, but one dead level of mere fate

>>22427089
> Now my contention is exactly the reverse of this. Experience, I believe, has no such inner duplicity; and the separation of it into consciousness and content comes, not by way of subtraction, but by way of addition -- the addition, to a given concrete piece of it, other sets of experiences, in connection with which severally its use or function may be of two different kinds. The paint will also serve here as an illustration. In a pot in a paint-shop, along with other paints, it serves in its entirety as so much saleable matter. Spread on a canvas, with other paints around it, it represents, on the contrary, a feature in a picture and performs a spiritual function. Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. The dualism connoted by such double-barrelled terms as 'experience,' 'phenomenon,' 'datum,' 'Vorfindung' -- terms which, in philosophy at any rate, tend more and more to replace the single-barrelled terms of 'thought' and 'thing' -- that dualism, I say, is still preserved in this account, but reinterpreted, so that, instead of being mysterious and elusive, it becomes verifiable and concrete. It is an affair of relations, it falls outside, not inside, the single experience considered, and can always be particularized and defined.
Kantbros…

>>22425737
>Now my contention is exactly the reverse of this. Experience, I believe, has no such inner duplicity; and the separation of it into consciousness and content comes, not by way of subtraction, but by way of addition -- the addition, to a given concrete piece of it, other sets of experiences, in connection with which severally its use or function may be of two different kinds. The paint will also serve here as an illustration. In a pot in a paint-shop, along with other paints, it serves in its entirety as so much saleable matter. Spread on a canvas, with other paints around it, it represents, on the contrary, a feature in a picture and performs a spiritual function. Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. The dualism connoted by such double-barrelled terms as 'experience,' 'phenomenon,' 'datum,' 'Vorfindung' -- terms which, in philosophy at any rate, tend more and more to replace the single-barrelled terms of 'thought' and 'thing' -- that dualism, I say, is still preserved in this account, but reinterpreted, so that, instead of being mysterious and elusive, it becomes verifiable and concrete. It is an affair of relations, it falls outside, not inside, the single experience considered, and can always be particularized and defined.
kantbros...

"Why does the Aesthetik of every German philosopher appear to the artist like the abomination of desolation?"

"Think of the German literature of aesthetics, with the preposterousness of such an unaesthetic personage as Immanuel Kant enthroned in its centre!"

Where were you when William James absolutely destroyed Kant and Hegel?

*baseds*

How does this guy compare to other philosophers?

Where do I start with him?

>>21359534
I think it was Jinnah, yes.


Although not quite modern (as in last 120 years) I worked in a New England research library and digitise a lot of writing from the past 300 odd years. Poems seemed to be exceedingly popular in the pre 1900's, and one that I noticed was a take on "To a Mouse" the famous one everyone knows from Robert Burns. And it kind of led me to think about just how popular Scottish culture was as a topic in the 1800s, since I remeber seeing other trends particularly focusing on it (not just Anglo either, but french as well). This is more a lead then something specific, just thought Id mention it.

In terms of zen, maybe the sort that Heideggar had some experimentation with. Other points of interest might be the writters Lafcardio Hern (specifically in reference to zen and japanophilia, hes wrote some of the most compelling examples of how to think of that sort of stuff to westerners) and William james (Specifically in reference to his Veriety of Religious experience, which is more focused on western stuff and does a very good job exploring the nuance of many aspects of western religiosity as an experinece including Witman).


Thats just stuff from my immediate recall.

HE CAN’T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT

What do we think of William James and his philosophy of pragmatism, particularly regarding the varieties of religious experience?

He's like Nietzsche but not an incel loser

Broke: Facts don't care about your feelings
Woke: Feelings are facts

bump

>>19564315

>Intellectualism in the vicious sense began when Socrates and Plato taught that what a thing really is, is told us by its definition. Ever since Socrates we have been taught that reality consists of essences, not of appearances, and that the essences of things are known whenever we know their definitions.

>>19387341
I don't see William James - Principles of Psychology....

“If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight--as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulness, are needed to redeem.”

where do i start with william james?

in this thread only smart niggas are allowed. if you arent a smart nigga get out

“Matter is indeed infinitely and incredibly refined. To anyone who has ever looked on the face of a dead child or parent the mere fact that matter could have taken for a time that precious form, ought to make matter sacred ever after. It makes no difference what the principle of life may be, material or immaterial, matter at any rate cooperates, lends itself to all life's purposes. That beloved incarnation was among matter's possibilities.”

ITT philosophers that write well and not like dog shit like most philosophers.

itt good Anglo/American philosophers
>William James
>John Dewey
>Alfred North Whitehead
>Hilary Putnam