/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11726169]

Guess it turns out most philosophy/english majors on this board are Pragmatists after all...

[Anonymous No.11726190]

>>11726169
There are good ways to simplify complicated philosophies. This post is absolute garbage at doing this.

Platonism = learn more?
Hedonism = have pleasure now?
Existentialism = make decisions and be positive?
Confucianism = live an ordinary life?

How stupid.

[Anonymous No.11726206]

>>11726190
Well, it was made by a woman

[Anonymous No.11726224]

>>11726169
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.11726232]

Can someone make a good version of this?

[Anonymous No.11726246]

>>11726169
What would “soulless reincarnation is real and your life is essentially a dice roll, therefore be nice to everyone and improve the world for your future selves” fall under?

[Anonymous No.11726258]

>>11726246
Starbucksian-Buddhism

[Anonymous No.11726281]

>by anna

[Anonymous No.11726357]

>>11726258
you know I’m right. If we don’t have a metaphysical identity, then it makes no sense for us to be contained within one life. Organisms are conscious, so they must have “someone” to experience life. I dare say that if only one organism existed, then everyone would consciously experience life as that organism. I could be composed of multiple past consciousnesses right now, but we wouldn’t know it, since we all experience the same thing.

But if humans do have identity, then where does the soul reside before birth? Surely it cannot be created from nothing, so all life must extract souls from a common source. But surely the source cannot be arbitrarily divided, so the source must exist in each organism in some degree, so to speak, but why would this identity be maintained, if it depended on the makeup of the organism? So their soul would be immortal, but it wouldn’t be theirs, but they and everyone else will partake in it again in future lives.


Buddhism and other Indian religions advocated samsara so that thelower castes would accept their fate and fulfill their dharma, so that they would be born in a better life next time.

Either way you look at it, identity or not, it makes the most sense that we randomly reincarnate. Therefore we should do everything we can to improve life on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11726592]

>>11726357
>But surely the source cannot be arbitrarily divided, so the source must exist in each organism in some degree, so to speak, but why would this identity be maintained, if it depended on the makeup of the organism? So their soul would be immortal, but it wouldn’t be theirs, but they and everyone else will partake in it again in future lives.

I like this, how did you arrive to this conclusion?

[Anonymous No.11726602]

>>11726169
What would "the purpose of life is to discover your inherent nature and then act that out to its fullest extent" be in this chart?

[Anonymous No.11726605]

>life has no meaning until you give it one
>Logical Positivism

[Anonymous No.11726722]

>>11726169
the meaning of life is unironically all of these put together except nihilism

[Anonymous No.11726728]

>>11726169
Where the pessimists at?

[Anonymous No.11726771]

>>11726169
platonism, nihilism, existentialism, absurdism, humanism and logical positivism. do i make sense?

[Anonymous No.11726776]

>>11726206
and your coment is your coment just because you're a man

[Anonymous No.11726780]

>>11726169
Truly amazing. By attempting to summarize these ideas in just a few words, the majority of them are disgustingly misrepresented. And why the everloving fuck is the title "The Meaning of Life / according to different philosophers" when only two philosophers are mentioned?
Beautifully misinformative, and the shoehorned "In Asia" box at the bottom is just icing on the cake.

[Anonymous No.11726782]

>>11726776
comment*
consider >>>/int/, but /lit/ is for fluent english speakers sweety

[Anonymous No.11726793]

OPs image triggers me so much.

Anna probably made it as a project in her 2nd year intro to philosophy final.

[Anonymous No.11726878]

>>11726793
https://youtu.be/IdXBdkAf5Cw

[Anonymous No.11726900]

How do we marry Anna?

[Anonymous No.11726901]

>>11726878
So this is the power of Russian expatriates...

[Anonymous No.11727400]

>>11726190
>I can add doubt to any statement by adding a question mark at the end of it.

[Anonymous No.11727614]

>>11726206
t. Le Machistus Goblinus

[Anonymous No.11727639]

>>11726592
>how did you arrive to this conclusion?
It’s just what makes the most sense to me. Humans are obviously different creatures in the flesh, and there might be a corresponding difference in our souls also. But I see no reason why the universe would preserve these souls in their form which is dependent on the organism, which is the interpretation that Buddhism and many other religions hold. I think a lot of people cling to these views anyway, as a way of preserving our selves in immortality. But I believe this is just the result of giving monkeys the ability to think abstractly. We want that immortal afterlife, where our DNA never dies, not even having to reproduce. And it will be pleasurable, a constant indication of our evolutionary success. And even though Indian religions eventually offered a way out of this separate existence from the universe, the worry about karma and dharma seems just a way to control the population.

If I were founding a belief system that not only made sense, but had good effects on society, then I would base it on non-identity transmigration. If there exists some metaphysical tally of our good deeds, then hopefully making the world a better place could help us achieve that goal. But I don’t believe in the tally, anyway. I think there is a way to advance our spirit, but first we have to realize that it’s not just our spirit, but everyone’s. Imagine a world where everyone contemplated living in someone else’s shoes, and knowing that they could easily be born that way in the next life, they did something to help that person, or eliminate their suffering, or prevent that type of suffering in the future. That person would surely still have a better soul by realizing the need to help people, than half of modern Christians who simply get by on belief, and hope to reach the exact same place as the most serious of Christians! I’ve always thought the boundary separating Heaven and Hell is a bit too...wide. Anyway, my point is that my system is the most logical, and still provides good possible afterlives if other systems are true. But I’m sure my idea would have to eventually include specific political reasoning, since “make the world a better place” is a bit vague.

Back to the idea of transmigration, I don’t really have that many arguments for it, but it intuitively makes sense. If I have an identity, then I can’t truly die, or else that identity will no longer exist and I can simply assume a new identity. Without any identity at all, any life could be mine in the next life as well.

[Anonymous No.11728306]

>>11726169
Most of the statements are captured by the virtue prudence.

[Anonymous No.11728320]

>>11726169
That's not what fucking hedonism is.
God i hate this shit.

[Anonymous No.11728340]

>>11726224
This. The stupidity of this takes away IQ points just contemplating it. I checked just now and my digit span decreased. It cannot reconcile these low IQ interpretations. It's like a critical error has occurred and my brain crashed.
As the system is trying to repair itself, I searched the author of this monstrosity. She worked for Google and Cisco, allegedly. This isn't fair. Here I am, high IQ and penniless and this...., this..... pseud isn't the word here, she doesn't even present herself as one.... this extraordinarily low IQ woman who happened to find a summary of philosophies by happenstance... is ahead financially. That's enough internet for one day.

[Anonymous No.11728385]

>>11728306
yeah, all excluding nihilism can be viewed as virtues especially in the stoic sense of virtue, which this infographic insults along with others

[Anonymous No.11728459]

>>11726169
I hope that the one who made this is not serious.

[Anonymous No.11728539]

>>11728320
Diff between Hen and Epi?

[Anonymous No.11728709]

>>11728340
is this ironic?

[Anonymous No.11728747]

>>11726190
it’s obvious if you understood any of those schools of thought you’d get what those mean. Instead you read those phrases totally ignorant of what’s behind them and complain you’re not being spoonfed enough worthless whore.

[Anonymous No.11728788]

>>11726169
Kantianism and Confucianism seems like the best choice for proper humans

[Anonymous No.11728846]

>>11726169
I thought logical positivism was an epistemological position.
Also confucianism and legalism are getting completely misrepresented

[Anonymous No.11728891]

>do the most good to humans
>pragmatism