[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 480x477, 1569395106259.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14850589 No.14850589 [Reply] [Original]

What do I have to read to not continue becoming that guy who demands that before we have any discussion we must settle our epistemological then ethical beliefs and that our terms must be defined accordingly so we understand each other?
I feel like I am just becoming annoying instead of elevating my discussion to any superior level.

>also
Books to restore faith in the necessity in philosophy of natural science, since that is fleeting right now as well.

>> No.14850618

>>14850589
Just read Plato and model yourself after Socrates.

>> No.14850649

>>14850618
And have everything end in an aporia?

>> No.14850659

>>14850649
You should have already Socrates’d yourself until you arrived at solid conclusions that you can use whenever your opponent asks for your position. If you see someone present their argument, you don’t propose yours until you’ve shown how theirs contradicts, or until they explicitly ask for yours, because in both cases their position has been defeated, and is demanding to be replaced with another

>> No.14850774

>>14850659
Well it is in this
>you don’t propose yours until you’ve shown how theirs contradicts
that one must come to common understanding of what the other is trying to formulate and then come to the conclusion that their argument doesn't pass. Still this does not actually warrant a discussion necessary to have if all I am doing is making the other give up their argument for nothing better.
My own curioisity makes me want to have discussions where I do not fall into a system that always fails in an aproria exactly how most (all early) Platonic dialogues fail.
At that point why even bother talking to anyone.
I don't jsut want to be able to be annoying:
>until you arrived at solid conclusions that you can use whenever your opponent asks for your position
I want to be able to have discussions that will allow me to further deepen my understanding of some trivial field.
/lit/ related example: I would like to talk to someone about Land and actually be able to use the word "capital" and not have the discussion devolve from that point of different understandings.

>> No.14850964

>>14850774
>>14850816
You?

>> No.14851183

>>14850774
Stop spamming the board with your trash.

>> No.14851425

>>14850964
no
>>14851183
Did you even read my post?
I would never make /acc threads

>> No.14851771

bump

>> No.14852129

>>14851425
>I would like to talk to someone about Land

>> No.14853080

>>14851425
So what were you talking about?

>> No.14853118
File: 88 KB, 720x278, prescriptivism.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14853118

>>14850589
Just be yourself. Modeling yourself into some false ideal is going to make you an even more insufferable asshole.

>> No.14853137

>>14850774
>>14850589
Agreed OP would also very much like to know. I can usually sense a difference in mindset or meaning that becomes an instant disconnect in the conversation that will make much of the dialogue useless. And the only way I could think of solving it is to go point by point on epistemological grounds, but unless you are talking to someone who’s into philosophy they probably won’t get it. I feel really jealous of old people like Bryan Magee. I feel like they can be so elite to in getting their thoughts across.

>> No.14854338

b