/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14915612]

Philosophy is not an innovative field. It's filled with obvious truisms that anybody could come up with. It's is not like mathematics and physics where there are actual developments to be made and problems to be solved. It's just restatements in fancy prose.

>Hobbes: People are often bad and need to be controlled by a strong government

No shit, sherlock

>Locke: Citizens must allow their government to govern

No shit, sherlock

>Mill: The mathematical best outcome for the largest group of people is often the most ethical one

No shit, sherlock

>Kant: A person's morals depend on their duties and convictions

No shit, sherlock

>Nietzsche: There is no meaning of life

No shit, sherlock

[Anonymous No.14915638]

These ideas seem obvious because those people came up with those ideas and then they filtered throughout society over hundreds of years. You're a retard.

[HLP !NOtRw2tMr2 No.14915653]

>>14915612
In a thousand years, people will be saying the same thing about the eternal recurrence, transcendental truth not existing, etc.

[Anonymous No.14915658]

>>14915638
It's a bait thread ffs, he's saying "No shit sherlock" to contradictory ideas right after each other. Get your shit together dude.

[Anonymous No.14915666]

>>14915658
None of the things mentioned in OP's post are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.14915679]

>>14915666
Utilitarianism and deontology are literally next to one another

[Anonymous No.14915686]

>>14915679
And they can be reconciled because deontology is wrong. All deontological systems are based on a utilitarian one which is hardwired into human instinct.

[Anonymous No.14915692]

>>14915612
Indeed, Enlightenment philosophy (and analytic) is a joke. The more profound ideas come from the premoderns, the Eastern philosophers, and some of the postmoderns. Also, you and I both know that that's an unfair characterization of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.14915695]

>>14915686
Wow, you are more retarded than I thought. Much, much more.

[Anonymous No.14915831]

>>14915612
congratulation you just solved philosophy
now you can go back with all your friends and contribute to science, you know, to improve the world and make a better future possible.

[Anonymous No.14915846]

>>14915612
A joke. All the math department needs is pencils, paper, and erasers but the philosophy department is cheaper since they don't even need erasers.

[Anonymous No.14915885]

>>14915846
classic

[Anonymous No.14915938]

>>14915612
Those are all examples from moral and political philosophy, spermburper.

[Anonymous No.14915942]

>>14915938
No Guenon as is appropriate. Philosophy is a degenerate western invention not comparable to metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14915945]

>>14915612
No shit, sherlock.

[Anonymous No.14915948]

>>14915612
what if I told you that physics and maths are actually a byproduct of philosophy ?

Physic used to be called "Natural philosophy".

[Anonymous No.14915961]

>>14915948
What if I told you physics and math are to philosophy as astronomy is to astrology or chemistry is to alchemy. All the incoherence that was cast away by the successor somehow still lurching along like a zombie. I despair for the human race

[Anonymous No.14915999]

>>14915961
You'd be uttering a falsehood.

[Anonymous No.14916091]

>>14915612
It was very innovative in antiquity, but yes much less so now. Ideally philosophy would become a more pragmatic endeavour (concerned with crafting policy and sitting judgement), but for that to happen it would have to stow the mystical stuff and prioritize analytical expertise.

Even so, you've laughably oversimplified those topics, leaving out the how/why and branching repercussions.

[Anonymous No.14916122]

>>14915961
I don't think your comparaison is relevent.

What we call nowadays philosophy attempts to answer questions that are not adressed at all by "hard science" like " is life worth living anyway ?" It uses a logical, scientific approach based on arguments and facts to try to solve those questions. It was not cast away at all nor it is irrelevant, it has just different concerns.

Also my point was to show that there is a false dichotomy between "hard/real science" and philosophy. It is pretty much the same thing actually : studying a subject relying on facts/observation and logical reasoning.

[Anonymous No.14916200]

>>14916091
I agree with your pragmatism, but we need the mysticism. We need to realize as a people that there are a few axiomatic moral truths that form our Telos. A few like: happiness is the telos, happiness is rooted in our practical reality/ physical form, therefore we need to find the forms of physical reality/ social organizations that organically and spontaneously give rise to happiness and fulfillment.

Without those few mystical axioms, unprovable self-evidences, we can't take a step in any direction. We need the intellectuals in society to fucking grow up and realize the ancients were right, and we need a collective religion to disseminate this to the plebs/ those who cannot grasp through Dogma.

[Anonymous No.14916622]

>>14916200
Well, I think we can instead look to the fundamental biases and inevitabilities of our apparent biological natures and establish norms from them (i.e. healthy vs. maladaptive). The problem with mysticism and axioms is that you'll have trouble achieving philosophical consensus... Unless you're going to enforce it with a very strong arm, it's basically a free for all since you've rendered impotent the logical standard which we otherwise all appeal to in our most productive arenas of analysis to establish validity/probability. Everything would be up for interpretation.

I do, however, agree that the average man really does benefit from a religious or at least quasi-religious and ritualistic framework. Although an atheist myself, I think it's terribly irresponsible of new-atheist types to smugly deride and crusade against religion while offering no appreciable alternative.

I'm not sure if this can be reconciled though... It seems like we crossed a line somewhere with modernity, and are stuck in an unhappy valley wherein facts are not sufficient to guide the average man, but the environment is no longer conducive to effective religiosity.

[Anonymous No.14916665]

Reminder that true mysticism is concerned not with profane rationality, but with gnostic, supra-rational revelation, and realizes truths that are eternal and metaphysical.

Also reminder to actually read Guenon and give up on pointless profane philosophy, or even worse, science-worship.

[Anonymous No.14916804]

>>14915612
Wait, let me open my math textbook

>gcd(a;b)=gcd(b;a)

No shit, Sherlock

gcd(a;b)=gcd(a-b;b)

No shit, Sherlock

[Anonymous No.14916808]

>>14916665
That's nice dear, but a fundamentally opposed mystical tradition can come along and say that theirs is the true gnosis and that you're just full of shit, and you have no means of demonstrating the validity (or probability) of your truth.

Just think about what you're doing for a second... You're appealing to logic (albeit weak logic) to make an argument against logic. It's stupid.

[Anonymous No.14916919]

>>14916091
Have you ever read a work of philosophy, or taken university courses in the subject?

>>14916200
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.14917163]

>>14915612
True but also wrong.

[Anonymous No.14917219]

>>14916919
Have you ever made an argument?

[Anonymous No.14917891]

>>14915612
This is what happens when your knowledge of philosophy comes from YouTube videos

[Anonymous No.14917909]

>>14915612
>Nietzsche: Meaninglessness is itself meaning

Fixed that for you. Now see how you manage with that one.

[Anonymous No.14917924]

>>14915999
nah he’s right Science is what you get when you take natural philosophy and strip out all the gay useless stuff

[Anonymous No.14917926]

>>14916122
>logical, scientific approach
pffffffhahahha
this is what philosocucks actually believe

[Anonymous No.14917962]

>>14915612
>Kant: A person's morals depend on their duties and convictions
This is laughably bad.

[Anonymous No.14918052]

>>14915612
Michel Houellebumbp

[Anonymous No.14918223]

>>14915612

>1+1=2

No shit, Sherlock

>Circles be round.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Anonymous No.14918283]

>>14918223
You talk like a nigger; it’s no surprise you like philosophy

[Anonymous No.14918689]

>>14915658
>It's a bait thread ffs, he's saying "No shit sherlock" to contradictory ideas right after each other. Get your shit together dude.

[Anonymous No.14918696]

>>14916804

[Anonymous No.14918701]

>>14917909
>>Nietzsche: Meaninglessness is itself meaning

no shit sherlock

[Anonymous No.14918705]

>>14917891

[Anonymous No.14918739]

>>14916808
Wrong. The supra-rational is non-dual and is verified not only by contemplation and comparison to esoteric traditions (between which there is no real opposition), but also by true intellectual intuition, which is unknown at this time to western philosophy. The supra-rational is not logical, but instead both is above and encompassing western logic.

Reminder to actually read Guenon.

[Anonymous No.14918754]

>>14915612
based

[Anonymous No.14919247]

>>14918739
You’re right, but intellectual intuition evades literally 99.999% of people. Even most intellectuals are operating under the dogma of pre existing paradigms and don’t truly grasp the essence of things. Which means we’re left in a sort of Platonic trap, where those who have seen the sun are incapable of disclosing this to the masses, and the only option is the use of Noble lies to manipulate the masses into proper ethical behavior. Dying in a gnostic hole is horseshit, we can’t abandon the world we have to help it.

[Anonymous No.14920219]

>>14915612
Bump