Philosophy

[Anonymous No.14936371]

>undergrad
>junior
>phil major
>analytic uni
>classes are pretty nice so far
>like ancient greeks and german idealists lots
>starting to get into pomo frogs on my own
>feel torn between different camps
>sympathetic toward hegel and lacan
>also sympathetic toward deleuze and guattari
>kinda into jung and eliade and mysticism too despite general leftism and agnosticism / atheism
>not sure how to relate all these topics
>no teacher to guide me
What should I do? Any good literature on such subjects? I am feeling more and more confused the more I research on my own...

[Anonymous No.14936397]

>>14936371
Just keep reading all of them, that's really the only way to go about it. Add Baudrillard.

[Anonymous No.14936409]

>>14936371
Just be aware that many of these thinkers will be entirely in conflict with one another. It's very difficult, for instance, to agree with both D&G AND Lacan, since the former's work is very much a repudiation of the latter. Just read plenty of secondary criticisms to help you navigate through it and come to your own conclusions.

[Anonymous No.14936508]

Have you found something you enjoy writing about?
Personally I can't give any useful insight but in Stem it is encouraged to slowly go into a slightly specified direction after a few semesters.

[Anonymous No.14936530]

>>14936371
>>sympathetic toward hegel and lacan
>>also sympathetic toward deleuze and guattari
lacan, deleuze, guattari are the most obvious pseuds I know of, and somehow this boards obsesses over them
>>14936397
>Add Baudrillard.
yes, go ahead and add even more meaningless dribble...

[Anonymous No.14936544]

>>14936397
Ya. Planning on scooping Simulacra... eventually. That's what I'm doing, feel like an autistic autodidact.
>>14936409
Very much aware but thank you for the reminder. Secondary literature seems helpful but I know not where to start, anything you would recommend? I have read most of Hegel, Lacan, and Deleuze.
>>14936508
I enjoy writing in certain classes but it also kinda gives me much anxiety. Unfortunately, my uni tends toward teaching undergraduate philosophers to be general specialists with some advanced training in logic.

[Anonymous No.14936552]

>>14936371
>>sympathetic toward hegel and lacan
>>also sympathetic toward deleuze and guattari
>>kinda into jung and eliade and mysticism too despite general leftism and agnosticism / atheism

It's already too late. You've failed

[Anonymous No.14936567]

>>14936544
well logic and lacan don't go together well, Bucko...

[Anonymous No.14936578]

It's pretty obvious op. It's time for you to get into guenon and the other trads.

[Anonymous No.14936600]

>>14936530
It's not as rigorous but it's fun. Analytic shit is mostly boring from what I've read in classes. Besides, they're not entirely divorced. Continentals still use logic though often amidst poetic and evocative language.
>>14936552
>lesmugpepe.jpg
Explain or don't bother posting.
>>14936567
Just cause you're into logic doesn't mean you can't into metaphors. I already passed my Symbolic Logic course.
>>14936578
Lol. Unlikely. I was big into yoga and neoplatonism for a while but I got kundalini psychosis and became a materialist.

[Anonymous No.14936627]

>>14936600
read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

[Anonymous No.14936632]

>>14936627
I've read it. Seems bad faith. Like Popper criticizing Plato. Or Russell on Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.14936658]

>>14936544
Skip Simulacra and start with For a critique of the political economy of the sign. Simulacra builds heavily off his earlier work, to the point where if you haven't read it it's impenetrable.

[Anonymous No.14936699]

>>14936658
Hmmm. Definitely gonna put that on the backburner. Lol. Sorry!

More looking for general psychology and phenomenology and metaphysics. As a crazy person, and having considered switching into psychotherapy for grad school, this is my main area of interest and a large part of why Freud, Jung, Lacan, Deleuze, and Guattari to begin with.

[Anonymous No.14936710]

>>14936699
*why I read

[Anonymous No.14936734]

>>14936600
You're reading some of the absolute worst dreck ever written in the field, and not even at a graduate level. Stick with the Greeks and get the hell away from Germany idealism because you've already proven you can't handle it

[Anonymous No.14936798]

>>14936734
Why would I wanna reread old shit I've already read? I'm branching out. One can disagree with a thinker without calling their work absolute dreck. In fact, engagement is the only way to overcome a thinker especially if one disagrees.


I would be happy to read any critical works on the subject you recommend in any case. But something a little deeper than Fashionable Nonsense please...

[Anonymous No.14936914]

>>14936734
>I don't understand it, that means it's shit
Get filtered nerd.

[Anonymous No.14936997]

>>14936371
as an actual phil student, do you agree with the start with the greeks meme?

[Anonymous No.14937024]

>>14936627
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense
That book only critiques uses of certain scientific concepts by the likes of Derrida, Lacan etc.
It's quite pedantic and doesn't really damage any of the thinkers it criticizes.

[Anonymous No.14937043]

>>14937024
>>14936914

There's only one time I've seen someone reference anything to do with the Sokal affair where that person didn't turn out to be a pseud. And that person used it as a vehicle for mass media criticism.

[Anonymous No.14937077]

>>14936997
Yes and no but mostly no with a little yes cause it certainly helps but it is not strictly necessary that you read old stuff first and new stuff last or in a certain order or anything like that.

[Anonymous No.14937102]

>>14936371
>lacan
>deleuze and guattari
>jung and eliade and mysticism
Not philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14937114]

>>14936371
>>no teacher to guide me
Do you not have good relationships with your professors/TA's? Chances are they've browsed over the topics before, after all, pomo frogs also have tons of stuff on analytic phil. Also, if you were into the pomo guys you should look into some psych courses, specifically psychology of consciousness. They were also BIG into literature. Anyways you went off course as soon as you left the german idealists and greeks.

DESU this whole post seems like bullshit larp but whatever.

[Anonymous No.14937115]

>>14936600
>Analytic shit is mostly boring from what I've read in classes
Clearly you don't give a shit about actual philosophy. You should just call whatever it is you're into leftism, or womens studies or sociology or something else.

[Anonymous No.14937124]

>>14936600
>Unlikely. I was big into yoga and neoplatonism for a while but I got kundalini psychosis and became a materialist.

O God, the cringe of youth, the unfathomable cringe of youth.

[Anonymous No.14937146]

>>14937115
>if you don't care about Bayesian social epistemology, can you even say you have any interest in philosophy at all?
Oh fuck off.

[Anonymous No.14937149]

>>14937102
>>14937115
I call it philosophy.
>>14937114
Good call. Ya. I can't talk to any teachers cause of corona but the religious studies chair is pretty cool. Had a few classes with him.
>>14937124
It was more of a cope than anything, seeking enlightenment to escape life, and I look back and say, "Yikes!"

[Anonymous No.14937186]

>>14937149
>and I look back and say, "Yikes!"
And you will again my friend, you will again.

[Anonymous No.14937226]

>>14937186
Bugmen's shaky arrogance truly knows no limits.

[Anonymous No.14937234]

>>14937226
D&G are pretty greenpilled desu

[Anonymous No.14937576]

>>14936371
are u me OP? What Uni are you at?

[Anonymous No.14937588]

>>14937576
UT, hook 'em

[Anonymous No.14937617]

>>14936627
ah, too bad, I'm in cali. I can't answer your question cause I'm at pretty much the same spot
>>sympathetic toward hegel and lacan
>>also sympathetic toward deleuze and guattari
There's a book i might check out called Deleuze, Hegel, and the Critique of Representation that some anon was reccing here. But this is literally the same problem I am at haha

[Anonymous No.14937663]

>>14937617
I'll look into it. I haven't tried just plugging author names in as keywords yet. Guess that might be my next stop. I feel like this would be easier if I studied French and German instead of Latin and Sanskrit lolz...

[Anonymous No.14938243]

>>14936914
I understand it, which is why I know it's shit

[Anonymous No.14938261]

>>14936798
Look bro there are two lines of descent from Kant, one legitimate and one illegitimate. You're on the wrong side.

The legitimate line descends to Nietzsche through Schopenhauer. That line ended in 1900.

The illegitimate line descends through Hegel to Marx and the entire Frankfurt school, and that line continues into the present day.

[Anonymous No.14938282]

>>14938261
How can a philosophical line end? It's just like responding to books and shit...

[Anonymous No.14938317]

>>14938282
The same way a bloodline ends. If there are no actual hiers, the line goes extinct. Nietzsche has no heirs, Marx has had far too many.

Vermin prevailed

[Anonymous No.14938426]

>>14938317
>Nietzsche has no heirs
Heidegger, of course. Then phenomenology/existencialism, then D&G.

[Anonymous No.14938454]

>>14936371
Drop the 'French Theory' bullshit before you become an unsalvageable pseud.

[Anonymous No.14938479]

>>14936371
Don't listen to these pseuds, anon; keep reading the French post-structualists. The only reason they get so much shit is becuase they problematise much of the philosophy that came before them.

[Anonymous No.14938488]

>>14938426
This

[Anonymous No.14938502]

>>14938479
They didn't "problematise" jack shit. They had no ideas at all, producing only incoherent gibberish that continues to serve as a pseud magnet.

[Anonymous No.14938510]

>>14938317
>Nietzsche has no heirs
Heidegger, who Derrida is a direct descendent of.

[Anonymous No.14938515]

>>14936371
stop reading for the sake of completeness

[Anonymous No.14938518]

>>14938502
>incoherent gibberish
You were filtered.

[Anonymous No.14938525]

>>14938426
>>14938317
Baudrillard is a dedicated fucking Nietzschean too my dudes

[Anonymous No.14938536]

>>14938518
You got memed.

[Anonymous No.14938753]

Read this ASAP. your life could depend on it.

–Empiricism, semantics, and ontology. Rudolf Carnap.
–Philosophy and illusion. Morris Lazerowitz.
–What is wrong with our thoughts? David Stove.
–Must philosophers rely on intuitions? Avner Baz.

[Anonymous No.14938790]

>>14938261
>The legitimate line descends to Nietzsche through Schopenhauer. That line ended in 1900.
Jung is their successor.

[Anonymous No.14938804]

>>14938790
jungs a pseud, and red book was his only valuable work

[Anonymous No.14938828]

>>14938804
The pseud was Freud, who plagiarized a plagiarism of Schopenhauer and even then he misread the whole thing. Jung adopted Schopenhauer's metaphysics and synthesized it with Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.14938831]

>>14938828
Fuck me that's a way of looking at this that I was not expecting. Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.14938954]

>>14938831
Yes, there was some paper about Freud's plagiarism. He even didn't bother to change the names (e.g., Schopenhauer's superfluity of ego is now Freud's superego). Of course he denied the accusations but scholars are catching up to this now.
Jung admitted borrowing from and praised Schopenhauer, but didn't want to explicitly commit himself to his system, probably because he knew philosophical systems get outdated sooner or later and that he saw value to his research independently. But his pansychism, his collective unconscious and archetypes, and his whole model of the mind correspond to Schopenhauer's system. And Jung synthesizes Nietzsche with his concept of integrating the shadow. Whereas Schopenhauer argued for complete asceticism, Jung said we should integrate the Dionysian part of ourselves instead.

[Anonymous No.14938990]

>>14938831

Yes, there was some paper about Freud's plagiarism. He even didn't bother to change the names (e.g., Schopenhauer's superfluity of intellect is now Freud's superego). Of course he denied the accusations but scholars are catching up to this now.
Jung admitted borrowing from and praised Schopenhauer, but didn't want to explicitly commit himself to his system, probably because he knew philosophical systems get outdated sooner or later and that he saw value to his research independently. But his pansychism, his collective unconscious and archetypes, and his whole model of the mind correspond to Schopenhauer's system. And Jung synthesizes Nietzsche with his concept of integrating the shadow. Whereas Schopenhauer argued for complete asceticism, Jung said we should integrate the Dionysian part of ourselves instead.

[Anonymous No.14939553]

>>14936627
That book has been debunked already many times. They got rejected by journals and ended up paying to get published.

[Anonymous No.14939556]

>>14939553
And a low reputation journal at that.

[Anonymous No.14939587]

>>14939556
>>14939553
Not even peer reviewed

[Anonymous No.14939611]

>>14939587
if your peers are gay what do their reviews really mean though

[Anonymous No.14940290]

>>14936371
It's ok to be confused as an undergrad and totally normal to be reading all kinds of stuff trying to find your interests. Luckily I'm studying at a pluralist university. If you're interested in continental thought get a paper together so that when you apply to a masters or phd program that specializes in it they'll know if you're a good fit for them or not.

Anyway, the divide is mattering less and less. There's purists and dogmatists on both sides and this can't really be denied. One will accuse the other of being unintelligible and obscurantists and the other will say they are too narrow and dogmatic in approach.

Me personally I find continental thought to be more substantial in its exploration of the human condition and being really socially aware along with its deep line of questioning. I don't mind engaging with analytic philosophy but its presumption of rigor is a little too unquestioned, especially considering it is philosophy after all. A few here in the posts you can tell have a developed expectation for what philosophy "should" be, but anyone that knows its history knows it comes in a lot of forms. Rather than admitting that it's too complex, not their concern or specialty, they find comfort in saying it's just obscurities and push it aside so that their egos and approaches are untouched. Unsurprisingly, it takes work to understand it and there's no royal road to that. It can definitely sperate the wheat from the chaff, even it's own students. The prospect of going from reading 20 page papers to 400 might be too much, and factor that in with references to people they haven't been read and a new terminology and it's not surprising to see someone want to push it aside. Those who are curious and honest are more likely to have a take done in good faith on a book compared to somebody picking it up in a bad one.

Just because someone doesn't want to read Being and Time wouldn't make them bad necessarily, they might just have a different focus and a lot else to read. But to dismiss something entirely like continental philosophy, or worse, a whole country, isn't a significant opinion. I'm glad there are people taking a look at both sides though.

[Anonymous No.14940315]

Only way to justify Humanities/Phil degrees is if you have a full scholarship to a nice university where you can make connections and get a cushy academic job upon graduating.

Philosophy should be something we study all our lives, there's no need to waste 50k for 4 or 6 years of "concentrated" study and tests. That time is trivial in the grand scheme of 80+ years of your time on earth. But 50grand is a huge setback for a 20something year old, specially since he could've used that time to gain more beneficial skills for himself.

t. phil grad who wished he learned a trade

[Anonymous No.14940326]

>>14940315
True that we have many years to live, but younger years, especially 18 to 25, are when you're forming your underlying worldview and structure. You will not have this when you're a 50 years old boomer, so it's important to study philosophy when young. But I agree with you that the tuition isn't worth it unless you have a scholarship or doing a double major.

[Anonymous No.14940375]

>>14936530
>dribble
Whoa, what are we playing some b-ball out here ESL-anon?

[Anonymous No.14940478]

>>14936371
Do get into philosophy, do I just need to read the books? I think I have good judgement but that’s what everyone thinks. I’m aware they use truth tables but for what exactly?

[Anonymous No.14941307]

>>14940326
The big thing is reading this stuff on your own. I didn’t do a humanities degree. I don’t think I really got much out of my degree but I don’t think I magically would have if I had studied humanities. I’m pretty convinced it wouldn’t really matter what I studied if I had just read this stuff on my own. I didn’t pick up philosophy and the like until I was 24 and I wish I had started when I was 18.

[Anonymous No.14941672]

>a fucking undergrad reading Hegel and Deleuze and thinking he actually understands them
OP have you even thoroughly studied the first Critique yet? Stick to the foundational stuff first and please stay away from Hegel, God only knows we don't need any more posturing Hegelian undergrads.

[Anonymous No.14941900]

Academics only know how to be academics, for the most part. This is why they gatekeep so much. Even the most superstar philosophy professor today can’t give you good advice on how to live your life or be an enlightened, wise person. They would either stammer something like, “That’s a personal question, not a philosophical one” (even though philosophy started as a dedication of one’s life to finding the best way to live this very life), or they’ll give you some platitudes based off of other stuff they’ve read. And these stuck-uppieces of shit have the gall to say, “There’s no possible groundbreaking philosophy today that could be done by anyone without a PhD. Just not possible,” even though, of course, Plato didn’t have a PhD.

Read whatever your heart leads you to, OP. Read up on Neoplatonism, yoga, Kant, Hegel, Eliade, Jung, and whoever floats your boat. And if the elitists make fun of you for not being “philosophically rigorous”, who gives a fuck? Are they even happy in their own lives? Are you getting advice from a Buddha or a Socrates? What do they know about what YOU need to read and experience for yourself?

[mystikos No.14942222]

>>14941900
This.

As AOS says:

>"For I am I: ergo, the truth of myself; my own sphinx, conflict, chaos, vortex—asymmetric to all rhythms, oblique to all paths. I am the prism between black and white: mine own unison in duality."

[Anonymous No.14942287]

>>14939553
what exactly was there to debunk? debunking that you should not use metaphors if you have little to no understanding of the subject matter?

what journals? trying to get what published?

[Anonymous No.14942353]

>>14940375
Y-Y..Yes??