/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15185278]

you hate it because you can't refute it

[Anonymous No.15185332]

one of the lowest lifeforms in the /lit/ ecosystem is the "guy obsessed with some wikipedia philosophy he 'gets the gist of' but never reads anything about"

i look forward to 2 years from now when you finally accidentally stumble upon a book semi-representative of this philosophical position you've already decided suits your lifestyle or "outlook on life," so you can come back and shill the book for 6 straight days with similar "/lit/ BTFO" and "/lit/ can't refute this" threads before leaving again

or you could just read some books some time

[Anonymous No.15185353]

>>15185332
>nooo you can't just figure stuff out without reading tomes filled with useless academic jargon

[Anonymous No.15185771]

you are both retarded, using solely primary resources will only overwhelm readers, but one should not rely on secondary texts

[Anonymous No.15185827]

>>15185278

[Anonymous No.15185856]

>>15185278
Very based.
Eliminative Materialist chads are on the rise.

[Anonymous No.15185865]

>>15185278
>Perhaps also there are some necessary truths about mind, language, and perception after all, a compendium of superscientific truths awaiting discovery and dissemination by philosophers.
>If so, however, one would expect the same to be true of other subjects. For example, one would expect there to be a set of necessary truths about all possible living things; and another set about all possible stars and galaxies; and another set about all possible forms of matter; and so on. One would expect, that is, a significant compendium of a priori knowledge on almost every significant subject: space, time, motion, light, matter, planets, fire, cosmology, life, weather, medicine, and so forth. Given the thousands of years philosophers have had to penetrate these subjects, we might well ask in which books the apodictic fruits of so much a priori labour have been written down.
>Put thus bluntly, the question is embarrassing. There is no such accumulated compendium of important a priori truths on any of these topics. And this despite the fact that philosophers have been talking and theorizing with enthusiasm about all of them for over twenty-five centuries. Claims of necessary truth have regularly been made, but empirical refutation has been their most common fate. What has accumulated instead is a rich compendium of a posteriori knowledge, a compendium born of the continuing labours of various subdivisions of earlier philosophy, subdivisions now quite properly identified as sciences. It now seems silly to expect philosophical techniques to reveal important necessary truths about all possible planets, or all possible forms of matter, or all possible living things. But if it is just plain silly to expect this for planets, matter, and life, why should it be sound philosophy to expect it for language, mind, and perception?
This kills the metaphysician brainlet.

[Anonymous No.15185905]

>>15185332
ideologues will be ideologues, not everyone can get on the right path

[Anonymous No.15185965]

>>15185278
Most people know dualism is the most reasonable position to take with respect to philosophy of mind. In other words, most people know that both material substances and ideal substance animate the mind. Plato did. The most influential philosophers, i.e. Plato, Frege, etc were all dualists. The source of our concepts, abstract ideas, are in a real outside of time and space. This is the case because material substances and processes cannot produce immaterial substances and processes, i.e. thoughts, ideas, images in the mind. Intuitively, we know that eliminativism and as well physical reductionism are falsehood. For more on this, read Plato. Reading people like Skinner is a waste of time -- in general, one should shy away from people who produce decadent, impotent ideas.

[Anonymous No.15186006]

>>15185965
"You" are the illusion not what's out there! U.G Krishnamurti refuted and debunked all your cherished philosophers. Just sit down and shut up nerd

[Anonymous No.15186020]

>>15185965
>in general, one should shy away from people who produce decadent, impotent ideas.
well that rules out plato

[Anonymous No.15186037]

>>15185965
>The most influential philosophers, i.e. Plato, Frege

[Anonymous No.15186038]

>>15185278
The only chad move is to ignore philosophy. Why bother trying to make sense of reality with a brain that was made to hunt and fuck. Who do you think you are?

[Anonymous No.15186052]

>>15185965
>Frege
literally who

[Anonymous No.15186079]

>>15185332
fpbp

[Anonymous No.15186510]

>>15185353
>noooo my trivial, surface level understanding from second-hand sources is valid

>>15185332
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.15186615]

>>15185965
e.g not i.e

[Anonymous No.15186646]

>>15185278
Ontological materialism has been falsified so eliminative materialism is most likely false

[Anonymous No.15186661]

>>15185278
>because you can't refute it
Only if you're a P-zombie

[Anonymous No.15186771]

>>15185965
Plato was not a dualist. All aspects of creation exist along the great chain of being. Even images participate in the Form of Forms.

>>15186037
I agree, strange choices, but let's have a good faith argument here.

>>15186052
Check Wikipedia before you post. It saves you from looking like an idiot.

[Anonymous No.15188364]

>>15185965
You can't even define 'ideal substance' or point to any definitive instance of it... It's just a concept you insert to embody your quasi-mysticism. There is no evidence whatsoever that thoughts are 'immaterial'.

[Anonymous No.15188394]

>>15186661
If you're trying to make some point, you should post an image of the actual refutation part.