[ 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: 84 KB, 904x864, pepescowl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18019142 No.18019142 [Reply] [Original]

>But anon, that philosopher was [influenced by x, part of x movement, did x in his personal life, was used to justify x]!

>> No.18019170

>>18019142
If the author acts contrary to his writings, these are legitimate concerns.
If their writings and personal lives are in accordance, then it doesn't matter.

Socrates acted in accordance with his beliefs in the Apology.
Heidegger was a nazi and a despicable person, but his writing isn't about ethics or political.

>> No.18019180

>>18019170
You're basically saying if Heidegger wrote about ethics his ethics would be bad because he's a Nazi and Nazis are bad

>> No.18019181

>>18019170
Sounds like you're looking for self-help porn rather than philosophers.

>> No.18019188

>>18019142
Genius does not discriminate by politics.

>> No.18019194

>starting a thread with a frog image

>> No.18019204

>>18019180
Yes.

>>18019181
Like Socrates says, if youre a philosopher and spend your entire life preaching not to be afraid of death, you shouldn't fear it when it comes to you. Act in accordance with your beliefs, or they're worthless.

>> No.18019207

>>18019170
wrong. considering the source of an argument is 100% always an epistemic sin. sure, i now have to concede that even genocidal maniacs have made good points before. bullet: bitten

>> No.18019250

>>18019207
No. Anything can be asserted in thought. I could endlessly ask "why?" or "how do you know" until we reach a point of radical scepticism, where youhave to prove anything is real. This is only feasible in thought, as no one can live a life as if nothing is real. In thought I can also preach peace and prosperity, but also drone strike hospitals in the Middle East.
Biographical details are relevant, if the author contradicts his statements by his actions. If the author, like Heidegger, writes about phenomenology and ontology, his biographical details doesn't matter to thr subject he is speaking on. If someone says tattoos are a sin, but gets a big cross on his back, it is relevant.

>> No.18019279

>>18019207
To elaborate further, even Christians agree on this, as Jesus says those who have never sinned, may throw the first stone. Point being, if you condemn others for their mistakes, make sure your own house is in order.
If you advocate for a standard, that you yourself fail to meet, your standard is refuted by biography.

>> No.18019296

>>18019207
And to elaborate further with a third example, the source defines the proposition.
When the American nazi party leader said black people should go back to Africa, it was for racist and segregation reasons.
When Malcolm X said it, it was because he didn't believe white people would ever stop being racist and America would always have systemic racism.
The different reasons changes the proposition completely. In the first, black people are the reason, in the second the white people are the reason.
Speaker matters.

>> No.18019320
File: 266 KB, 1600x1118, glr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18019320

>>18019296
Bad example since the American Nazi Party and the Nation of Islam were allies

>> No.18019363

>>18019279
>If you advocate for a standard, that you yourself fail to meet, your standard is refuted by biography.
no epistemic sin is committed here. you are just repeating yourself again. none of this is logic, 100% feels

>> No.18019396

>>18019279
>>18019363
although ill throw you a bone and admit i would 100% not read someone that didn't live up to their own prescriptions. but not because i think they're wrong, but because it's very likely that they are (what kind of person would spend their life in such a blatant state of hypocrisy?) and that it's a total waste of time to read someone like this when there's so much other stuff. like jordan peterson's life being a total fucking mess even though i probably technically agree with all of the main "rules to life", my thought there isn't "based on his life, are his rules wrong?" it's "how likely are they to be right given how much of a fucking mess his life is?"