/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18297121]

How do you cope this, philosophyfags?

[Anonymous No.18297136]

>>18297121
philosophyfag here and I agree a lot with this.

[Anonymous No.18297149]

who are your favorite philosophers contra philosophy? for me it's u.g. krishnamurti, Wittgenstein, (to some extent) nietzsche

[Anonymous No.18297156]

Why do /pol/groids love using that kind of graph where the retard and the "genius" are in unison with their thoughts?

Is this some kind of subconscious signaling to us that they are absolute morons and to be instantly avoided? Kind of like with Wokeoids and neon hair.

[Anonymous No.18297163]

How do I cope with what?

[Anonymous No.18297178]

>>18297121
Christianity is just philosophy that doesn't allow you to disagree with it

[Anonymous No.18297255]

>>18297156
I agree with you but you sound like a fucking tranny

[Anonymous No.18297309]

>>18297156
If dumb chads and sex-havers agree with me, it makes me less of a shut-in loser for spending 3 months reading Wittgenstein and pooping in a sock.

[Anonymous No.18297395]

>>18297149
>Nietzsche
>to some extent

Are you retarded? He thought the decline of humanity began with Socrates asking questions in Greece lmfao.

[Anonymous No.18297486]

>>18297121
You seem to be making a philosophical claim here. Curious...

[Anonymous No.18297519]

>>18297149
>krishnamurti
Based.
>I'm your chosen one? Ok, my first order is that you're all disbanded

[Anonymous No.18297523]

>>18297121

[Anonymous No.18297530]

>>18297156
The point is that the midwit makes up bullshit, while the smart person sees through the bullshit and the idiot never understood the bullshit in the first place. It's a response to getting gish galloped by pseuds.

[Anonymous No.18297542]

>>18297156
It solely exists to insult people like you. What the retard and genius are saying doesn't matter, all that matters is making fun of whatever media-fed belief the middle guy holds.

[Anonymous No.18297549]

>>18297149

[Anonymous No.18297551]

>>18297542
What kind of media advocates for reading Plato?

[Anonymous No.18297555]

>>18297486
try looking up the definition of philosophy retard
here's a hint: it isn't just "all thought whatsoever"

[Anonymous No.18297566]

>>18297156
There can be some truth in it. Atheists are the most midwit people in the world while Christians have some of the dumbest and brightest people.

[Anonymous No.18297569]

>>18297121
the autism tip-off here is the use of "fringe cases"

please elaborate with one example

[Anonymous No.18297577]

>>18297551
Philosophy courses I guess. This might be hard for you to wrap your head around, but 'media' doesn't just mean CNN and Fox news. Its just 'other people telling u shit'.

[Anonymous No.18297593]

>>18297551
kek what I was thinking. That guy is a retard

[Anonymous No.18297596]

>>18297577
>Its just 'other people telling u shit'.
That's every belief
And philosophy courses don't really qualify as media

[Anonymous No.18297603]

>>18297596
>That's every belief
Imagine not knowing the difference between a substantiated argument and dogma.

[Anonymous No.18297610]

>>18297596
>That's every belief
Nigger what? If someone is abandoned in the jungle at birth and never sees another human, can they just not fucking believe anything?
>And philosophy courses don't really qualify as media?
Please look up the meaning of the word before you say that.

[Anonymous No.18297612]

>>18297603
Ah yes, the oh-so-dogmatic Socratic dialogue.

[Anonymous No.18297619]

>>18297156
They try to associate with the good opinion. Most believe that they are very intelligent for seeing through this world of lies, but in the case that they are not, which is a unconscious fear of every single one of them, they try to reassure themselves by saying: although I may not be very smart, it matters little because the [cause] and the [goal] are understood well by both the stupid and the genius; I will be fine as long as I do not go with the generally accepted [midwit opinion]. Having fringe beliefs makes me special.
Polgroks want to feel good about themselves and be apart of a movement. That's why they become fascist, religious, adopt nationalist and ultranationalist beliefs, become racist and exclude all those not sharing their opinions. This is pretty basic psychology stuff; it's also inferred in the thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis, a dynamic: where the genius is the goal, it is presumed before knowing, there are challenges to maintain this belief, but if you do not compromise and reject them, synthesize the antihesis you become enlightened, achieve your goal.
The actual difference here lies with what Deleuze may call the schizophrenic. The genius, chad and the idiot do not agree at all. They may have the same representation found, or even the same concept, but what led them to this is fundamentally different and as such the person is difference. What is perceived, the [statement] may appear to be same, but the consequence of holding this belief for the person is almost opposed. The genius, chad had free choice to arrive at the point, while the idiot just happened to read something and took it for granted, e.g.
The former has reason and freedom, the latter has not; the former has known a degree of truthfulness to him, knows a truth to which he came through reason or deliberation or any kind of mental process, something signified he achieved through action, something with history - whatever you may call it: it is valid to belief this because it is known; while the idiot, the latter has none of this, he just decided that this statement was aesthetically more appealing and has at least less truthfulness, if any to it.
The practical difference only concerns the individual and how much a person may gain from believing this x or another y. The idiot will just have his life be a collection of statements spinning in the void, while the genius, chad will have an actual system, network forming knowledge which enables him to be independent. There is no reason to want to be the latter when you can be the former, no ability to the former if you are the latter. These statements resemble another but are not the same behind their representation. The world is just that: the world. You can't change it without influencing the physis, so you're forced to be yourself an individual who may change the physis. The genius has identity and freedom and reason in that person he resembles to be, while the idiot has none, he acts by accident.

[Anonymous No.18297621]

>>18297603
I just imagined, now what?
>>18297610
Retard

[Anonymous No.18297629]

>>18297156
>muh /pol/ boogeyman!

[Anonymous No.18297643]

>>18297621
What do you think they're looking at in the courses? Any videos or words maybe? Maybe some textbooks?

[Anonymous No.18297661]

>>18297619
Everyone saying that philosophy is bullshit is himself a midwit, dare I say dimwit, but certainly a litlet, who has neither made the effort nor took the time to even consider philosophy in the least. Philosophy is not the science of it; that is history of philosophy - which is essentially all that is taught in school and university, and all you may take from reading a wikipage on a given subject. Reading a book enables you to follow a train of
thought and experience a history of the person writing this, his language and thought, guess at his identity. Philosophy is fundamentally a way to be in philosophizing and that unknown of intention or signifier which we follow and move towards by engaging in Philosophy.

It is not only: read him or her, or read the Greeks or Husserl, read Kant or Hegel, read only history or only poetry, only novels or only scholarly - articles and the summaries, the comments. It's about asserting yourself to be a reasonable individual.

I take great issue with what is called dark enlightenment, I take even issue with history of the enlightenment itself which is not at all related to the former, was exactly its opposite and difference in freedom. The enlightenment has failed as a project with Kant failing on (self) consciousness. Look at the people and see that there is no freedom and no reason. There is ability and benefit to not doubt another in what appears to be reason, but exactly that is not being critical, exactly that is what the enlightenment was - fundamentally - to be against, to triumph over. The church was just its past incarnation. Here be people, institutions, speech and thought and opinions who are as the church was then.

[Anonymous No.18297665]

>>18297643
When you stretch the definition of "media telling you shit" to anything that includes written words your definition becomes worthless.

[Anonymous No.18297667]

>>18297643
Maybe the work that the philosopher in question wrote? Does that count as big bad media as well for you?

[Anonymous No.18297669]

>>18297523
Based. I agree with the opinion expressed.

[Anonymous No.18297678]

>>18297667
Yes, fucking obviously something that was published counts as media. There is a reason qualifiers such as 'news media' are often added.

[Anonymous No.18297709]

>>18297121
It's true, standard distribution is only good for making jokes.

[Anonymous No.18297733]

>>18297678
So I take it Christianity is also a media-fed belief to you? With the medium, of course, being the Bible.

Most other religions as well. Every major strain of Philosophy? Media-fed beliefs again. Political currents older than, say, 50 years? You guessed it, media-fed beliefs.