/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19284769]

so now that the dust has settled, who was in the right?

[Anonymous No.19284773]

SOUL vs soulless

[Anonymous No.19284778]

>>19284769
>who was in the right?
Berkeley.

[Anonymous No.19284785]

Alan of course :)
The rationalists are correct and have always been correct.

[Anonymous No.19284804]

humans

[Anonymous No.19284848]

>>19284785

No, of course not, as they all argue for god in variously confused and philosophically illegimate ways. "Alan's" contributions in those particular volumes are the worst as they carry no insight into other departments of life, it's all path-of-least-resistance "Dude Jesus is Good" pap built up with his own intelligence. Leave it to the based Islanders to get closer to truth-through-materialism, a tradition happily continued with Russell.

[Anonymous No.19284852]

Haven't read them but Hume.

[Anonymous No.19284857]

>>19284848
>truth-through-materialism
pure bugmanism
> Russell
They don't call him Bertrand Reddit for nothin'

[Anonymous No.19284859]

>>19284852
Read Descartes, all his books are short and most insightful.

[Anonymous No.19284860]

>>19284769
neither

[Anonymous No.19284872]

>>19284859

The pollyannish "dude just learn more stuff!" sentiment in Discourse on Method is the most enjoyable part. But his real best work is his Geometry.

[Anonymous No.19284883]

>>19284860
was just about to post this

Although Spinoza was also right

[Anonymous No.19284890]

whats the tl;dr on Spinoza?

[Anonymous No.19284892]

>>19284890
>matter is like, divine bro xD

[Anonymous No.19284897]

>>19284860
this

[Anonymous No.19284919]

>>19284890

Appropriates Euclid's method of mathematical demonstration and proof to explain the world, starting with god. Incorrectly claims to establish the existence of god due to unsatisfying, arbitrary definition of terms which cannot therefore be accepted as legitimately axiomatic. Atttrubutes natural/machine-like properties to God which are contrary to established (dare I say it?) Judeo-Christian notions of god and he is therefore shunned by the other kikes.

The second half is more interesting, although the whole business is house built on sand. Reduces the various human emotions to an RGB admixture of pain/pleasure/desire. A cute exercise and historically notable, but not to be taken anywhere nearly as seriously as it unfortunately has been, which is a testament to the real low intelligence of the species.

[Anonymous No.19284931]

>>19284769
Tolkien

[Anonymous No.19284941]

>>19284890
one substance

[Anonymous No.19284943]

>>19284919
>unsatisfying, arbitrary definition of terms which cannot therefore be accepted as legitimately axiomatic
that's your opinion man

[Anonymous No.19284947]

>>19284769
>Alan

[Anonymous No.19284957]

>>19284769
The empiricists are on the right you blind fuck

[Anonymous No.19285126]

>>19284957

[Anonymous No.19285886]

>>19284872
>pollyannish
why did you use this term specifically? are you making fun of his advocating for knowledge?

[Anonymous No.19285895]

>who was in the right?

It says right there: Locke, Berkeley, Hume.

[Anonymous No.19285951]

Alan is the best prosaist

[Anonymous No.19285959]

>>19284769
Kant.

[Anonymous No.19286127]

>>19284919
Pretty much this.

[Anonymous No.19286165]

>>19284769
The rationalist since physics rely on mathematics to build their models, mathematics being a pure non-empirical knowledge of eternal truths. Sensualism doesn't allow to make predictions.

[Anonymous No.19286358]

I have the wordsworth complete Hume, I haven't read it, but despite being a softback it's so big and heavy that if I dropped it from a height of say, two storeys, it could probably kill a small child, so I going with Hume.

[Anonymous No.19286371]

>>19286165
uhh...based department?

[Anonymous No.19286385]

>>19284859
I am extremely reasonable and I can assure you I have reasoned my reasoning well. If for some reason you find a reason to point out a way that my reasoning was unreasonable you need only write me, however I may not reply if I had thought of the reason you propose previously and dismissed it because I assure you I am reasonable.

This was basically the first half of discourse on method lol.

[Anonymous No.19286639]

>>19286165
Sorry bro Kant said mathematics is synthetic a priori. You can't know t hat a line is the shortest distance between two points until you experience one.

[Anonymous No.19286649]

>>19284778
This unironicaly
Descartes is today only mentioned in the context of "and he got wrong this" while Berkeley got its position in the history of philosophy; modern phenomenology, OOO and analytical phil build on him

[Anonymous No.19286659]

>>19284769
Why is Leibniz called Alan?

[Anonymous No.19286667]

>>19286649
No one cares about that sheeeet

[Anonymous No.19286673]

>>19286639
Lines don't exist in the physical world, there's no way to experiment anything on lines.

[Anonymous No.19286675]

>>19286165
People who think this just haven't seen enough math. I just watched a youtube video about Hackenbush and surreal numbers that is pretty clearly just an invention of the human mind

[Anonymous No.19286814]

>>19286675
No way. Every math proposition was true or wrong in its axiomatic frame before human mind cared to think about it. Maths proposition have exactly the same value for all humans, all cultures, all extraterrestrial species that exist. Maths are discovered not invented.

[Anonymous No.19286821]

>>19286659
That was his esoteric name; for more, see Guénon.

[Anonymous No.19286827]

>>19284860
>Neither
You mean both? From my reading, it seems like a synthesis and absorbing them into a larger system.

[Anonymous No.19286848]

>>19284769
>you can't KNOW the Sun is going to rise tomorrow. There's no guarantee of that just because it happened before.

>Yeah but it will though

Empiricism is absolutely vital in the fight to stop philosophy disappearing up it's own asshole entirely

[Anonymous No.19286859]

>>19286814
The process of discovery is empirical

[Anonymous No.19286862]

>>19284769
Has he ever been refuted, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.19286865]

>>19286814
Axiom Glugs eat Klix and poop Xyx
Theorem Placing a Glug with a Klix and checking later will find a Glug and a Xyx
Point is that axioms can be pretty artificial. No one would argue that I discovered the relation between Glug and Xyx

[Anonymous No.19286878]

>>19286639
Someone doesn't know what a priori means.

[Anonymous No.19286883]

>>19286673
Philosophical empiricism is not scientific empiricism. It has nothing to do with experimentation

[Anonymous No.19286889]

>>19286878
Yeah it's you retard. Read the Prolegomena if the Critique is too dense for you

[Anonymous No.19286896]

>>19284769
Out of these guys?
Kant and Hegel.

[Anonymous No.19286913]

>>19286859
>empirical
literally the opposite
>The process of discovery
Irrelevant exactly because it's a discovery and not invention, therefor the means by which something is discovered has no real bearing on that thing, only our method of dealing or interacting with these concepts (such as symbology or phraseology), or our understanding of it (which if it's wrong it's wrong and a contradiction will present itself) etc.

[Anonymous No.19286916]

The "Empiricists" in the broad sense are right, of course, but this version of 18th century English Empiricism fails to give a correct account of sensory experience by postulating imaginary entities such as sense-data, and in fact shares certain faulty assumptions with the rationalists, such as the idea that observation only gives us particulars devoid of universality.

[Anonymous No.19286942]

>>19286913
It's the only way to encounter unknown factors that potentially exist outside the current model to point where they aren't conspicuously causing inconsistencies. At some point nearly everything was an unknown external factor. I don't think it's true that contradictions inevitably prevent themselves if you just sit down and think hard enough without the rubber ever meeting the road, and whatever thinking you're doing is based on what you know. Your logical tools can't get to work on input without input.

[Anonymous No.19286955]

>>19286827
Yes, but also a synthesis necessarily claims that both of the objects of the synthesis were partly wrong.

[Anonymous No.19286956]

>>19284769
Both, they don't contradict each other

[Anonymous No.19287077]

>>19286955
> were partly wrong.
It’s that antithetical thinking rather than synthetical? Would a more apt conceptualization be that these were particulars within a greater absolute? Not that they are wrong, but they are particulars within a greater absolute. And that greater absolute may become a particular in itself when an even greater absolute is formed.

Copernicus revolution and all. I just think it’s a more productive way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.19287710]

>>19284769
Bryan Magee

[Anonymous No.19288774]

>>19284769
Does anyone copies of these books? Are these good editions to buy?

[Anonymous No.19288806]

>>19284778
If Berkeley didn’t constantly go on tangents about his opponents being impious and apologizing for being ‘too prolix’ he would be remembered among the greats.

[Anonymous No.19288820]

>>19288806
>If Berkeley didn’t constantly go on tangents about his opponents being impious and apologizing for being ‘too prolix’ he would be remembered among the greats.
kek

[Anonymous No.19288852]

>>19284769
Locke is a faggot

[Anonymous No.19288861]

>>19284860
still trying to figure out how Hegel popped out of his pisser.

[Anonymous No.19288925]

>>19288852
cope

[Anonymous No.19289553]

>>19284860

[Anonymous No.19290533]

>>19286883
You are the most retarded nigger in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19291675]

>>19284769
Hume has the only few useful ideas amoungst those pictured.

>>19284860
>>19289553
These fuckers and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.