/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22690462]

Does anyone else like the idea of philosophy, but when they read it, it just feels "wrong"? I want to learn about the actual structure of reality, but 99% of philosophers feel like they are just devising a logical system that can be overlaid onto what we know of as reality, without actually deepening our knowledge of it. Every time a philosopher splits all things into categories I just wince because how do you even know where to draw the line? Why is Aristotle wrong but your # of categories is right? Why do we assume that reason is capable of justifying itself?

Have any of you guys had this same doubt? Did it ever go away?

[Anonymous No.22690478]

All that is True is logical.
Not all that is logical is true.
Embrace Materialism. From there, create a foundation of virtuous ideals and adoration of qualia.

[Anonymous No.22690487]

It did go away when I started reading theology and apologetics. It comes back any time I veer back into modern philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22690492]

Philosophy is useless. This is a fact that does not need elaboration.

[Anonymous No.22690493]

>>22690478
>All that is True is logical.

Can this be the case? If by "logical" you mean that it can be conceived of fully and completely through some logical process, that would seem to imply that it could be rendered fully and completely through some syntax, as in formal logic. But the difference between that syntax and reality proper must be extra-syntactic, to avoid an infinite regress. So how can reality still be completely logical? From what I see, it could be governed by some logical form, but its actual matter must be extra-logical.

[Anonymous No.22690524]

Slowly I explore the labyrinth of thought. I have found concepts I have not the words for. It could be described as the meta of the meta of the meta and the meta of that. The bird view of any given thought, of any given analysis, the time and environment it flourishes in and the time and environment of the time and environment it flourishes in, but not only that, but the meta itself on why there has to be a time and environment for a certain thing, and the meta of the given question itself and so on. Ultimately there is always some underlying assumption to any given thing or idea. Because of that, there is no such thing as a perfect idea. They are all flawed once the axiom that they work on is removed. But as you can see, even this statement works on an underlying assumption, an underlying axiom that is removable, e. g. it could theoretically be positioned that theoretically there is a parallel universe where this is not the case, where things work without an underlying axiom. Where everything can be a table, for instance, because there is no underlying axiom to what a table actually is.

[Anonymous No.22690670]

>>22690462
You didn't actually try to read philosophy, OP. I know that because Plato's dialogues deal with all your questions. You're seeking reasons to justify your intellectual laziness, that's all.

[Anonymous No.22690701]

>>22690670
Not OP. Did you read it yourself? Do you understand it well enough? Then can you summarize concisely and assuage OP's worries?

[Anonymous No.22690709]

All philosophers after Aristotle up to Nietzsche were worthless.

[Anonymous No.22690719]

>>22690670
I've read a lot of Plato dialogues including the republic to the end, point out where he addresses this

[Anonymous No.22690721]

>>22690462
>I want to learn about the actual structure of reality
What you want is physics. I know you're gonna go herpderp, but what you want then isn't philosophy, it's acid and some Castaneda so you can score chicks. Once you get over your inceldom it won't seem like such a bid deal any more.

[Anonymous No.22690722]

>>22690462
Haha.

The entire point of philosophy is that the idea of things amounts to more than what they "Are" What they "Are" is limited to our five senses and our reason. Our idea of philosophy is far grander than any philosopher has put to words. We hail Nietzsche and Plato and Aristotle as the guardians and givers of our knowledge, but they just wrote 500+ page musty tomes of ramblings and barely coherent slop containing some great ideas within. The true heroes of philosophy are the ones who read these men and extract their ideas concisely. This is why there can be no "Philosopher king" The drive to understand quashes the efficacy of a ruler and his judgement.

[Anonymous No.22690735]

>>22690721
Nobody gives a shit about putting numbers to grand concepts and struggling in a vast ocean of mathematical concepts to come to the conclusion the religious have been at for a thousand years. Jesus fuck physics people are dense. And no I don't mean density as in mass/volume and you can't represent what I'm saying as such, I mean your fucking heads are so thick with your own hype that you couldn't pierce them with anything meaningful

[Anonymous No.22690737]

>>22690493

Let the absolute 0 of the chain of logic be "Reality," and everything else must then conform to Chemical-Physical Reality. I'm a transgender girl, but I only state that to deter my enemies from reading this sort of advanced philosophy.

Rather than working Reality into a singular chain, imagine it as an evolutionary tree, where Reality defines syntax, logic, and axioms, as well as an order of operations.
However, the infinite regress situation is fundamentally incorrect. The issue here is that "syntax" is on a lower dimension than Reality, so in other words, it CANNOT be rendered fully. As an example, a computer-simulation in this reality can never create a reality that is both bigger, and more complex, than the reality the simulation is hosted it. It could be smaller and more complex, or bigger, but less complex.

Now, I think it can be conceived of fully, as an "idea seed," in the sense of understanding a big-bang-to-heat-death scenario, or the idea of life's evolution, or even the life of a baby to a man to an old man, to a corpse, to soil, and to a tree.
But the issue here is that we can only write from a subjective perspective, while reality as a whole operates from the perspective of "ALL THINGS THROUGH ALL TIME WITHIN ALL SPACE." When each quanta stands for itself and only itself, as if to say, each atomic unit of reality, or zero-point, has its own perspective. Each individual concept in reality has other forces acting upon it, and in itself, it has forces acting upon other individual concepts. Each ripple of reality interfaces with other ripples. So at that point, let's move to this anon.

>>22690524

Upon this logic, we are greeted with the idea that we are a singular point (mostly) fixed in space-time. That means we cannot view the past nor future nor anything beyond our senses. However, there is an answer to this that justifies our quest for Truth and justifies the reading of other philosophers and scientists and great minds from other countries; other time periods.

It is the concept of triangulation. Or rather, N-ulation, which refers to a number approaching infinite; an N number of points through time and space. And what are these points? Me. You. Schopenhauer. Jesus. Nietzsche. Hegel. Your father. My mother. A strong, noble tree. Your teacher. Your cat. Your greatest enemy. Your best friend. We triangulate truth using the foundational axioms and evidence and logic of multiple living entities so what as we read these words, we do not need to assume that any one philosopher truly has the Truth under their dominion. Rather; we require them to try their best, and when we store their ideas within our mind after reading them, we can heuristically eliminate the things most likely to be False, and enhance and focus on things most likely to be True.

[Anonymous No.22691445]

Philosophy is as philosophy does.

[Anonymous No.22691452]

>>22690462
if it’s not falsifiable, it’s bullshit

[Anonymous No.22691463]

>>22690462
This is exactly what Hegel tackles in his Greater and Lesser Logic, a presuppositionless attempt to know being.

But I will warn that the style of the Greater Logic is absolutely brutal. It's extremely difficult due to just how dense it is and how complex the project is, how much it asks of us to forget all predistinctions, and because Hegel is a bad writer in many ways.

Houlgate's commentary on the first parts is the place to start, covers necessary background on Kant too.

[Anonymous No.22691464]

>>22690735
>And no I don't mean density as in mass/volume
underrated

[Anonymous No.22691466]

Yeah, and then I went to college and studied chemistry and math. I can tell you the textbooks we used if you want, they're all on libgen.

[Anonymous No.22691933]

>>22690493
>how can reality be logical?
It can't.

[Anonymous No.22691988]

>>22690462
if you care about acthal structure of reality, just get into quantum theory and neurology related to anthropology/self...

[Anonymous No.22691999]

>>22690462
You might check out the Sequences, also released under the title Rationality: From AI to Zombies. I feel like it cleared up a lot of confusion in this regard for me.

[Anonymous No.22692191]

>>22690462
I agree with you but can't that be applied also to other paradigms such as science or religion?

[Anonymous No.22692647]

>>22690462
Yeah I have the perfect answer to your question anon but my tummy hurts so I can't articulate it right now. Sorry. I am sure if you keep reading and thinking about this issue you'll eventually figure it out though.
Start with Plato.

[Anonymous No.22692695]

>>22690735
Put the physics-based phone down you ingrate christcuck monkey

[Anonymous No.22692696]

>>22690462
> Why do we assume that reason is capable of justifying itself?
We don’t and that’s because it can’t.
Now get a job and go be productive to society, retard.

[Anonymous No.22692886]

>>22690462

[Anonymous No.22692948]

>>22690462
That is actually the best part, the metaphysics. Also keep in mind that most of those philosopher have read particular books(or are taught in it) on logic that they know as a textbook so even then sometimes they automatically know where to put the line. Only till someone finds a logical continuation. This can be see most openly and written in modern language in the triad of german idealists Fiche-Schelling-Hege. 3 samey philosophies that are totally different because the "lines" are put very differently.

[Anonymous No.22692952]

>>22690462

[Anonymous No.22694457]

>>22690462
The method in the OP seems to be geared towards STEM methods. The Chemistry field is occupied with the actual structure of reality. What is wise in one context is not neccesarily translatable towards other contexts, or maybe it is. Lets say I am a vegan but it is becoming winter where I live and I am hungry and the world offers me potatoes and meat. It would be according to my principles to throw the meat away and eat the potatoes only. However, I know that I need a variety of vitamins and nutrients. Do I then eat my vitamine tablets and the potatoes only? If the vitamin tablets are vegan, then it would be according to the principle. However, lets say I am a faulty human and eat the meat anyway. That's not according to my vegan principles, and I can not get around that. I'll have to accept my faultyness and strive, really strive to do better next time. And you know, maybe my eating meat has opened doors towards eating even more meat or indulging in it more. Then I have to try to be wise and control myself, nip those wantings in the bud, if I want to adhere to my principles.

[Anonymous No.22694867]

>>22690462
Just read into Aristotelian logic and the natural progression into objectivism.

[Anonymous No.22694890]

>>22690462
What you’re looking for is art, not philosophy. Start with Loomis.

[Anonymous No.22694917]

>>22690709
> t. Pseud who read Heidegger once
I’d recommend Leo Strauss to disabuse yourself of Heideggerian pseudery

[Anonymous No.22694932]

>>22694917
I haven't read anything by either of those.

I am not even that well read in philosophy, it's just obvious.

After Aristotle (especially in the post-medieval period) people just invented problems to then solve, the problem never existed and didnt need solving until they thought it up. They changed nothing and came up with nothing profound.

[Anonymous No.22694936]

It's something for pretentious nerds to feel smart about.

[Anonymous No.22695007]

>>22690462
>Every time a philosopher splits all things into categories I just wince because how do you even know where to draw the line? Why is Aristotle wrong but your # of categories is right? Why do we assume that reason is capable of justifying itself?
The disconnect you're experiencing is rooted in differentiating by identity and categories (material, time, quantity, place, relation) e.g. "you" are material and "7" is a quantity which belong to different categories of being. Relations are made between identities such as an object A (which is identical to itself) and an object B (which is identical to itself) in which both belong to a higher category. That these categories are generated at the point of differentiation (and have numerous complications as per Theaetetus 186 and Parmenides 143/146/153) should make us suspicious.

[Anonymous No.22695014]

>>22690462
Read Nagarjuna, he destroys philosophy

[Anonymous No.22695022]

>>22690462
Nope.
I love reading philosophy because all I do is read what they have to say and consider the justifications and weigh it against my own interpretations and personal philosophy. If it coincides enough, I’ll see where it can be integrated. If it rings true but seems too disruptive to my life and desires, I give a nod and allow the book to remain on my shelf with spine facing outwards.
On the other hand, after I read Foucault I found myself so repulsed by the baseless, shallow interpretations of life that I returned them to the bookstore.
Flaming faggot deserves to rot.

[Anonymous No.22695027]

>>22695014
>LMAO JUST DON’T THINK
No thanks

[Anonymous No.22695035]

>>22690709
Are Nietzsche fans always retarded?

[Anonymous No.22695044]

>>22690462
anyone here are getting tired of this kind of meme format?

[Anonymous No.22695048]

>>22695035
At least some of them grow out of it when they turn 15

[Anonymous No.22695082]

>>22695027
You haven't read Nagarjuna. He proves that the idea of inherent existence, which all western philosophy is based on, is fundamentally illogical.

[Anonymous No.22695981]

>>22690462
wait until you find out about the linguistic turn

[Anonymous No.22695999]

>>22690462
>Does anyone else like the idea of philosophy, but when they read it, it just feels "wrong"? I want to learn about the actual structure of reality,
that's what buddhism is for