/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4649148]

How do we make philosophy cool again?

[Anonymous No.4649154]

already is; all the cool kidz are right here

[Anonymous No.4649159]

if you could get a job at the end of your MA that would be cool

[Anonymous No.4649161]

>>4649148


in order to do philosophy in an academy, you have also compete in wrestling. bonus points doing it *while* wrestling.

[Anonymous No.4649164]

Return the Greeks penchant for pederasty

[Anonymous No.4649173]

>>4649172

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[Anonymous No.4649171]

>>4649159
>yfw Galbraith's predictions on the rise of the new cultural class will become truth due to further automatisation.

[Anonymous No.4649172]

Academics need to take up fashion and exercise for starters.

Yes, it matters.

[Anonymous No.4649174]

>again

[Anonymous No.4649176]

>>4649171
I'll have a latte to go pl0x

[Anonymous No.4649178]

put philosophers on the howard stern show

[Anonymous No.4649185]

Make the joe rogen talk show mandatory in high school

[Anonymous No.4649190]

Same way science became cool:

Make money off of it while contributing to society.

lol

[Anonymous No.4649191]

Alain de Botton screams that philosphers should be of more use in business

[Anonymous No.4649193]

>>4649148
But anonymous, everything that can be philosophized has been

[Anonymous No.4649198]

>>4649191
Does philosophy really have a place in business? And by that I mean, does business really have a place in philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4649203]

It's not marketable as a consumer product in the current "zeitgeist" so hopes of philosophy becoming "cool" or even understood by the public are null. That shouldn't be the focus of pursuing philosophy anyway, I think.

[Anonymous No.4649204]

>>4649198
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alain-de-botton/business-and-philosophy_b_4170623.html

In his own words

[Anonymous No.4649205]

Make a popular and critically acclaimed television series where a famous actor recites pop philosophy while being an almost perfect male fantasy going on adventures with his buddy.

[Anonymous No.4649206]

>thinking college major and/or career choice has any relation to coolness

You autists really don't get how coolness works do you?

[Anonymous No.4649211]

>>4649204
Alain de Bottom is great. Watching some series he did years ago is what originally got me into philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4649212]

>>4649206
ok then

how do we attract cool people

[Anonymous No.4649214]

>>4649148
Make philosophers argue face to face and give them hot pokers.

[Anonymous No.4649221]

>>4649204
I thought you said Alain de Benoist at first and that you were talking about someone important but then I realized that it was just some dunce with a similar name.

>>4649205
Already happened. Pic related

[Anonymous No.4649222]

Science has Neil deGrasse Tyson. He's a great educator, has a original entertaining style and other qualities.

What does philosophy have? Who represents philosophy or makes it popular? The Amazing Atheist perhaps?

[Anonymous No.4649229]

Philosophy is dead. Get over it. Science won.

[Anonymous No.4649230]

>>4649222
Sam Harris, the philosopher.

[Anonymous No.4649231]

>>4649148
umm, Zizek, fucking hello.

[Anonymous No.4649233]

>>4649221
>judging a book by its cover
Great thinking m8, I'm impressed.

[Anonymous No.4649235]

>>4649222
Imagine if we had a philosophy equivalent of Cosmos. A prime time show about philosophy with a knowledgeable and entertaining host. How great would that be?

[Anonymous No.4649236]

>>4649222
>implying anyone thinks black science man is cool
gb2plebbit

[Anonymous No.4649237]

>>4649204
>Most corporations and businesses, outside of a very tiny minority, are in fact connected through their activities to the goal of eudaimonia/human flourishing. They might be selling sandwiches or airline tickets, but at the end of the day, they are aiming to satisfy and please those they serve.

Really? Maybe it's just the cynic in me but isn't the first principle of all business' to make money? Do they really care?

I like the principle though.

[Anonymous No.4649239]

>>4649230
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSGhX4ZcFAw

[Anonymous No.4649242]

>>4649235
Wow. That's a horrible idea.

There is already way too many plebs who think they know everything about philosophy without it being watered down for some pop-philosophy tv show.

[Anonymous No.4649249]

>>4649237
Yes, they make money by fulfilling human needs.

[Anonymous No.4649250]

>>4649242
Protip: you won't be popular by being impossible to understand in the first place

[Anonymous No.4649252]

>>4649211
Botton is a hack.
>>4649214
Ok, Wittgenstein.
>>4649231
This is true. Zizek is everyone's favorite marxist at my college.

[Anonymous No.4649258]

>>4649249
>doesn't realize that his "needs" are engineered by global systems of capitalist marketing

[Anonymous No.4649259]

>>4649236
I think he is cool. You're just jelly because he's so handsome and smart.

[Anonymous No.4649262]

>>4649249
Just like the creator of Flappy birds right? And everyone in advertising?

>needs

Bullshit. Desires. Desires that they have implanted. 99% of business' aren't fulfilling any needs.

[Anonymous No.4649265]

>>4649148
>>4649222
by having a popular figure other than the amazing atheist who discourages pseudointellectualism

[Anonymous No.4649266]

>>4649258
Someone doesn't know how marketing works.

[Anonymous No.4649267]

By dropping all this postmodern Continental nonsense and advertising it as being just as objective as math and science - which it is, if you can finesse the logic of it.

[Anonymous No.4649268]

>>4649262
All desires are implanted. Trivial.

[Anonymous No.4649272]

>>4649242
I think it's a great idea. I'd much rather be able to discuss philosophy with someone who has a very limited or basic understanding of it but wants to learn more than someone with no understanding or interest in it who will probably get up and leave if you try to talk to them about it.

[Anonymous No.4649274]

>>4649262
I bet you live in a barrel.

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.4649277]

>>4649250
Zizek is popular and he's pretty much impossible to understand.


Anyway, I don't see why philosophy should be made "cool". Don't you want the next generation to become philosophers out of love of wisdom as opposed to some mere desire to be fashionable?

[Anonymous No.4649285]

>>4649277
It's the plight of a philosopher to be hated by the right people for his heresy. <3 Zizek

[Anonymous No.4649288]

>>4649268
Which was exactly my point. This doesn't confer to them the status of a necessity, or 'need'.

[Anonymous No.4649289]

>>4649277
Well it was cool in Ancient Greece to be a philosopher and we got Plato out of it, so I don't see it being fashionable as a bad thing.

inb4 Plato was a hack

[Anonymous No.4649293]

>>4649277
Continental works are difficult to be a mark of prestige. That's hatred of wisdom, as it makes it harder to spread.

[Anonymous No.4649296]

>>4649288
You learn your desires from others, not 'engineers'. Your friends and parents.

[Anonymous No.4649298]

>>4649267
>implying analytic philosophy is cooler than continental philosophy
top kek
>>4649287
Yes. Now gtfo tripfag.
>>4649289
How do you know what was cool in Ancient Greece?

[Anonymous No.4649301]

Have The State incite interest through docudramas as it does for the military and engineering.

[Anonymous No.4649297]

Is Candide worth reading?

[Anonymous No.4649303]

>>4649274
>Hypocrite.
>implying implications

[Anonymous No.4649305]

>>4649298
>How do you know what was cool in Ancient Greece?
All the rich kids were doing it so I assume it had some coolness attached to it.

[Anonymous No.4649306]

>>4649298

Well, regardless of "cooler", it is certainly easier to understand in MUCH more common-sensical.

[Anonymous No.4649309]

>>4649288
Then you agree with the original statement.

>Most corporations and businesses, outside of a very tiny minority, are in fact connected through their activities to the goal of eudaimonia/human flourishing.

[Anonymous No.4649310]

>>4649293
The idea that an idea must be easily understood to be a worthwhile idea is hatred of wisdom. To be dismissive of a subject simply because it is complex or difficult is the epitome of anti-intellectualism.

[Anonymous No.4649314]

>>4649296
How does this relate to the original point?

A need is something different to a desire. We're not just quibbling over semantics here.

[Anonymous No.4649315]

>>4649148

It never was you fagit.

[Anonymous No.4649311]

>>4649293
>Continental works are difficult to be a mark of prestige.

This is obviously wrong. This is what true hatred of wisdom looks like. Try to get a random dude to read any philosophical text ever.

[Anonymous No.4649318]

>>4649306
>logic being common-sensical
lemme guess, you've never taken a course on logic in your entire life?

[Anonymous No.4649320]

>>4649310
>what is pedagogy

[Anonymous No.4649321]

>>4649314
Corporations makes you able to fulfill those desires by making desirable and useful products.

[Anonymous No.4649322]

>>4649148
philosophy is dead
it was killed by science

[Anonymous No.4649323]

>>4649310
Then people have only to read Wikipedia summaries, because that's all that's necessary to understand most philosophers.

[Anonymous No.4649324]

>>4649323
That doesn't really work without prior knowledge.

[Anonymous No.4649330]

>>4649323
my sides just transcended this reality and entered the realm of forms

[Anonymous No.4649332]

>>4649318

Notice how I said MORE. Certain things in logic aren't obvious, obviously - ex falso quadlibum would be an excellent example - but you can understand it perfectly well so long as you have a foundation of understanding, just like in math. Although higher math doesn't mean anything to the uninitiated, if you ARE initiated, it is perfectly clear. With Continental philosophy, however, there is no "legend" to understand it - it just plain is incomprehensible.

[Anonymous No.4649340]

>>4649332
>I can't read

[Anonymous No.4649347]

>>4649320
>what is andragogy

[Anonymous No.4649349]

>>4649340

You said I have never taken a formal logic course in my entire life. Not only have I taken one, I've also worked through an entire textbook outside the class, and I hopefully demonstrated that I at least knew something about logic by mentioning ex falso quodlibum (sorry if I'm screwing up the spelling). What exactly have I missed in your illustrious and profound prose, o magus?

[Anonymous No.4649366]

By lifting it out of the sterile academic environment where it has been dying for years now and back into reality where the every day person can relate to it again.

[Anonymous No.4649367]

>>4649349
You responded to the wrong person but logic is about as interesting as linguistics which is to say not at all.

I dunno how playing overglorified language games is supposed to make philosophy cooler either. Math isn't cool. Did math nerds get laid a lot in your high school or college? Pure logic is pretty similar to math.

[Anonymous No.4649370]

>>4649347
Andragogy is bullshit as adults are just experienced children. People are really retarded. Just look at this thread.

>hurrr logic
>needs to be easily explainable so let me use Latin words here

>no! Incomprehensible word-salads are better. Continentals are best!

>lol no logic is easy for people to understand, analytic philosophy totally isn't wanna-be science papers!

Your fucking all stupid, become writers instead and write something people actually care about.

[Anonymous No.4649376]

>>4649311
That's the point, most continentals are bad at exposition. So you're better off not reading their works, but those who read it and made it clearer. This is how science is done, and its a better method. At most the original scientist was determined at some arbitrary point and they get mentioned, with maybe a brief summary of how they got to their conclusion. Most of the time is devoted to their conclusion though.

Continental philosophy is instead egotistical, and people take vicarious pride in reading works, instead of understanding them.

[Anonymous No.4649379]

>>4649367

You're missing my point. I never said Analytic philosophy - which is laid on a foundation of pure logic - is any cooler than math, since it is on all accounts about as similar as something that isn't math itself could be to math, but what I'm saying is that it has more POTENTIAL - presented properly - to become popular, since it just plain old is easier to comprehend once you get the rules of all the formal logics. This isn't to say every issue can be tackled from a purely formal perspective - far from it, but everything done in Analytic philosophy is, or at least ought to be, based on the logics.

[Anonymous No.4649381]

>>4649376
>Continental philosophy is instead egotistical, and people take vicarious pride in reading works, instead of understanding them.

Did you just make that up?

[Anonymous No.4649389]

>>4649379
Analytic philosophy is not as much pure logic as you seem to think. It's used mostly as a rhetorical flourish in papers that attempt to be philosophical but are crippled by their desire not to be unscientific.

[Anonymous No.4649394]

>>4649237
>if I had a dollar for every time some smart ass heard the term "business ethics" and said "LEL OXYMORON HUEHUEHUEEHUEHEUHEU"

[Anonymous No.4649411]

>>4649381
Its a common sentiment.

[Anonymous No.4649417]

Let's face reality. Science has superseded philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4649439]

>>4649411
To whom? Is it just because you say so?

[Anonymous No.4649451]

>>4649417

indeed, philosophy is for people who can't put their idea into interesting prose/poetry.

[Anonymous No.4649456]

>>4649222
The Amazing Atheist is not a philosopher and does little more than dramatically oversimply any debates about god. He has never been formally educated as a philosopher, and his knowledge pretty much ends at the most simplistic counter arguments against theism.

[Anonymous No.4649457]

>>4649439
Common sentiments are things many people hold: Chomsky for one.

Continentals are mostly posturing.

Also irrelevant. It'd be true if just one person held it. Because its true.

[Anonymous No.4649461]

>>4649456
>falling for a troll post that obvious
lurk moar

[Anonymous No.4649464]

>>4649456
>formally educated as a philosopher

What does that even mean? Like memorizing the wikipedia list of fallacies?

[Anonymous No.4649476]

>>4649457
I think Chomsky stated that if an idea can't be expressed to a 12 year old in 5 minutes so he can understand it it's worthless, while, at the same time, being responsible for gibberish like "universal grammar" himself, he's a hack. Nice choice of authority figure.

>Also irrelevant. It'd be true if just one person held it. Because its true.

Why?

[Anonymous No.4649479]

>>4649298
>continental philosophy
>not complete bullshit

People like Foucault and Baudrillard spent their entire lives making simple points and burying them behind smoke and mirrors. Every single first year philosophy student is told that good philosophy is written plainly and clearly. University professors have spent their entire lives trying to figure out what the 20th century continentals were actually trying to say. They serve as a beacon for pseudointellectuals who want to name drop Zizek in casual conversation.


Meanwhile, there are actual important 20th century developments in analytic philosophy. We need to drop this continental bullshit and start talking about modality and modern philosophy of language. Kripke is a thousand times more interesting and relevant than any of the continentals.

[Anonymous No.4649485]

>>4649476
>Chomsky stated that if an idea can't be expressed to a 12 year old in 5 minutes so he can understand it it's worthless
A thousand times this. This is the stupidest most anti-intellectual thing I've ever heard. Do you think general relativity can be explained to a 12 year old in under 5 minutes? Hell no. And yet, according to this view, it is thus worthless.

[Anonymous No.4649482]

you stop worshiping unoriginal dumbshits like Foucault, Derrida, and Chomsky for using ideas that aren't theirs and pointing out the obvious to everyone. also learn to write. why the fuck are most philosophers such shitty writers? Nietzsche especially and don't get me started on Ayn Rand.
and for any of you still hanging on to the cold and lifeless teat of post structuralist and/or post modernist thought- could you join the rest of the world sometime and stop obsessing over your long-dead movement
at least Bertrand Russel did something with his life you fucks. Shape up

[Anonymous No.4649483]

>>4649479
>Every single first year philosophy student is told that good philosophy is written plainly and clearly.

Baudrillard and Foucault is pretty plain and clear in what they mean. You just don't like the prose or you are dyslectic or something.

[Anonymous No.4649486]

>>4649476
This thread.

[Anonymous No.4649490]

>>4649482
Russel was an Anglo analytic.

[Anonymous No.4649491]

>>4649464
That would be the antithesis of formal education in philosophy. Are you dense?


I'm talking about a graduate degree in philosophy from a major institution. Learning formal logic, studying major philosophical texts, writing and arguing about philosophical issues....that would be formal.

And please don't try that "I don't need to go to a university to understand philosophy" bullshit. If you want anything beyond a completely basic understanding of things, you do. Ever wonder why pretty much every single modern major philosopher has a PhD? Ever heard of a community college student or a high schooler making a serious contribution to modern philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4649493]

>>4649482
>at least Bertrand Russel did something with his life
Like writing one of the most inaccurate histories of philosophy in English? Or do you mean writing a book on math that was shown to be completely pointless by Goedel? Or do you mean being the original euphoric atheist writing "why I am not Christian" as if it was profound?

[Anonymous No.4649494]

>>4649483

They are both wankers and failed writers. Not even worth reading, might as well go and jack off in the subway with a hat in front of you for change, that is the equivalent of their writing.

[Anonymous No.4649497]

>>4649494
>Not even worth reading,

Nice opinion you have there. Are you dyslectic or did they hurt your feelings?

[Anonymous No.4649498]

>>4649491
>If you want anything beyond a completely basic understanding of things, you do.
But philosophy cannot give us an "understanding of things". Only science can. Philosophy insists that "u cannot know nuffin".

>Ever wonder why pretty much every single modern major philosopher has a PhD?
There noteworthy contemporary philosophers. Philosophy is dead.

>Ever heard of a community college student or a high schooler making a serious contribution to modern philosophy?
My 4 year old nephew recently asked "what if my blue is your red?" I think this proves that every infant can make contributions to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4649500]

>>4649498
*There are no noteworthy ...

[Anonymous No.4649502]

Continentals and their popularizers make fun of scientists like Dawkins as if that means something to science, as if its not stronger than that. They don't realize that kind of attack is more effective amongst their own kind, and just makes them look like poseurs outside of their circles.

[Anonymous No.4649503]

>>4649249
>fulfilling human needs.

Gaming and manipulating human 'wants' you mean.

[Anonymous No.4649504]

>>4649498
>My 4 year old nephew recently asked "what if my blue is your red?" I think this proves that every infant can make contributions to philosophy.
/lit/ ladies and gentleman, where philosophy is nothing more than the musing of children and stoners.

[Anonymous No.4649507]

>>4649148

Philosophy is below E.L. James even.

[Anonymous No.4649508]

>>4649503
>Gaming and manipulating human 'wants' you mean.

The wants are already there as a marketeer you discover them by observation, then make 'art' to hit them in their already existing wants.

[Anonymous No.4649509]

>>4649498
0/10
But, on the off chance you are not trolling, thanks for proving my point for me.

[Anonymous No.4649510]

>>4649504

>philosophy is nothing more than the musing of children and stoners.

True.

[Anonymous No.4649511]

>>4649504

Also proves science trumps the need for philosophy now.

[Anonymous No.4649513]

>>4649502
You sound like it's some kind of gang fight or boxing match. Grow up. This goes out to the rest of the kids ITT as well.

[Anonymous No.4649515]

this problem really is equivalent to making maths popular

the solution is exposure + good pedagogy that is extremely hard to implement in modern educational systems

[Anonymous No.4649520]

>>4649515
>maths
>popular

Now that's an oxymoron math are for loser nerds. Always has been, always will be.

[Anonymous No.4649521]

>>4649511
Please let me know when science can answer questions about the relationships between words and their referents, or the relationship between modal statements and reality. Or when science can provide a refutation of deism. Or when science can successfully create a moral system and justify it without bootstrapping.

[Anonymous No.4649522]

>>4649511
>implying its 0 sum

[Anonymous No.4649523]

Has it ever been popular at all?
If not, then why should you even attempt toe make it popular.

[Anonymous No.4649524]

>>4649521
Please let me know when philosophy can answer questions.

[Anonymous No.4649525]

>>4649522
>implying I'm not half the posts in this thread talking to myself

[Anonymous No.4649528]

>>4649521
>Or when science can successfully create a moral system

[Anonymous No.4649533]

>>4649521

[Anonymous No.4649534]

>>4649486
This thread is just analytics posturing their insecurities, thinking philosophy is a dick measuring contest. There's been a discussion of the contents of the books of exactly zero continentals ITT.

[Anonymous No.4649536]

>>4649525
>Are you me

[Anonymous No.4649538]

>>4649520
i understand you are not serious, but there are too many people who honestly feel the same way

teaching mathematics and philosophy is a very delicate matter

[Anonymous No.4649541]

>>4649538
>teaching mathematics and philosophy is a very delicate matter

Yeah because you teach a bunch of compensating whining pussies.

[Anonymous No.4649543]

>>4649524
The difference is, philosophy could actually answer those questions, science will never be able to. Furthermore, most philosophers would say they do have answers to those questions, they just disagree about which answer is correct.

>>4649528
You understand that this is a book of philosophy, by definition, right? Furthermore, this book got a fuckload of criticism in academic circles when it came out.

>>4649533
A single quote, from Richard Feynman, and the entire history of philosophy has been successfully dismantled. Great job! Seriously, go back to reddit, Richard Feynman was a cool guy, but he was ignorant as fuck about philosophy, something he demonstrated time and time again.

[Anonymous No.4649546]

>>4649541
i wish you'd made a positive contribution to the thread

[Anonymous No.4649547]

>>4649543
>but he was ignorant as fuck about philosophy

Just like philosophers themselves? Remember: According to philosophy you cannot know nuffin! (scio me nihil scire)

[Anonymous No.4649548]

>>4649546
What's the point, it seems all are set in their ways here anyways.

[Anonymous No.4649549]

>>4649547
Yup, that's exactly what Socrates said. In the original latin too. You're a real scholar, son.

[Anonymous No.4649550]

>>4649543
>The difference is, philosophy could actually answer those questions

Philosophy cannot answer questions. Throughout 6000 years of human history philosophy hasn't solved a single problem.

[Anonymous No.4649552]

>>4649549
It's a girl.

[Anonymous No.4649555]

>>4649550
Science has never solved a problem. Business and politics are the only areas that solves anything.

[Anonymous No.4649560]

Build more monasteries.

[Anonymous No.4649565]

>>4649547
Yeah....you seem to be talking about the skeptical argument in epistemology? That is a really complicated subject. But if the skeptics are right, then you can know literally nothing (barring maybe a few logically certain a priori facts). That includes everything science has ever demonstrated, the fact that you know what your middle name is, and the idea that you know how long you have been alive. If you are right, we should just fucking pack up and go home - in every single discipline, because knowledge is unattainable.

>>4649550
I mean, philosophy formulated the entire modern logical system, contributed to the development of most major religious perspectives (including, and most obviously, atheism and agnosticism), built systems of government, and developed systems of morality. And those are just the obvious ones. I'd say that is pretty solid for one discipline.

[Anonymous No.4649566]

>>4649555
Are you even trying, troll? Science has solved all the big problems philosophy failed to solve. Science has found objective morality. Science has found the meaning of life. Science has disproved afterlife, deities, consciousness and free will. Etc etc

[Anonymous No.4649569]

>>4649566
wat

[Anonymous No.4649574]

>>4649565
>philosophy formulated the entire modern logical system
Logic is a field of math and was formalized by mathematicians.

>contributed to the development of most major religious perspectives
So philosophy is responsible for pic related?

>built systems of government, and developed systems of morality
The formation of governments and moral values happened naturally and relied on common sense, consensus and economical necessities. Philosphers contributed nothing to it.

[Anonymous No.4649581]

>>4649566
You gotta give me a link to these scientific papers, sister. I've been livin' in the dark.

[Anonymous No.4649583]

>>4649555
8/10 filled me with murderous intent

[Anonymous No.4649585]

>>4649274
not that anon, but why would that be hypocritical? you can still call out advertising for shameless bullshit whoring for shit you don't need, and still wear clothes, have a car, and a roof over your head. So, you know, just shut your mouth, friendo

[Anonymous No.4649594]

>>4649574
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMOGMOGMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMOGMOGMOGMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGMOGMOMGOMGOMG

GTFO

Weren't you embarrassed enough last time you posted these exact same arguments and everyone proved you wrong?

FYI, people, this is a troll, do not respond to her.

[Anonymous No.4649607]

>>4649574
>Logic is a field of math and was formalized by mathematicians.
Well, calling logic a field of math demonstrates how little you know.

>So philosophy is responsible for pic related?
Because giving rise to christianity also means it needs to claim responsibility for the entire dark ages? I'd also remind you that philosophy was important to every other belief system, at every other point in time. And, hell, the renaissance which followed the dark ages was pretty much the golden age of philosophy.

>The formation of governments and moral values happened naturally and relied on common sense, consensus and economical necessities. Philosphers contributed nothing to it.

Mhm. Well, a man with a big stick telling everyone what to do was certainly a power structure that existed long before any serious philosophy did. But pretty much every modern government is indebted to enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and the rest. The clear example of this would be the american founding fathers, who explicitly referenced enlightenment era political philosophy when they were drafting the constitution

[Anonymous No.4649621]

>>4649607
If you're new here (which visible), here's a heads-up: you're arguing with a wall, or, more specifically, the well-known /sci/ troll that roams this board and never listens, never learns and never changes his trolling tactics.

To anyone who is willingly communicating with the guy: quit wasting your goddamn time.

[Anonymous No.4649626]

>>4649621
which is visible*

[Anonymous No.4649630]

>>4649607
>Well, calling logic a field of math demonstrates how little you know.
Actually it shows the exact opposite. It shows that I know much more than you. You are a philosotard. You cannot know nuthin. I am not a philosotard. I can know sumthin.

>Because giving rise to christianity also means it needs to claim responsibility for the entire dark ages?
Without christfag retardation the dark ages would of never happened. Can you even imagine the technological progress we could of had if we were never held back by religion?

>But pretty much every modern government is indebted to enlightenment thinkers
Bullshit. Modern governments are indebted to financial institutions.

[Anonymous No.4649634]

>>4649574
"Common sense" is a philosophical concept unless you can demonstrate it.

[Anonymous No.4649637]

>>4649566
>Science has found objective morality. Science has found the meaning of life. Science has disproved afterlife, deities, consciousness and free will. Etc etc

None of this really matters in politics or business. If people won't buy your "objective morality or meaning of life" it's worthless and doesn't solve shit. Same goes for the rest of your useless claims. It's really not rocket science, retard.

[Anonymous No.4649639]

>>4649634
See >>4649621 and >>4649594

You are responding to a mentally deficient troll. Please do not feed her further.

[Anonymous No.4649640]

>>4649634
Common sense is a skill philosophers are lacking. Why else do you believe they are endlessly bickering over the semantics of words every normal person understands intuitively?

[Anonymous No.4649658]

>>4649640
>Common sense is a skill
>every normal person understands [words] intuitively

[Anonymous No.4649659]

>>4649178
this would be the greatest thing ever

[Anonymous No.4649661]

>>4649640
Intuition is unreliable and immeasurable.

[Anonymous No.4649692]

>>4649630

would of

[Anonymous No.4649807]

>>4649640

HIDE SCIENTISMIST THREADS
IGNORE SCIENTISMIST POSTS
DO NOT RESPOND TO SCIENTISMIST POSTERS

[ovarian cancer !!ArfwX2Zd2yp No.4649866]

philosophy is already cool. i get laid when i tell girls its my major and it looks interesting on my resume

step up loser nerd plebs

[Anonymous No.4649880]

thank god most people don't read philosophy

can you just imagine the clusterfuck of contrarian so-deep-it's-unique-I-can't-comprise tryhards that would exist if everyone acted like /lit/ does?

[Anonymous No.4649929]

>>4649521
>deism
Science doesn't 'refute' unfalsifiable ideas. It denies their capacity to hold truth.

>other stuff
Okay.

[ovarian cancer !!ArfwX2Zd2yp No.4649946]

>>4649880
no i can't

most people dont and never will read philosophy exactly because it's too inaccessible. this way only a few genius gods like me get the chance to even talk about it, let alone flaunt our brilliancy in it, making it one of the coolest things ever

but if everyone did read it that would actually be a good thing. like how insecure can you get

[Anonymous No.4649957]

>>4649262
the fulfillment of desires is a human need, idiot.

[Anonymous No.4649960]

>>4649946
Yes. It's not easy being the overman in a world filled with subhumans.

[Anonymous No.4649978]

>>4649957
>what is buddhism?
>>4649960
I can't wait till we achieve the last man.

[Anonymous No.4649983]

>>4649485
Actually general relativity is pretty easy to explain. Einstein used trains and most tv shows covering it do it in 2. The other 3 can be left to clear things up.

[Anonymous No.4649987]

Poser.

[Anonymous No.4650000]

>>4649983
The key word was understand. Do you think a child would be able to understand the equations involved and apply them? Any idea can be "understood" if you water it down. But then is it really "understood" at all?

[Anonymous No.4650007]

>>4649978
Buddhism is the attempt to escape that psychological trap, good luck achieving the complete lack of desire.

[Anonymous No.4650027]

>>4649370
>adults are just experienced children
This is wrong in so much fucking ways
Even in medical, scientific terms. Nobody believes that.

[Anonymous No.4650030]

It's already happening

Orgyofthewill.net

[Anonymous No.4650103]

>>4650000
Yes. Understanding can be a gradient of precision.

I mean, you can argue that's not the case, that understanding must be perfectly precise to be "understood", but that validates many of the anti-continental arguments in this thread.

[Anonymous No.4650149]

>>4649148
Show how it gives you superpowers, obviously.

>wow how can you not even a job
Cynicism.
>wow how are you so content
Epicureanism.
>wow how do you stay so cool
Stoicism.
>wow how did you know the way out of that cave
>Platonism
>how can you resist those delicious beans
Pythagoreanism.

etc. The glory of the Greeks was that philosophy was a public endeavour, so it was part performance art. If you wanted your philosophy to be more attractive you would have to come across in a superior way. You'd have to actually posses desirable traits. When philosophy will demonstrably offer something people want it will become cool again. Until then, prepare to be outdone by both lasers and cathedrals.

[Anonymous No.4650167]

>>4649476
>“There’s no ‘theory’ in any of this stuff,” Chomsky says to an interviewer who had asked him about the three continental thinkers, “not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it.”

you got it backwards man

[Anonymous No.4650168]

>>4650149
Seems legit.

[Anonymous No.4650188]

>>4650149
more like eclecticism amirite

[Anonymous No.4650193]

>>4650149
I dig it. That's what I always tried to do with my drug consumption while a philosophy major in university. "Holy shit bro, how the fuck are you still lucid on that much lsd?" "I'm just chill. I'm a fucking philosopher, ya kennit?" etc. And then once philosophy becomes cool and gets funding we can really outdo the lasers and the cathedrals by building a laser cathedral in which to teach philosophy. That would be sweet as all hell.

[Anonymous No.4650199]

>>4650167
I can explain the Oedipus Complex to a twelve year old in 5 minutes. It's actually nothing more than logical conclusions based on hard science facts. The stage of the mirror also is a key principle and works that way

[Anonymous No.4650212]

more philosophy in video games

[Anonymous No.4650228]

>>4650199
I wasn't disputing any claims other than what chomsky said, which was the opposite of what the person I replied to claimed he said, and I disagree with the ideas that A) simplicity is bad and B) complexity is bad

[Anonymous No.4650243]

Now let's change the subject.

Let's talk about why Heidegger is the best philosopher of the last century.

[Anonymous No.4650253]

>>4649172
Refer to OP's pic

[Anonymous No.4650267]

>>4650243
Because he was a nazi.

[Anonymous No.4650294]

>>4650212
cool philosophy for cool video games
lefebvrian takes on urban military shooters

[Anonymous No.4650301]

PKD - VALIS, The Divine Invasion, The Transmigration of Timothy Archer

[Anonymous No.4651111]

>>4649231
We need more Zizeks though. One is good, but not enough to make a whole discipline cool.

Is philosophy still cool in France and Germany? Maybe this is just a problem with the Anglosphere being horrible at having public intellectuals...

[Anonymous No.4651113]

>>4651111
Zizek is just being used to marginalize radicals. He'll be discarded whether he fails or succeeds. He won't find love among those he argued against, or those who find him useful.

Good riddance.

[Anonymous No.4651114]

>>4650267

>Because he was a nazi.

I know, wasn't he amazing? :3

[Anonymous No.4651770]

>>4649190
But science produces, and can make you know a lot of cool shit. It's also way easier to misunderstand science, than it is with philosophy. Look at all the plebs who don't understand Quantum mechanics (Bioshock Infinite), or particle physics, and all those other rad atomic branches of physics.

[Anonymous No.4651844]

>>4649332
>Although higher math doesn't mean anything to the uninitiated, if you ARE initiated, it is perfectly clear.

No. Dixit John Von Neuman: "In mathematics, one never understands anything. One barely gets used to it".

>With Continental philosophy, however, there is no "legend" to understand it

No. Continental philosophy, like a any philosophical tradition, is a succession of theories answering to each other. Half of it (and I'm being generous) doesn't makes sense without a rather extensive background.

[Anonymous No.4651850]

>>4651111
>Is philosophy still cool in France
It's taught in highschool. So, probably no.

[Anonymous No.4652008]

Want to make philosophy cool?

Put it into practice.

When the commoners saw Marcus Aurelius reign with greatness of soul and equanimity, no doubt they thought, 'So, this is what metaphysics does to a man!'

Not that I believe that philosophy itself should be practical or 'useful', but too often our modern philosophers are afraid to commit to any one system or understanding.

[Anonymous No.4652014]

>>4651844

I would say most continental philosophy is highly derivative, but uses and excess of verbiage and jargon to disguise it. Analytic is also quite derivative, but the historical ignorance of the analytic philosopher protects them from plagiarism,

[Anonymous No.4652022]

/lit/ should make a mascot that is not too edgy yet contemporary youth friendly

like buddy christ or something

[Anonymous No.4652051]

The best thing most of /lit/ could do to make Philosophy cooler is to distance themselves as far away from it as possible

[Anonymous No.4652295]

>>4649171
what are his predicitions?

[Anonymous No.4652312]

>>4652008
actually don't do that, because it's uncool.

[Anonymous No.4652639]

>>4652008
No doubt they thought: "Rich faaking cant"

[Anonymous No.4652654]

>>4652008
And then they saw the reign of terror his son Commodus brought upon them and realized his selfish metaphysics had no long-term potential.

[Anonymous No.4652712]

>>4649978
The last man will remain the longest and will be the hardest to annihilate

[Anonymous No.4652729]

>>4651850
Don't all high schools have philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.4652770]

>>4649322
7/10

[Anonymous No.4652938]

>>4652729
High schools barely have English.

[Anonymous No.4652947]

Philosophy is for hipsters and hipsters don't want philosophy to become cool and mainstream.

[Anonymous No.4652960]

>>4652947
I'm not a hipster

[septichrist !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4653000]

>>4649221

love that show so fucking much. sweet christo..
cohle's monologues literally funneled my cunted soul through the strainings of a most terrorbombed nostalgia; i saw myself suspended, air raping violently the memories and general insubstantial yet discernibly coppery (like fucking bload, bronze abraham,) qualia that ive willfully tried to sweep under the rug of forgetfulness through terror and habit. but alas i was dragged back into its violently sweet depths. my terrorbombing balls pulsated with the festering digestions of a thousand white larvae, i sweetswamped me ain prostatic fluid, and breathed in death's inebriant miasma,

but the ending though..there's no menstruating dead daughter love (insufficiently incestual) within the nihilating nothing (nihilating at 95 miles per hour, though they had slowed it down for dramatic effect)..the ending kind of shat the rest of the terrorbombed hermeneutics but i still loved its general terrorbomb

6 thumbs

[posh milkman !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4653006]

>>4653000

sweet tripes, stan christ

[Anonymous No.4653008]

>>4649566
Philosophy here

You're welcome

[Anonymous No.4653009]

>>4652960
That's what they all say.

[Anonymous No.4653117]

>>4649574
Do people still believe in what your pic is portraying?

[Anonymous No.4653126]

>>4653000

I know. Such a good show. Totally gave me the good old nihil feels. I thought the ending was good though. I love a little deluded hope to sprinkle on my dread.

[Anonymous No.4653209]

>>4653000
I think Cohle's sort of attitude change at the end made sense. Not a switch from pessimism to optimism but a switch from denial to amor fati because he had stared into the abyss long enough to make peace with it. When he broke down crying he plugged himself firmly back into mother earth's socket instead of staving her off with sophisms as he used to do.

[posh milkman !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4653449]

>>4653209

idk about that dude..Cohle was never in denial (up until the end, imo). He had embraced eternal return a long time ago; he was absolutely at peace with it, in his own anesthetized way. I thought the end was a break from this. the ending shpiel reeked of bullshit afterlife delusion...he had a fucking near death experience and was conned by his own dreams.... i didnt get the amor fati interpretation you did; i'll watch it again later though..

still, that show is the greatest fucking TV show ever made. pure art in so many ways.

and who wouldve thought that matthew fucking meccaunaghey is a bad ass pimplord of an actor

[Anonymous No.4653482]

>>4649148
we don't, i am

[Anonymous No.4653488]

>>4649204
die in a fire

[Anonymous No.4653494]

>>4649332
lol, you are stupid

[Anonymous No.4653500]

>>4653482
>>4653488
>>4653494
>>4653499
samefag

[Anonymous No.4653504]

>>4651111

>We need more Zizeks

You don't want to make Marxism trendy again, do you comrade?

[Anonymous No.4653505]

>>4653449
>and who wouldve thought that matthew fucking meccaunaghey is a bad ass pimplord of an actor
haven't you seen Killer Joe?

[Anonymous No.4653543]

>>4649630
>this bitch actually believes this shit

[Anonymous No.4653549]

>>4649640
>logical positivist
>intuitionist
This is why you need philosophy. Your worldview is rife with contradictions... In other words, you don't know nuffin.

[Anonymous No.4653587]

>How do we make 'blank' cool?

Just make it something that people can use to demonstrate that you don't give a fuck. Problem is, you can't have philosophy as a 'cool' aspect of society without taking the time to explain it to people, which shows you care, which is lame.

Any attempt to make philosophy cool dooms philosophy to be uncool, a nice little paradox. How ironic.

[Anonymous No.4653599]

>>4653587
How do we makes books cool?

[Anonymous No.4653607]

>>4653504
>You don't want to make Marxism trendy again
That's kind of the point tho.

[Anonymous No.4653614]

>>4653599

Have cool people be seen with them.

No object is in and of itself cool. Cool is the quality one attaches to an(other) subject. By then being one of the senses that make up the reference point of cool, the objects are able to become cool.

[Anonymous No.4653623]

>>4651113
Zizek is great for how he utilizes different philosophies in his analyses. Nobody can doubt the fact that his books and lectures are interesting. Now, take your dismissals elsewhere and kill yourself, faggot.

[Anonymous No.4653633]

>>4653614
Marketing major?

[Anonymous No.4653635]

>>4649277
Impossible to understand? Are you fucking retarded and/or illiterate?

[Anonymous No.4653643]

>>4653633

Drama and Philosophy

[Anon No.4653646]

>>4649148
actually relating it to life

[Anonymous No.4653653]

Put it on ice.

[Anonymous No.4653659]

>>4653449
I don't mean in denial as much as not facing the facts but not emotionally accepting them. He sort of resisted the undeniable, lived a life of insomniac cognitive dissonance, viewed the world as that 'which ought not to be', like a nihilist in the way that Nietzsche uses the word as an insult.

The near death experience seemed some sort of catharsis to me, something that he didn't necessarily believe was real in the sense of afterlife spiritualism shit but that nevertheless served as an emotional relief. Not to mention the coma that seemed like his first nap in a few decades. He comes out of the coma, he stares at the stars, he reflects, he chuckles at the gift pack of Camels, he cries wholeheartedly at his loss, the chuckling in a sense more out of character than the breakdown. But there is more of him than ever before. More together. It's like he came out of the whole thing rehumanised. He already started going on about other cultfags they didn't catch. More hungry. It's like his light versus dark thing symbolises a sort of acceptance of his place in life as a sort of Zoroastrian Templar against degenerate scum regardless of the futility of it. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he seems to embrace a dualism that leads him not to dismiss life altogether but to set himself to altering the parts he doesn't like. His pessimism becomes life-affirming, tragic, Dionysian.

Though this may all very well be my own defence mechanism against not liking the ending otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4653666]

>>4649230

[Anonymous No.4653692]

>>4649259
Stop shitposting and get out of here, deGrasse Tyson.

[Anonymous No.4653717]

>>4649239
that is shit

sam harris is ok

[Anonymous No.4653745]

>>4653666
Try to point out why you think Sam Harris' work is bad and I'll try to show why you are a fucking retarded moron. (:

[posh milkman !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4653789]

>>4653659

i can dig that..that kind of dualism resonates with me a lot actually.. and Cohle definitely. it was more than just emotional relief though. i'd be with you all the way if it wasn't for the line before he burst into tears, his 'realization' that his dead daughter and father's love is waiting for him beneath the darkness is highly suggestive of an afterlife, unless we want to say that it's another reference to the condemned reification of an eternal template..this is a bit of a stretch though since we'd then be assuming that he's now eager to also see her get smashed by a car ad-infinitum.. pretty sure they needed to placate sensitive viewers with that feel-good afterlife bullshit...

still, as a cohesive whole, despite it veering from my own morose view of existence at the end, the show was near perfect

[posh milkman !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4653823]

>>4653745

sam harris is pop-philosophy; fodder for cattle , pastiched, plagiarized and watered the fuck down for easy digestion and mass consumption; ersatz for the dilettante... hopefully you'll start to read actual philosophy once you graduate high school

[posh milkman !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4653825]

>>4653789
are*

[Anonymous No.4653834]

>>4653823
>Muh jargon
>Muh pedigree
>Posturing this hard

Go read some continentals at starbucks you faggot.

[Anonymous No.4653861]

>>4653504
You're goddamn right. We wanna make Marx trendy and sexy. We want the second coming of Marcuse, we want to complete the ritual that was stifled by the onslaught of capitalism in the 80s(Who do you think made AIDS?, Come on huh?) We want all the NEETs and neckbeard to transform into lustful virile satyrs. We want bandes of putains on the street. We want salacious slaves, but you know like the cool sex kind, not wage slaves. We want the worse of the japanese perversions to be on museum walls. We want the overpasses to be converted into Marijuana Greenhouses, no more damn death dillin' cars. Everything to be like, pure burning passion, we wanna outlaw the color grey, if you wear a grey shirt you have to fuck an old broad and eat her pussy too. We want the return of magic, but not as a religious ritual, just fucking with more daggers and chalices. We wanna make Jissom Homunculii that come out from the dirty cumrags under our bed. When we're young we're afraid of monsters under our bed, but when we grow up the monsters are afraid of whats under our bed. You know it. Like an underground civilization eons below the earth. One the earth we can have a towering giant Colosses of Rhodes made of brushed Aluminium to ward off the aliens and a teeming warren of sin beneath the earth. We still get like computers and stuff and all the music of the Ages and literature. We get to do whatever we want, because we can't compromise with capitalism. To Destroy Capitalism, we must make a fake woman and fuck her in the town square. Bang a Rottweiler in lipstick, it doesn't have to be a real one if you're moralfeg, a rubber Rottweiler will do. Capitalism will want to make you inadequate for using a fake one, but ignore them. Just use your imagination.

[Anonymous No.4653879]

>>4653861

[Anonymous No.4653882]

>>4653789
Yes, it seem to pander a bit to the viewers with a propensity for obesity, poverty and a yen for fairytales, prone to putting what little they do have in little baskets they pass around.

That shack-behind-the-bar living, that's goatlife right there though.

[Anonymous No.4653883]

>>4653861
Did you think this was clever, or...?

[Anonymous No.4653923]

Philosophy has never been uncool.

[Anonymous No.4653936]

>>4653923
Philosophy has never been cool.
FTFY

[posh milkman !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.4654066]

>>4653834

lol, stay forever pleb you fucking idiot cocksucker

>>4653882
2 right goats

[Anonymous No.4654091]

>>4654066

[Anonymous No.4654110]

>>4654091

And of Sam Harris himself.

>let the blood floooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwasdasdadwadscadwada

[Anonymous No.4654140]

>>4654091
that's philosophy though

[Anonymous No.4654168]

>>4654140
Yes. Its simple and clear.

Some philosophers are asking themselves why the fuck no one listens to them, and in the same breath attack the style that would help it be understood.

Too bad they're not real philosophers.

[Anonymous No.4654270]

>>4654168
>real philosophers.
Muh no true scotsman fallacy

[Anonymous No.4654277]

>>4649148
Foucault was literally a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4654285]

>>4649148

The problem with philosophy today is not what you'd think; it's not the mind-body problem, the problem from evil, or anything substantive like that. The issue is that everyone thinks "philosophy" constitutes people like Marx, Foucault, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, or Ayn Rand. Were Plato and Aristotle philosophers? Well, yeah, but no one cares about them because most philosophy programs - even in college - treat them as silly, antiquated, and of no real value (even though their ideas survive to this day).

No one reads the Pre-Socratics because no one has ever heard of Anaximander or Xeno. Aquinas, Augustine, and Duns Scotus are ignored for being Christian. People read a summary of Descartes and then laugh at him for arguing for the existence of God - which is a lynchpin, proxy concept that barely gets any use (but people these days hone in on that because lolatheism). No one reads Leibniz and most people have never heard of Spinoza, even though the former and especially the latter were extremely influential on modern academia and philosophy.

On top of this, we have run into subjectivist bullshit. You can't have a substantive conversation about philosophy in the field of philosophy in academia because you get those assholes that never moved past their teenage years, also begging the question about the meaning of a word or concept. Rather than move forward in philosophy, an entire sub-set - the philosophy of language, and so forth - has spawned as these poor bastards argue over the meaning of language itself and entrench themselves into linguistics as well as cultural anthropology because they don't want to deal with the fact that they have absolutely no philosophical concepts of their own to present.

[Anonymous No.4654293]

>>4654285
So a problem with Philosophy today is that it has become stuck? Isn't this a recurring element throughout all of historical philosophy?

[Anonymous No.4654294]

>>4649148
We need to kill everyone.

[Anonymous No.4654299]

>>4654293

Yes. It has become stuck today because people are too busy arguing over semantics. They don't want to delve into meaty concepts because that's too hard for their career. The academic standards now require you to be extremely nitpicky - especially in the field of philosophy - and no one gets famous anymore for any meaty philosophy books (unless it's some pop book that "real" academics scoff and turn their nose at). Academics thrive on disagreeing, arguing, and agreeing on nothing. They make entire careers out of simply responding to people they don't like.

I don't think it's a recurring element in the history of philosophy, though. Philosophy stagnated in Rome because the Romans were not very philosophical; they were pragmatic people, through and through. Then the Dark Ages happened and made it difficult for anyone to do anything because the largest political, economic, and social force in Europe collapsed. Once it was rebuilt and people had access to greater scholarly resources, academia blossomed. Then it stagnated again with the Scholastics, but was reinvigorated in the 1600s and 1700s.

Then Kant came around and people weren't sure what to do. You had some people moving towards empiricism still, while other idealists such as Hegel moved in another direction. Sadly, however, materialists began to take hold, and the cult of Marxists began to dominate Western academia.

[Anonymous No.4654311]

>>4649191

De Botton is a fucking hack.

[Anonymous No.4654316]

/thread

[Anonymous No.4654317]

>>4654299

>materialists began to take hold, and the cult of Marxists began to dominate Western academia.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/ba980423.htm

Man, I don't know where you guys get this stuff. What do you mean by "materialist" in this instance, anyway?

[Anonymous No.4654326]

>>4654317

People who believe we can only know anything about anything after we discover the absolute truth of theoretical physics and that unless you have a PhD in physics and are the leader in your own esoteric field you are a worthless pleb.

Something like that.

[Anonymous No.4654328]

>>4654285
Stupid ideas like an omniscient god had philosophers arguing over free will and determinism as if it could be perfectly known what will happen, or a reason our minds should free of such causation.

Remove omniscience and its much simpler: Only under determinism can will arise.

Let's not go back to that stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.4654330]

>>4654328

>Only under determinism can will arise.

I know you're a troll...but what?

[Anonymous No.4654333]

Kill the analytics.
Get people like Zizek but attractive and less coked out (ie, more coherent) into the public eye. More philosophy in journalism, esp political coverage. Hell, give a charismatic philosopher a fucking tv show.

[Anonymous No.4654338]

>>4654328

> Only under determinism can will arise.

You're either an obvious troll or really ignorant.

[Anonymous No.4654342]

>>4654330
Only if things cause other things can you predict them enough to bother wanting to cause things yourself you retard.

[Anonymous No.4654343]

>>4654342

you are one of those things being caused, dipshit

[Anonymous No.4654346]

>>4654343


>if determinism is true

[Anonymous No.4654350]

>>4654343
Hence its my will. See, not so hard to understand, is it?

[Anonymous No.4654356]

>>4654350
why am I still biting?

>it is my will

no, it's just another event among a whole series of events

[Anonymous No.4654364]

>>4650199
eli5 plz

[Anonymous No.4654366]

>>4654356
Word games: The sun doesn't cause plants to grow because its just another event in a series of events.

Nothing causes nothing because its all just events.

So what? What does it matter if people are events or things? They still exist, and have the event called will.

[Anonymous No.4654384]

>>4654366

Still.

You aren't understanding.

>Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

>fixed as a matter of natural law

Please show me where the freedom of will enters.

Talk about 'word games.' I put a label on a duck that reads "Hello, I am a velocipede." Doesn't make the duck a velocipede. Ditto events (or states of the universe, or whatever) and "x was the result of my will."

[Anonymous No.4654415]

>>4654364

The child will resent The Father (any figure of authority) for coming between it and The Mother (the primary caregiver.)

[Anonymous No.4654418]

>>4654384
That's premised on existence of agents that are aware of themselves (Implying they are separate from other things), with desire states that they're also aware of, and recognition that its actions on things, that are not itself, can fulfil them.

Put all this together and you have free will.

[Anonymous No.4654424]

>>4654317
You know it in your heart to be true.

Its hilarious when liberals realize their entire ideology is based on historical materialism, which is basically the most pleb perspective out there.

[Anonymous No.4654432]

>>4654424
No, they're mostly postmodernists.

[Anonymous No.4654436]

>>4654418

>That's premised on existence of agents that are aware of themselves.

No, determinism isn't, but I understand what you mean. For there to be a theory of determinism there needs to be something capable of expressing that theory. Nothing else you wrote follows from this.

>(implying they are separate from other things)
Separate how? As Noumena outside the phenomenal world, tangentially connected only at the point of the subject?

>desire states, etc.
Again, if determinism is true, every single state of the universe is resultant from the previous state. You are just a body in motion, set in motion by yet other bodies. Your "desire states" are certain arrangements of neuron firings, brought on by antecedent arrangements, brought on by still further antecedent arrangements, etc. brought on by certain environmental stimuli, brought on by, again, bodies moving through space and impacting other bodies.

>http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/104_Master_File/104_Readings/James/James_DILEMMA_OF_DETERMINISM.pdf

just read.

[Anonymous No.4654442]

>>4654432

Rorty was all for po-mo. People like M. Friedman, etc? Hard to tell.

>>4654424

Classical liberalism precedes Marx's developed theory of historical materlialism by over a century.

>Believing society should be organized to provide the greatest degree of autonomy and personal liberty

yeah, dude, so pleb.

[Anonymous No.4654446]

>>4654418
This is difficult to come up with if you believe god created humans, because the desire states are just assumed to match the environment because of god's will, and not an adverserial and ongoing process. But responsibility must also be objective, because of god's judgement. Hence dualism.

I can see there's vestiges of such bad ideas still lingering despite supposed understanding of evolution and stuff. It's no wonder an atheist had to correct philosophers on this.

[Anonymous No.4654462]

>>4654442
> classical liberals
> contemporary liberals

Pick one

Most people here and most liberals for that matter are postmodern NeoMarxists

[Anonymous No.4654480]

>>4654462

a "liberal" in your sense is really just anyone who holds an opinion that is contrary to a "contemporary conservative," and more specifically to any prominent right-wing pundit

[Anonymous No.4654482]

>>4654462
>>4654480

i.e. the brilliant minds on display at http://townhall.com/ etc.

[Anonymous No.4654487]

>>4654480
No, a liberal is a progressive, and they were associated with minority rights, feminism, welfare/socialism, egalitarian authoritarianism, etc. There are very few classical liberals out there since we are demonized by both ends of the political spectrum

[Anonymous No.4654494]

>>4654436
Terrence Deacon gives a good enough definition of self from physical rules. Doesn't really matter. The question is already premised on an agent. Otherwise what are we talking about? Free will of what?

>Only facts can be proved by other facts. With things that are possibilities and not facts, facts have no concern. If we have no other evidence than the evidence of existing facts, the possibility‐question must remain a mystery never to be cleared up.

This guy's a fucking retard.

>Let us then examine exactly what it means, and see whether it ought to be such a terrible bugbear to us. I fancy that squeezing the thistle boldly will rob it of its sting.

lol this guy should write erotica.

>And if the slightest particle of it exists anywhere, what is to prevent the whole fabric from falling together, the stars from going out, and chaos from recommencing her topsy‐turvy reign?

Holy shit.

>With earthʹs first clay they did the last man knead,

>And there of the last harvest sowed the seed.

>And the first morning of creation wrote

>What the last dawn of reckoning shall read.

Cringing so hard. When I got to chance I stopped skimming. All your concerns I've heard before. The mistake both of you seem to make is applying will outside of an agent. Trying to apply ontological determinism and then going around and saying the will of agents is the same. This is absurd. It's the agent that has will. Not the atoms. If you want the name of a fallacy, I guess it could fall under composition or something.

[Anonymous No.4654495]

I like Foucault.

[Anonymous No.4654497]

>>4654495
This is a new atheist thread. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4654504]

>>4654494

Dude, you just don't understand what determinism, and more specifically hard determinism, asserts. Determinism doesn't "apply a will outside of an agent;" it denies the existence of agency, full stop.

>The question is already premised on an agent.

No, it isn't, if the question is between determinism and free will. The latter posits, the former denies. It's an either/or scenario. (Unless you're a compatibilist, which you're not; you're just confused).

[Anonymous No.4654507]

>>4654494
>>4654504

And if you want to put a name to the fallacy *you've* stumbled into, it's called "begging the question."

[Anonymous No.4654522]

>>4654504
Determinism doesn't deny agents.

Do you believe some will set evolution in motion, or that it emerged out of simpler rules? That might explain the mistake you made.

[Anonymous No.4654526]

>>4654522

>Determinism doesn't deny agents.
If by "agent" you mean some "subject" possessed of such a thing called a "will" that if "free," meaning it has causal efficacy but is itself autonomous from causal influence, then actually, yes, determinism DOES deny agency.

>Do you believe some will set evolution in motion, or that it emerged out of simpler rules? That might explain the mistake you made.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4654527]

>>4654526
>What the fuck are you talking about?

You seem to have a poor grasp of emergent complexity.

[Anonymous No.4654531]

>>4654527

No, I don't understand how the question is relevant. You can have emergent properties, but if determinism is true then those properties are still the result of antecedent states of the universe. Again, the question, it's begged,

[Anonymous No.4654532]

>>4649297
Yes. It's short and funny.

[Anonymous No.4654535]

Philosophy is still here. What you define it as is long gone, though. It has taken the form of social psychology and statistics. But that's information for those of us who care...

If you just want other people to read some philosophy you have to find people who read.

[Anonymous No.4654539]

>>4654531
That's not free will.

[Anonymous No.4654542]

>>4654539

No. fucking. shit.

[Anonymous No.4654544]

undergrad philosophy students are some of the most awkward, greasy,long haired, annoying, stoners, fucking males I have ever seen in my life.

before you even try to make it cool, try to at least bring it up to the level of other fields.

[Anonymous No.4654559]

>>4649566
0/10. I refuse to believe you're serious.

[Anonymous No.4654572]

>>4652008
Problem is it's easier to do this with some fields than with others. Normative and applied ethical beliefs can strongly influence how we live our lives, as some philosophers like Peter Singer, who advocates for reducing suffering and giving to charity, are aware. Metaphysics and epistemology, on the other hand, wouldn't have much of an effect on a normal guy's actions. All other things being equal, a physicalist and an atheist dualist would behave about the same.

[xx !!u2DuT3LVoUG No.4654578]

This thread is the problem and the fact that philosophy is already too popular.
Philosophy can't be cool, by it's natural structure.
Philosophy isn't a subject.
It stops being philosophy the moment you embrace philosophy.
Philosophy was never cool, not even in Ancient Greece for the above reason.
The fact that philosophy means so many different things to different people.

[Anonymous No.4654580]

>>4654572
Did you feel like a genius when you wrote that?

[Anonymous No.4654676]

>>4651844

Listen, I'm not even talking about conceptual complexity here. If you haven't learned the prerequisite mathematics, the bare notation of something as basic as basically any form of calculus isn't going to mean anything. And if Continental philosophy is as derivative as you suggest, tell me this: what philosophers should I read to make Derrida as clear as Russell? Checkmate, Continentals (I say this both seriously and tongue-in-cheek).

[Anonymous No.4654707]

>>4654578
>spouting pseudo-intellectual bullshit in an attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about

OPs pic is of foucalt, one of the continental philosophers. they were literal fucking celebrities in france when they were putting out works and everybody in europe pretended to know what they were talking about

[xx !!u2DuT3LVoUG No.4654714]

>>4654707
It was popular, not cool.
As it is now, it's not your fault for not understanding.