← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24853071

43 posts 6 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24853071 [Report] >>24853146 >>24853150 >>24853436 >>24853448 >>24853609 >>24853618 >>24853772 >>24853815
So, ultimately, would you rate the effect of reading philosophy on yourself as positive?
Anonymous No.24853093 [Report] >>24853609
I must be getting something out of it since I continue to do it. But knowledge is not a passive resource and the more you read, the more unknowns spring up.
Anonymous No.24853136 [Report]
Yes. Crystalize the focus for the big picture and put spiritual ideas on a coherent shelf in broad strokes at least. Also, watching people take a crack at shitposting about a subject matter they barely understand is fun.
Anonymous No.24853143 [Report]
It makes you think better but it doesn't improve your life in my experience.
Anonymous No.24853146 [Report]
>>24853071 (OP)
No. The whole thing was a complete fucking waste of time
Anonymous No.24853150 [Report]
>>24853071 (OP)
99% of philosophy is quite literally useless.
Anonymous No.24853172 [Report]
Yeah, the more I read the less time I spend in this shit hole
Anonymous No.24853391 [Report] >>24853398 >>24853418
If philosophy is not helpfull then what is helpfull to read?
Anonymous No.24853398 [Report] >>24853404 >>24853609
>>24853391
What is helpful?
Anonymous No.24853404 [Report] >>24853508
>>24853398
Anonymous No.24853418 [Report] >>24853440
10 years ago I made a vow never to study philosophy and I have kept my vow ever since
>>24853391
Books on careers that you're trying to move into when studied within an official course
Books which are relevant to your own career and which will have a direct impact on how you do your job, whether you can get a promotion, etc
Books teaching certain skills or crafts which you will use in your own life
Everything outside of these cases are useless books
Anonymous No.24853436 [Report] >>24853529
>>24853071 (OP)
The best philosophical texts and ideas I've read were the ones that got me to stop reading philosophy, or at least tone it down several notches. Propositional knowledge is an illusion. Correctness is a parody of truth. True knowledge and wisdom are beyond representations.

Shout-out to all amateur philosophers I've ever met, too. It was like meeting my worst possible future... I'd rather be in jail than raving about post-Kantian epistemology in a local cafe at 34 years of age, slowly realizing I've got nothing to show for my hobby besides a few inconsequential opinions.
Anonymous No.24853440 [Report] >>24853559
>>24853418
>10 years ago I made a vow never to study philosophy and I have kept my vow ever since
Why did you do that?
Anonymous No.24853448 [Report]
>>24853071 (OP)
Yes but only because I exclusively read blog posts written by neoreactionaries
Anonymous No.24853486 [Report] >>24853506 >>24853518 >>24853532 >>24853554
Jacobi once said "without the thing in itself I could not enter Kant's system, but with it I could not stay within the system." Philosophy is the only reason I'm alive because it allowed me to transform my autism into a way of life but it also ruins life in many ways. My innate autistic tendencies have been hypercharged to the point that I'm not sure much of my animal, natural self remains intact. When I was young, I would try to tackle every personal and interpersonal problem through autistic intellectualization, which was like trying to open a can of chili with a gun. Now that I have philosophy, it's like trying to open a can of chili with a Hellfire Missile. Formerly I made a mess, whereas now very rarely does any of the chili survive.

If I commit a minor peccadillo I start thinking of Hegelian reflexivity and bons mots of French sentimental moralists. Today my girlfriend said she felt guilty about something that happened between us and I sent her 10+ texts that concluded with me suggesting we read the Epistle to the Romans together in Koine and do a philological and hermeneutical analysis of χάρις. I am not a Christian.

I'm not sure whether I am "happy." The question seems mal posée. I am functional. I have something to do at all times. But there is no denying it causes problems. For example my girlfriend is currently crying and I am posting on 4chan. I don't know what to do about that. I have just been reading the Encylopedia Logic for the last two hours. I finally figured out that the key to understanding Hegel is to understand his understanding of rationalism through both Leibniz and Kant, and specifically Kant's transcendental "standpoint" as described by Beck (Jakob Sigismund, not Lewis White) and more recently elucidated by Karl Ameriks' "pragmatic" interpretation of the critical philosophy.
Anonymous No.24853506 [Report] >>24853521
>>24853486
> I am functional.
The rest of your post doesn't quite read like that.
Anonymous No.24853508 [Report] >>24853609
>>24853404
Those are words.
Anonymous No.24853518 [Report]
>>24853486
>my girlfriend is currently crying and I am posting on 4chan. I don't know what to do about that.
It doesn't dawn on you to point the hellfire missile at self and reflect?
Anonymous No.24853521 [Report] >>24853551
>>24853506
It depends on how you define functionality. If we take as premises a) that I have been doing this for a long time, b) that humans cannot continue to live for such a long time without acquiring the necessary resources to attend to ordinary biological needs (food, shelter, etc.) in a way that is socially acceptable and profitable, and c) that a minimal definition of functionality is "remaining alive and reasonably well mentally and physically," it stands to reason that I am functional because I I am not dead, involuntarily committed, or destitute. Conversely if you defined functionality as not causing women to cry frequently then indeed I am not functional.
Anonymous No.24853529 [Report] >>24853551 >>24853634
Yes, it's highly enjoyable. It doesn't have any concrete benefit though and anyone who says otherwise is a pretentious pseud. Of course these ancient/medieval wizard philosophers had visions of God, they were living ascetic lives and thinking about theology all the time. But sitting around reading Maimon won't make you wise and you won't have anything to show for it, it's just incredibly fun if you're so inclined. If you value knowing why wouldn't you want to know about first things? And if you don't value knowing, you should simply stay away from philosophy.
>>24853436
>Shout-out to all amateur philosophers I've ever met, too. It was like meeting my worst possible future... I'd rather be in jail than raving about post-Kantian epistemology in a local cafe at 34 years of age, slowly realizing I've got nothing to show for my hobby besides a few inconsequential opinions
You deserve kudos for abandoning a science you aren't suited for. I wish more people here would imitate you.
Anonymous No.24853532 [Report]
>>24853486
>If I commit a minor peccadillo I start thinking of Hegelian reflexivity and bons mots of French sentimental moralists. Today my girlfriend said she felt guilty about something that happened between us and I sent her 10+ texts that concluded with me suggesting we read the Epistle to the Romans together in Koine and do a philological and hermeneutical analysis of χάρις. I am not a Christian.
How did you get AI to write this one up?
Anonymous No.24853551 [Report] >>24853568 >>24853572
>>24853521
QED.

>>24853529
>first things
>if you don't value knowing, you should simply stay away from philosophy.
I'd say that if you value knowing, you should bail on philosophy as we knowit asap. That you can know first principles propositionally is an outrageous reach that the West rarely acknowledges but constantly perpetuates because that's how books are sold and lectures get attended.
I'm not saying philosophy is a scam, it's as valid of a hobby as ice-hockey or jazz improv, but it does seem to mislead people into thinking they gained actual profound knowledge when really they just understood someone's opinion from 200 years ago.
Anonymous No.24853554 [Report]
>>24853486
Two points you may want to consider as models, Xenophon's Socrates (especially with how he talks about Xanthippe in the Memorabilia and Symposium), and Mr. Bennett in Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Your autism will probably resist these suggestions as thin distractions from "the labor of the concept," but there are sensible models for how to live with women while conducting the peak of austistic activities.
Anonymous No.24853559 [Report] >>24853603
>>24853440
Because I realised that in order to enjoy philosophy properly I'd need to dedicate myself to the study of philosophy
That it wasn't enough to read a few plato dialogues, skim through aristotle, buy the works of kant, hume, hegel, etc and put them on my shelf and skim through them occasionally
I wasn't willing to dedicate myself to its study and so I decided to vow to never read philosophy
Anonymous No.24853568 [Report] >>24853572
>>24853551
>I'd say that if you value knowing, you should bail on philosophy as we knowit asap.
Right of course you value knowing. You value your political opinions, knowing how to drive a car, knowing where to buy the good weed, etc. We get it, you can even call yourself a philosopher if you like, the fact is we don't care about people like you at all.
Anonymous No.24853572 [Report] >>24853586
>>24853568
>defending philosophy
>pure rhetorics
Who is "we", and how do I get y'all to address the argument in >>24853551?
>>>>>that you can know first principles propositionally is an outrageous reach that the West rarely acknowledges but constantly perpetuates
Anonymous No.24853586 [Report] >>24853618 >>24853634
>>24853572
I'm not arguing with some misologist pseud who has never been able to follow a philosophical argument to the point of understanding or accepting it, and sees nothing in philosophy but boring old opinions which are all basically the same. Seriously man I'm congratulating you, please tell the Schopenhauerpseuds, the Platopseuds, and tradcath zoomers to follow you. There's much more to life than philosophy and I hope you enjoy yours. As Fichte said, on a similar occasion:

"Thus it is stated that Professor Jacob at Halle has utterly abandoned speculative philosophy, and devoted himself altogether to political economy, a branch of science wherein many excellent attainments may be expected from his praiseworthy accuracy and industry. He has shown himself a wise man by ceasing to be a philosopher; and I herewith publicly express my esteem for him on that account, and hope that every sensible man who knows what speculation is will share this esteem. Would that all the others would also abandon a science which they have abundantly tortured themselves to grasp, and for which they have discovered that they are not made. Let them turn to some other useful occupation—grinding glasses, making verses, writing novels, and studying agriculture or game-keeping; let them take service in the detective police, study medicine, raise cattle, or write devotional reflections on death for every day in the year,—and no one will refuse them his esteem."
Anonymous No.24853603 [Report]
>>24853559
Inspiring story
Anonymous No.24853609 [Report]
>>24853071 (OP)
No. It just makes you a sound like a douche.

>>24853093
>What is a sunk cost fallacy?

>>24853398
>>24853508
This doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound like a douche.
Anonymous No.24853618 [Report] >>24853806
>>24853586
>I'm not arguing with some misologist pseud
Correct. You're arguing with someone who wrote a bachelor's thesis on Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology and its specific application in sentiment analysis.
>I'm congratulating you
Thanks. I'd rather you address the argument (shared by the likes of Feyerabend and Kuhn) that you dodged twice, but your years of studying philosophy rendered you unable to do that, then I suppose you elaborated on my point without realizing it.
I guess I will validate the secret driving force behind amateur philosopher's every breath and congratulate you for having a thought, too. Shame it did not land.

>>24853071 (OP) I told you.
Anonymous No.24853634 [Report] >>24853744
>>24853529
>>24853586
Aristotle's response to Isocrates' complaint of the uselessness of theoretical philosophy in his Protrepticus:
>We all agree that the most excellent man should rule, i.e., the most superior by nature, and that the law rules and alone is authoritative; but the law is a kind of intelligence, i.e. a discourse based on intelligence. And again, to us what standard or what guideline of good things is more precise than an intelligent man? For all that this man will choose, if the choice is based on his knowledge, are good things and their contraries are bad. And since everybody chooses most of all what conforms to their own proper conditions (a just man choosing to live justly, a man with bravery to live bravely, similarly a self-controlled man to live with self-control), it is clear that the intelligent man will choose most of all to be intelligent; for this is the function of that capacity. Hence it’s evident that, according to the most authoritative judgment, intelligence is the most superior good thing. So one must not flee from philosophy, since philosophy is, as we think, both a possession and a use of wisdom, and wisdom is among the greatest goods; nor should one sail to the Pillars of Hercules and run frequent risks for the sake of assets, while not working hard or spending any money for the purpose of intelligence. Yet it would surely be servile to cling to living rather than to living well, and to attend to the opinions of many others rather than to find that they have worth in terms of one’s own, and to search to get money but not to show any concern whatsoever for things that are beautiful. The fact that the philosophers, despite running a short time, have passed the other skills in their precision, with their having bestowed much of it on them and with their having got no payment from the people with which they might have worked this intensely hard, seems to me a sign of the easiness there is in philosophy. The fact that everybody is fond of it and wishes to spend their leisure on it, letting everything else go, is no small evidence that the close attention occurs together with pleasure; for no one is willing to work hard for a long time.
Anonymous No.24853744 [Report] >>24853760
>>24853634
> one must not flee from philosophy, since philosophy is, as we think, both a possession and a use of wisdom
And if this is truly how it was practiced, I would have no problem. Posts above show this not to be the case. If you want to go into the social-historical factors behind why Aristotle's engagement with philosophy was volumes apart from ours, I'm ready.
>The fact that the philosophers, despite running a short time, have passed the other skills in their precision
This, again, shows the gap between what philosophy was in Aristotle's times and what it is today. Almost everyone who acquired philosophical precision did so by virtue of the associated sciences (neurology, cognitive science, linguistics...), not through philosophy as a discipline.

If you transported me 2000 years back in time, I would drop all my arguments in a matter of seconds. Sadly, philosophy today is a hobby that people use to feel clever for re-iterating someone's opinon.
Anonymous No.24853760 [Report] >>24853776
>>24853744
huh?
Anonymous No.24853761 [Report] >>24853766
>I gave up on philosophy because no matter how much I think I'll always get btfo'd by someone snapping back by regurgitating someone else its just not fair
lmao
Anonymous No.24853766 [Report]
>>24853761
If only.
Anonymous No.24853772 [Report]
Can someone actually reading philosophy actually respond to >>24853071 (OP) pls?
Anonymous No.24853776 [Report] >>24853800
>>24853760
What was unclear ? I pointed out how Aristotle's defense of philosophy doesn't work today because philosophy is not practiced the same way anymore.
Anonymous No.24853800 [Report]
>>24853776
Did you?
Anonymous No.24853806 [Report] >>24853819 >>24853824
>>24853618
>first principles can’t be propositional! Checkmate!
I don’t even know what you mean by this. That first principles are not propositions? Yes, correct. That first principles are impossible to express propositionally/as judgments? Also yes, Hegel and Aristotle are in your corner, so is Fichte. In Fichte the proposition meant to represent the absolute is unthinkable; in Hegel all propositions are ipso facto partial and misleading; in Aristotle God is an unknowable particular. You’re just slinging shit, I suspect you mean something like “the ultimate truth must be beyond knowing as prior to knowing” which you take as “follow your feels, so much for philosophy.” You want me to give a complete account of epistemology in a paragraph to an arrogant, undereducated stranger who thinks philosophy is valueless. No, fuck you.
Anonymous No.24853815 [Report]
>>24853071 (OP)
Marcus Aurelius unironically helped me through a very dark time in my life. He taught me how to make peace with some shit that was destroying my soul. I don’t even agree with everything he said but I’m grateful nonetheless
Anonymous No.24853819 [Report]
>>24853806
You’re a lazy cunt, if you really know Hegel this should be an easy one.
Anonymous No.24853824 [Report] >>24853841
>>24853806
>can't be propositional
>"the ultimate truth must be beyond knowing as prior to knowing"
>follow your feels
>You want me to give a complete account of epistemology
No idea why you'd strawman me four times when you ended up actually agreeing with the exact point I made lmao
>>> first principles are impossible to express propositionally

I have to start bringing this point up to amateurs irl, this stuff gets them fuming even if they agree...
Anonymous No.24853841 [Report]
>>24853824
nah