Who are some philosophers you don't see talked about on here? For me it's Hannah Arendt. I love her work and she had an amazing ability to cut through bullshit. Her analysis of totalitarian governments proved to be prophetic.

>>25194345
Basically anything analytic. Parfit's great. His work on personal identity blew my skull open. I think a lot of Nietzsche enjoyers here would like Sharon Street's paper "A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value."

>>25194353
I'll check it out, but I never got into the analytic stuff. Guess I'll start with Parfit

File: IMG_1322.jpg (60.8 KB)

60.8 KB JPG

>>25194353
no thanks, as a 260 iq continental chad I don't take analsissies seriously

>>25194365
If you've never read any analytic work, you're in for a treat. Parfit's "Personal Identity" is great. Some other recommendations for analytic work -
>The Unreality of Time -- JME McTaggart (strongly recommend this one, short paper, once you get the distinction between a-time and b-time you can never unsee it)
>Freedom and Resentment -- Strawson (if you're interested in the question of free will you have to read this paper)
>Famine, Affluence, and Morality -- Singer (much ridiculed on /lit/ but nobody's actually read it; the single most influential and controversial paper in modern ethics)
>The Difficulty of Reality and the Difficulty of Philosophy -- Diamond (from /lit/ poster to /lit/ poster, you'll appreciate this one; tldr poems/stories/etc communicate serious philosophical arguments/stances that can't be extracted from their artistic expression)
>>25194370
No need to limit yourself to one side of the divide. Better to read both. You get the best of both worlds that way. When I get tired of continentals doing shit like
>What is freedom? That which it is to be said is what it most manifests within itself; for there are many different -doms transmuted through the ghost of the real, wherein the kingdom of freedom, so to speak, is always-already the always that it alreadys, as Nietzsche counsels us. Indeed, we must talk of the isness of the query "What is freedom?," for the isness is what it is; it insists further on being; we are not asking what it means to be free, as such a question is ineluctable in our time, but we are asking what it is to what, to is, under the plethora of -doms inside that which is not being itself untold
I turn to analytics, who will answer the question clearly -
>What is freedom? Here's what I think freedom is. Here's reasons A, B, and C explaining why I'm right. Some possible counterarguments are X and Y. These counterarguments don't work for the following reasons. Now we know what freedom is
The biggest problem with continentals is that mostly they just say shit without ever actually arguing for it, and the biggest problem with analytics is that mostly they're arguing over nothing. But these are caricatures, lots and lots of good work going on in both

>>25194353
>>25194414
Parfit is great because he's wrong about literally everything.

File: IMG_1365.jpg (5.8 KB)

5.8 KB JPG

>>25194414
I think you are right, recommend me some Kantian analytical works to start with

File: GrVEQQhXQAEYJG9.jpg (116.8 KB)

116.8 KB JPG

time is best modeled as a a poset
time and causality are the exact same thing
time does not "flow", causality does not "cause"

>>25194473
kekked at dat pic
>poset
discroot mathematics?

>>25194458
The Sources of Normativity by Christine Korsgaard, collection of her papers where she argues for a neo-Kantian constructivist approach to metaethics. Stunningly influential in metaethics, very clear writer
>>25194427
I think he's wrong on some stuff but literally everything is too far -- even if you think this, Parfit articulates/defends his case so well that if you're a philosopher working today you have to go out of your way to argue against him, not just dismiss him offhand. That anecdote about him crying in front of the grad students during a lecture lives in my mind

Can someone explain Godels incompleteness theorem? I get it at a high level but can't explain it

>>25194546

Have you read GEB? You should, Im reading it right now and I'm getting to understand a little about Godel through it.

In less technical terms, it goes like this:

Any consistent formal system strong enough to represent typographically that a proof exists for its own sentences is necessarily incomplete.

This is because within such a system one can make statements which, once translated into english, say effectively "I am not provable."

Proving something which literally translates to "I am not provable" leads to contradiction. On the other hand, not being able to prove "I am not provable" leads to incompleteness.

>>25194327
I like the idea of this general (partly because I think the subject of philosophy in this board needs a containment thread) but maybe you could incentivize activity by proposing a topic for debate and/or a couple of questions in order jumpstart dialogue.

>>25195782
I like the idea, but do you have an example? It would be tough because the topic could be too specific for anyone to actively answer or too broad and no good discussion happens

>>25195792
Yeah
>proposing a topic for debate
What do people think of a certain new publication, maybe bring up a debate that started in the last thread or resurface one from a different thread... you could ask something from the perspective of what you yourself have been thinking/are struggling with (Idk, say you have been reading Rorty and you disagree with the latter part of his works and you want to discuss it for instance; people like this kind of organic talk), and so on. I see many options for what you could propose as a topic.
>couple of questions
There are many broad ones, like, what are you reading at the moment and how is it going so far? What have you been thinking about lately? Need help to understand something?
And then maybe one or two questions of the day, like, what books would you recommend for someone starting into X? For those who study philosophy in college, how are you doing with your assignments? And, well, there's many more you can think of. I'd keep going but I'm kind of tired atm...
Just try to be engaging. GL

>>25195792
>>25195968
Oh also you could copy the style of other boards' generals, I don't know why no one on /lit/ understands this
>[X thing] Edition
>Picture of a person or a pretty cover of a book related to the name of the edition
EZPZ
Say, the Gaddis thread would not have stood up so long if it wasn't showing the guy's tired and irritated face in the picrel

File: file.png (407.4 KB)

407.4 KB PNG

o i am laffin

>>25194327
I want to learn more about existensialism. I've read some Kierkegaard and Nietszche but those are just the most popular. Sartre defined the term but I don't trust the way he looks. Suggestions?

>>25194345
>Hannah Arendt
Love her. Haven't read anything in Foucault that she hasn't written about with great clarity

>>25194414
>No need to limit yourself to one side of the divide. Better to read both.
"I want, once and for all, not to know many things.— Wisdom sets limits even to knowledge." - autistic moustache man

>>25194414
>I turn to analytics, who will answer the question clearly -
They literally don't

>>25194345
Almost no one discusses Agamben after the Covid gaffe. And Ian Hacking rarely gets talked about either.

what are some fiction writers who have genuinely interesting philosophical undertones

File: IMG_4584.jpg (75.9 KB)

75.9 KB JPG

>>25197810
you have to lernen german

>>25194345
People focus a ton on Eastern praxis heavy traditions but figures like Evagrios and Saint John Cassian or Saint John Climacus are ignored. Even in theology they are often bracketed off as "spiritual." The reality is that they represent the most detailed anthropology/psychology in antiquity and this ends up informing their epistemology in very interesting ways that are plausible even without their theological assumptions.

I get that part of it is that you have to go through a lot of discussions of praxis and exhortations to distill this stuff, but this is equally true of all the Buddhist stuff I've read and people don't ignore that the same way.

>>25197849
What think you of Abhinavagupta's Tantraloka?

>/pseud/ - Pseud General # 3

>>25198061
There are like three or four ongoing Pynchon threads out there, maybe they are more suited to your mature taste?

>>25198071
>t. pretentious pseud

>>25198061
Hey we are having a serious discussion about philosophy here buddy

>>25197849
What are some of the best philosophical anthropologists in existence?

File: 419FD908-2B9E-45C1-9AD0-BF5DFF0F8679.jpg (127 KB)

127 KB JPG

You don’t know everything about bats. It is physically impossible for you to know everything about just one (1) bat. If you had the mental power required, you would know exactly what it is like to be a bat. You would be able to simulate it in your mind in the same way that you can imagine holding an apple.

It’s just that brains are unfathomably complex and so we are unable to simulate them. Even a single part of a single cell is too complicated for a human mind to keep track of.

>>25198194
I am a bat.the sky is my ocean,the clouds are my boat,and the dark rainy clouds are the wreck of edmund fitzgerald

I will most likely find out if i get into berkeley for philosophy undergrad tomorrow

File: 1775663440806924.png (699.4 KB)

699.4 KB PNG

Hey pseud, don't get big mad
Wear the abstruse like it's your sweater
Remember to act like you are big smart
Then you can start to feel you're better

Hey pseud, don't be afraid
You were made to pretend you've read it
The minute you wikipedia "Sartre"
You'll feel big smart, just like you're better

Hey pseud, don't get big mad
Wear the abstruse like it's your sweater
Remember to wikipedia: "Sartre"
Then you'll start to feel you're better
Better better better better better better, oh.

Na na na nananana, nananana, hey pseud
PSEUD PSEUD PS-PSEUD ah, PSEUDY PSEUDY!

Just finished Plato's and Aristotle's works.
Where do I go from here?

>>25199725
Read the footnotes.

>>25199725
Neoplatonism

>>25199725
The Holy Bible (Authorised King James Version)

File: kek.png (614.5 KB)

614.5 KB PNG

>>25194327

How can I read philosophy? Im not really sure if I should do it...

1. In chronological order: "start with the Greeks"
2. By philosopher. Read whatever philosopher interests you
3. By topic: I'm particularly interested in topics such as Philosophy of Language and philosophy of science

>>25200189
definitely not 1

>>25197810
Keasznahorkai’s melancholy is basically Heraclitus in novel form (discord as a fragment of metaphysical existence and perfection).

>>25200202
i actually just read satantango. is it as good as that? that one wasnt super philosophical

why do realists say we have a direct connection to reality, doesn't that make them idealists?

>>25200233
or i guess for a more narrow question, how can direct and indirect realism both be realism?

>>25200214
I’ve never read that but Melancholy draws heavily from Pythagoras and Heraclitus. The subplot is that a music teacher is trying to find the perfect mode of music on the piano and he can’t do it. This is contrasted with the destruction and decay around him. The discordant piano notes are set against a backdrop of the hectic world.

File: 1767521321526308.jpg (169.4 KB)

169.4 KB JPG

>>25200189
I'd read some history of philosophy first to understand the foundations and how the field has developed throughout time
Then you could go about it by sinking your teeth into a specific area. Just like Mathematics can be broadly divided into analysis, algebra, group theory etc., philosophical inquiry can be divided into metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics and (I'd argue less importantly) aesthetics
There are also more specific areas like phil. of science, phil. of the mind, phil. of language and so on. Start wherever you'd like, the history books should give you an idea of where to start, and you can also ask in here for help
Just pick up the fuarking book breh

>>25200396
>Start wherever you'd like, the history books should give you an idea of where to start
Damn. I meant to say that you should start by studying whichever area you are most interested in and the history books will give you an idea of the reading order

File: 711XWHoMdjL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg (60 KB)

60 KB JPG

>>25200189

>>25194345
Voegelin and Strauss who are indispensable if you want to fully grapple and understand the nature of totalitarianism, Arendt had a propensity to derail herself from final vital insights, although she usually came very close and eventually got there with revisions. All of them had to flee Europe for their lives, and Voegelin wasn't even a jew.

>>25200463
the sad thing is that there is a high likelihood this poster was sincere in his recommendation .
How I weep for this board

>>25200494
Shut up and put the fries in the bag Mr. Philosopher.

>>25200477
Strauss is on my list and I do want to get into him. I have read books by people who clearly respect him and carry on his ideas so I feel like I should read his works too. Don't know much about Voegelin or where to start with him.

>>25200189
>1. In chronological order: "start with the Greeks"
I started here. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, and Phaedo is a very good introduction to philosophy. You don't need to read all of Plato and every Greek philosopher, although I would recommend it, but getting a few of these under your belt will help you dive into whatever interest you have on philosophy.

>>25194345
St. Edith Stein

>>25200861
I gifted one of her books on Kindle for my mom

Can any anon recommend me books written by Renaissance humanist philosophers

File: images (4).png (15.3 KB)

15.3 KB PNG

Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors visited him to commiserate, saying, “We’re so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” To which the farmer simply replied, “Maybe.”

The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening, everybody came back and said, “Oh, what luck! What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again simply said, “Maybe.”

The following day the man’s son tried to break one of the wild horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors came again and said, “Oh dear, we’re so sorry to hear about your son’s leg. That’s truly unfortunate.” The farmer simply responded, “Maybe.”

The next day an enlistment officer came to the farm looking to draft young men into the army, and upon seeing the boy’s broken leg, he left the farm allowing the boy to stay with his father. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “How lucky you are that you can keep your son! Isn’t that great!” Again, the farmer simply said, “Maybe.”

>>25201429
bashir, is that you?

>>25201492
Maybe

>>25200752
Strauss and Voegelin were very close correspondents. Strauss was about as big of a Greekaboo as ever existed, and Voegelin was Chud Prime. Both went back to the ancients and medievals to understand and critique modernity. Strauss's On Tyranny is an excellent work for it ties together with the help of Kojeve some of the most important problems and questions of political philosophy both ancient and modern into one work, and chapters 3 & 4 of natural right and history are great commentaries on both classical and modern epochs, so those are good starting points along with What is Political Philosophy? Voegelin's the New Science of Politics is where he details his conception of gnostic Totalitarianism, and is his central work, albeit a harder one. He wrote an insane amount so best to start there. I also recommend reading his correspondence and articles with Arendt via the journal political science review, which was instrumental in Arendts revision expansion of Origins of Totalitarianism via the chapter Ideology and terror, in which Voegelins gnosticism gets transposed into ideology being the new telos that drives totalitarian regimes. Hopes this gives some context and guidance in approaching the them, as all together they're a big school and had to grapple with the utter catastrophe that was the first half of the 20th century. But it's worth it, because you'll come out on the otherside with a better understanding of what's actually going on today that 95% of people.

To me, it is a sort of tragic contradiction that “oneness” of being explains so much and feels so much like the right conclusion, and yet in practice it feels impossible to act in accordance with that idea. We are all the same, and yet at any moment we differ greatly as to which particular state we are in, and so there is constant conflict. In a sense, we are all the same but out of chronological order, so our states rarely, or do not at all, match up with our counterparts.

>>25194345
Lance S. Bush

>>25201429
My father told this story to my mother after he cheated on her.

>>25201929
the parable deals with natural occurrences out of ones control, but that is a good point as to why it isn't always applicable

>>25201779
lol fag

>>25201929
it's a parable about luck
that shit isn't random lol

>Hence: Bad luck brings good luck and good luck brings bad luck. This happens without end and nobody can estimate it.

>>25200463
>>25200396

What's this boards recommendation for a history of philospophy then? I actually read that Bertrand Rusell book a while ago, but I've forgotten most of it.

>>25200763
How much do you think is enough? I read some Dialogues already. But I don't think it's relevant if I'm interested in modern philosphers, though again I'm not sure.

>>25201999
>But I don't think it's relevant if I'm interested in modern philosphers
Its not
Any worthwhile philosopher writing stands on his own.
You dont need to read Aristotle to understand Kant, for example.
Kant was inspired by Hume but he only read his highlights
etc etc

>>25201999
If you want to learn about modern philosophy, like 20th and 21st century (especially anglophone academic philosophy), ancient philosophers are basically irrelevant. Just pick an introductory book, then look for introductions to subfields.

Even if you do want to read the classics, there isn't really a point in reading things in chronological order. And if you are, you'd start with the presocratics, not Plato.

>>25201999
I've only read the section about the Greeks. Russell has a hateboner for a lot of philosophers, but if you can look past that, the book is fine as a contextual introduction.

>But I don't think it's relevant if I'm interested in modern philosphers

They are, but you only have to read five or six.

>>25201999
Russell is fine. It's an accessible introduction that you can use to find areas you're particularly interested in so as to read further. Copleston's series is also a good starting point but it's a lot longer.

/lit/ doesn't want to acknowledge this fact but john Locke was the greatest political philosopher of all time,and no one even comes close to him

>>25201984
I think his point was that something good might still come out of it for her, but I guess it didn't fully fit.

>>25203021
this seems like a stupid take

>>25201999
>How much do you think is enough? I read some Dialogues already. But I don't think it's relevant if I'm interested in modern philosphers, though again I'm not sure
I mean thats fine. Its not directly relevant but a good starting point for anyone interested in philosophy. As other anons said, go read what you want

File: IMG_6177.gif (14.8 KB)

14.8 KB GIF

>>25203021
LMAO

I’ve been enjoying Schopenhauer. I misunderstood him when I read the Fourfold Root thinking he was a materialist because he kept talking about the brain. Really, his theory of a world constructed by the understanding from sensation is very close to Fichte, just more ‘popular’. I can’t really follow him on free will but oh well he is still an interesting read. Sort of a “dark” post-Kantian, taking a left turn from what the others did. And he is a good writer, better than the other three. Fichte would say the stance he takes is irrefutable actually. I got so disillusioned reading Hegel that I can give Schopie a chance and quit being a snob. Schoppie’s attacks on Hegel are correct btw, he is right to read him as a rationalist.

>>25203021
this SEEMS like a stupid take, but im not sure WHY

>>25204250
Hegel is a rationalist tho. How would anyone read him as not a rationalist?

/lit/ doesn't want to acknowledge this fact but Kant was the greatest philosopher of all time,and no one even comes close to him

>>25204376
He is normally read as an idealist. The point here is that Hegel is actually pre-critical and a dogmatist.

>>25204402
He's both rationalist and idealist. And he's not pre-critical. The opposite really. He's more critical than Kant himself.

>>25204406
Someone who thinks he can deduce nature from logic is not ‘critical’. Do you even know what the word means?

>>25204531
He literally presupposes nothing whereas Kant presupposed Logic. He is more critical. You don't know what critical means

Can anyone recommend something on Perennialism that isn't Guenon or Evola? I love them dearly but I could use something new. Modern if possible.

>>25204766
Hegel

File: 1000006853.png (312.7 KB)

312.7 KB PNG

Is this a good reading order for someone wanting to get into philosophy? Chatgpt put it together for me:
1. Euthyphro

2. Apology

3. Crito

4. The Republic

5. Symposium

6. Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth

7. Enchiridion

8. Meditations

9. The Problems of Philosophy

10. Nicomachean Ethics

>>25205531
no you should read sophies world

>>25205573
r-really? Is it cute?

File: reading-list.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>25205531
There are a lot of ways to get into it. Starting with the Greeks is a meme for a reason. The first part of this chart before the Kant/Hegel and after is a decent larger guide.

>>25203842
>I mean

>>25204570
“Critical” idealism is just another word for “transcendental idealism”, emphasizing its concern with epistemology (metaepistemology?) and its rejection of the entire Western tradition of speculative metaphysics. Hegel does not see himself this way. He rejects Kant’s dualism between thinking and intuition and so on. I guess the real question is whether it was a good move or not. Schopenhauer and I would both say, “no it is retarded and actually something of an intellectual swindle.” Aristotle would say the same even though Hegel pretends to be grounded in him. I dunno why you’re so shrill and argumentative, someone who doesn’t know what the word “critical” means in this context is definitely still learning and still has a lot to learn.

>>25199725
Zeno and Epicurus

>>25194327
I'm reading Sartre's Nausea right now and I don't really get it, or should I say I feel like a lot of it is flying over my head. Like the themes are clear, but a lot of the writing just seems to be kinds pointless and I can't tell how exactly they are contributing to the story. Anyone know of a good review of the book that can provide more context?

Where to start w metaphysical and where to go from there? Is there an official reading list/chart on this?

>>25206535
Metaphysics*

File: 1692597381042249.png (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB PNG

>>25206535
try this

>>25206402
I know this dimwit. Transcendental philosophy is the propadeutic to non-dogmatic metaphysics. And Hegel epitomizes, again, the critical spirit by going beyond Kant and not presupposing like Kant does the faculty of reason so as to examine it prior to any attempt to do metaphysics proper. Critical is opposed to dogmatic in the sense that it doesn't assume the capacity to do metaphysics but first establishes that capacity. But Hegel is more critical because, like I said in my last post which you in no way addressed because you are a midwit, he does not even presuppose reason as a given fact that must be examined to see if it is capable of metaphysics—he presupposes nothing other than pure being and lets logic itself develop from that rather than take it for granted. He is the most Kantian of Kantians because he more meta than Kant: he doesn't just ask how is metaphysics possible, i.e, 'how are synthetic a priori judgments possible?' but instead asks 'what is the objective validity of any of our concepts at all?' and dialectically derives them all into a complete system that builds up logic from scratch and sublates the kantian transcendental philosophy as a stage in the dialectical development of the mind.

>>25206240
Where is Sepher Yetzirah and Zohar?

>>25207032
>dimwit
respectful even if literally insulting, affirms one's superiority while showing compassion for the other's state of intellectual inferiority
>midwit
worst insult ever conceived. posits the opponent as a lower being, merely a fragment of the biomass trying to disguise themselves as a thinking individual, a sheep in wolf's clothing. takes one by surprise. provokes a visceral reaction

File: IMG_6432.jpg (264.3 KB)

264.3 KB JPG

>>25207101

>>25206349
What do (You) mean?

Philosophy ended with Hume. We're just dicking around now.

got into berkeley for philosophy undergrad

File: 1751439988174756.jpg (235.7 KB)

235.7 KB JPG

I understand what words like metaphysics and ontological mean, but I don't fully grasp the concept and don't know how to use them. Is there a book for retards to learn fundamental concepts like this.

File: IMG_6720.jpg (230.9 KB)

230.9 KB JPG

>>25209236
don't tell anyone tho. only cool kids know about this book.

>>25209249
Thanks. I'll use big words like teleological soon.

Why does /lit/ recommend a latin style book that assumes the reader already has a basic understanding of philosophy?
READ THINK BY BLACKBURN

>>25209236
metaphysics is the science of being qua being, but modern meaning is a priori truth. ontological is just science of being, what is it to be, for example God's ontology is metaphysical, what it is to be God is just a priori truth.

>>25209294
Cool, just don't let me catch you using transcendental and transcendent interchangeably... or else

>>25209299
laaaaaaame

>>25209183
Congrats I guess. What do they even teach there?

>>25209768
i'm guessing philosophy but idk

>>25198194
Truth nuke. It's like saying that somebody that knows everything about DVD should be able to see a movie by looking at the disk.

>>25200477
few will read this but you're definitely right.

>>25204271
I think most of it just boils to burger = bad which is silly considering he was a bong.

>>25200563
>ejaculates in the bag
Here's the special sauce you ordered, anon

>>25204766
John Milbank possibly?

>>25204250
Fichte and Schopenhauer both assumed the "I" (the ever-present will) driving existence but their perspective on whether this inner drive led to unending misery or rationalized hope was their main difference. At least thats what I got from both.

>>25196418
Once you read Fisher as Marxist millenarianism (like a form of eschatology) filtered through Schopenhauer to fulfill a Freudian death drive it starts to make a lot of sense why he killed himself. He wanted to be on that cross like Jesus was but in the service of materialism.

>>25205531
It’s meme advice on /lit/ but reading all of Aristotle is important if you want to do this right. That cute quote about western philosophy being footnotes on Plato is a lie, it is footnotes on Aristotle. Aristotle figured out many fundamental issues in a convincing way and modern philosophy doesn’t really surpass or transcend him so much as it moves into new territory. He’ll give you an essential grounding and also teach you to read dense books.

>>25209959
It’s wigging me out how Schopenhauer prioritizes intuition over reason. He seems to think scientific syllogizing is a matter of stitching together intuitions. But the middle term is the reason why - and it IS grasped intuitively, even so. He just sounds a bit retarded saying that Euclid’s proofs aren’t important as long as you can ‘see’ the result.

>>25210036
now THIS is meme advice

>>25209949
>gets fired
>step dad beats him for not being able to hold down even a McJob

Any non meme advice for breaking in to philosophy?

>>25210963
Just read the fucking books

>>25210980
Which ones?

>>25194345
>Her analysis of totalitarian governments proved to be prophetic.
What about it exactly proved to be prophetic?

>>25210983
No time to effort post, but mainly her views how all ideology leads to the death camp, her write up on Eichmann showing how any regular shmuck who wants a promotion can be instrumental in helping organize mass murder, or how people in power want to create a society where people are superfluous.

>>25211805
Nta, but is any of that especially prophetic when she's writing in light of them?

File: 1748818928693805.jpg (130.9 KB)

130.9 KB JPG

>I can say this in 2 pages using every day language but decide to use random long words and 100 pages to make myself look smarter!

>>25211828
Cheap attempts at ragebait + stock image wojaks is not cutting it for the (You)s
I'm giving you one (1) out of pity. Here you go

>>25209768
fuck u!

>>25211827
Prophetic may be overstating a bit. My point is that she seemed to cut through propaganda and political bullshit as well as anyone I have read. I hate this term, but she does seem very relevant today.

>>25210070
It’s not that he prioritizes one over the other so much as that he sees geometrical proofs as fundamentally grounded in intuition. So giving a logical proof of a geometrical theorem would be like giving a logical proof that one building is taller than another. The proofs in Euclid are inappropriate to the subject. His re-affirmation of intuition is important because the other idealists are such logicists. Schopenhauer is not ashamed to ground his thought in a feel because the feel is real; ‘the Absolute’ is not real. When your philosophy is working out the implications of a first principle you’re effectively just repeating that principle over and over again. So Schopenhauer is turning idealism on its head and bringing it back to Aristotle, who also rejects this sort of logicism. The first principle is not a logical proposition it’s noesis grounded in apprehension of real ousia. The idealists here act like Schoppie was too low iq for this but he just rejects the autism
philosophy because he could see it was nonsense at its base.

File: Diogenes.jpg (47.2 KB)

47.2 KB JPG

>>25194327
Philosophy isn't working out for me, I think I'm going to quit my job and live on the street. Has anyone here been homeless?

>>25210963
Depends on what you've already read. If you are even somewhat interested in the classics you should have an understanding of periods in western history. If that's the case, you should at least read Plato's and Aristotle's main works, then continue reading chronologically. If you're serious about it, even skipping certain thinkers is acceptable, because you'll have to return to them in the long term. If you aren't, there isn't really much point in starting, might as well just pick up a comprehensive summary of main thinkers and work from there. The truth is that if philosophy really grips you you'll figure out how to fill the gaps.

>>25212782
Isn't working how?

>>25213707
I've spent my entire life practicing ideas that bring no benefit or increase my suffering. I can't say the time was wasted because it brought me to this realization. I always wanted to live like a monk or Thoreau, but I think begging is a better fit for my aptitude.

>>25213739
The hardest part of it is dealing with other homeless people. I do not recommend it at all.

File: 1748300223502707.jpg (86.7 KB)

86.7 KB JPG

>/phil/ - Philosophy General

>>25214005
Hey bro we are doing some deep thinking in here. If you don't like it leave.

>>25214005
The post that killed the thread.

>>25214005
What philosopher encapsulates this post the best?

>>25214005
not nice

>>25194414
Most of the works you cited are just regular ethics books. What makes them analytical aside from the fact they are part of the anglo-american academic sphere (instead of the franco-german sphere typical of the continental philosophy)?

>>25214005
How would your favorite philosopher respond to this?