/philosophy/ -Philosophy

here's Chomsky himself saying french and german philosophy are bullshit

>>6364

also is there any charts for other figures of traditionalism and in general?

>>6372

Chomsky's just being a racist there.

>>6385

French/German are not races.

Besides he's not anymore harsh than half the people in this chan.

Make her watch Rick and Morty

Completely agree with your assessment of government schools OP, kudos for your future efforts here..

You might try the Tuttle twins https://tomwoods.com/ep-1054-salon-outraged-kids-learning-about-ayn-rand/, or the "kids" books on Taoism (Tao of Pooh for example) by benjamin hoff.

Otherwise, I would suggest Socratic dialogue, effectively asking basic questions to try to get to the root of the matter, which should help show here some of the obvious flaws in cultural marxism & whatnot..

Good luck.

>>5917

You can begin to teach them critical thinking and other vital learning skills like how to assess the trustworthiness of a source of information almost as soon as they can talk.

The sooner a child learns how to learn efficiently the better off they will be for the rest of their life.

Don't. It doesn't work that way.

>>6368

Tbh it'll be really primitive level of critical thinking but even that is better than nothing, and better than what our theist parents gave us.

In your head.

>>6157

That's lust, not love, Dr. Brown

The old bestseller "the road less travelled" had a good take on it IMO, something like love is that which leads to selfless service to another, which nicely bypasses the whole warped idea of abusive yet "loving" relationships.

Physical/hormonal effects tend to fade, calling such things "love" is a misnomer IMO.

Well, I don't really know if this is going to contribute to the conversation in anyway but, I recently watched the movie "Good will hunting" and got to the scene where Will and Sean sit on a parkbench and discuss love and what they said pissed me off to no end.

Not because I didn't understand but because the argument "you can only understand love when you find someone to love more than yourself" is utter horseshit.

You can't possibly love someone "more than yourself", if that's the case you're simply substituting the love you should have for yourself with the love of others.

We each have a responsibility for our own well-being and if you can't find it in yourself you're not gonna find it in others, I would go even further by arguing that it's practically immoral to expect others to play the role of substitutes for the love you were never able to find in yourself.

>>6290

Please elaborate.

I myself have had about the same experiences.

Last weekend at work i was hoping to get a day off from work, but wanted to get that extra-long day at the same time too. Once i began working, within 5 minutes my co-worker sprained his ankle, and we all got a day off anyway. We all got paid for the day (it was an extra early day, we all were at work at 5 o' clock).

Was that godly intervention? No, but i spent the rest of the day at home being productive as fuck, using all my energy i had intended for job.

I think of it as... luck. It just happens. I appreciate it, but do not thank to anyone, like god.

>>6290

I think I can relate to you, albeit it is impossible to say really since I can't really put it into proper terms either. I can't really describe it without sounding pretentious, even though this isn't the case at all, if anything it has been a very humbling experience. By now I can at best describe it as a feeling of depersonalization, it seems to me in retrospective, as if I was able to experience existence with a lack of personal involvement, and as such neither thoughts nor emotions really dominated this condition, it felt more as if anything was involved, yet did not have a real effect on me to the degree where it would distort my comprehension of the moment. I suppose it might have been similar to the Buddhist concept of an epiphany, but I do not have intricate knowledge of Buddhism, and as already said, it's difficult to put it into words, so that might be completely false.

>>6298

I've tried LSD years later, and it wasn't really the same, granted I'm not some seeker fag that takes hero doses, so there's that part I can't attest to, but it was very much different for me. LSD merely distorted my mind and made me incredibly susceptible to my emotions, which is a very interesting feeling, but not the same as what I've described above. However I don't consider Psychedelics by themselves to be a real tool to gain deeper philosophical insight, but in my experience they can be helpful to gain a better understanding of ones own mode of thought.

that's interesting OP. sometimes you can just feel how God is doing something amazing and how it's all working out. it's really cool. if you would like to check this out, it has some related material in the text portion of the thread (in the mewch link) that you will probably strongly relate to. maybe.

>>6320

I know what you're talking about. Its what should be an overwhelmingly intense emotion, except it doesn't overwhelm you; instead it clarifies things and you feel very sober and collected and not the least bit stressed.

>>6298

I'm not OP, but Psychedelics aren't close to the experience OP is describing. Its closer to the feeling the day after an ayahuasca trip, or in the hour or so of perfect clarity you get following a psilocybin trip.

>>6290

hey OP I think you might like this thread. my previous comment reccomending it to you was deleted I think. I just updated it.

>>6320

What value has life?

That's really what it all comes down to.

There have been steppe hermits in Mongolia who have lived more fulfilling lives than any celebrity or talentless hack with so much disposable income they could practically buy their own micro nation.

You aspire to be "great" not to live.

That's why you're miserable because that's what it is.

The stars in the sky should humble you not frighten you.

>>6279

Fuck stars.

>>5519

top kek

I know a Nihilist who argues that Nihilism is awesome whenever its about himself or Nietzsche but then goes and claims that Trump is a nihilist as if thats a bad thing

"Nihilist" is just another word for "Im too smart to believe in anything"

Ego is the Enemy by Ryan Holiday is an extremely easy read(even I who felt like I didn't have much of an attention span loved the simple analogous style).

The author has a stoic diary book out, and some other interesting nonfiction with a very logical style like the Obstacle is the Way. Probably the closest I've read to a modern stoic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaU5TQw_i4

Interview with him to give you an idea of what he's like.

If you want deeper, then anything by Seneca and Marcus Aurelius's Meditations are the core of stoicism.

>>5608

>So, your wife is cheating on you with Jamal. Boo hoo! Suck it up, and deal with it!

Literally philosophy for cucks.

I'm a daily practitioner of Stoicism, so I can recommend you a few things. It's a wonderful way to orientate your life. The foundational books (i.e. the ones that outline the basic tenants) I could recommend are:

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius (free on Project Gutenberg)

The Enchiridion and Discourses by Epictetus (my favorite, also found free on Project Gutenberg as 2 separate books)

Letters from a Stoic by Seneca (there are a lot of different letters he's written, which you can also find free online but they all have different titles)

For more modern applications of Stoicism:

How to be a Stoic by Massimo Pigliucci

Stoicism and the Art of Happiness by Donald Robertson

A Guide to the Good Life by William Irvine

And books by Stoics but not 100% Stoic:

The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck by Mark Manson

The Obsticle is the Way by Ryan Holiday

There are 2 main websites where you can get some great info too:

Howtobeastoic.wordpress.com (By the Professor Massimo Pigluicci who wrote the book above)

Modernstoicism.com (By Proffesor Gregory Sadlet who has a great YouTuibe Channel about Stoicism and Philosophy)

DailyStoic.com (By Ryan Holiday, the author of the Obsticle is the way book above)

>>6282

Stoicism doesn't have any hard or fast rules about determinism, I'm not sure where you got that impression. Instead Stoics believe that the Logos (Universe/God/Gods/whatever) manifests itself as a universal causal network where men's actions are a part of this cause and effect web bringing about a specific outcome. A lot of scholars have debated this specific issue Dorothea Frede and Massimo Pigluicci (the later most recently), and none of them have ever associated Stoic concepts of logos with predetermination. Instead it's a complex view of causality in which "fate" isn't a linear series of events but instead a whole "network of interacting causes." Cicero's "Cylinder" analogy is a good one that explains this on a "cosmic scale." On a personal scale though I prefer Cleanthes' dog and cart analogy. His analogy is a good one to visualize. He described us as a dog tied to a moving cart by a long leash. The leash gives us enough leeway to determine our own path by moving to one side of the cart, behind it, to the other side, stop for a bit, etc, but the cart's still moving regardless of what the dog does. As the dog we can fight against this leash and be dragged along in misery or we can choose to be happy and use our limited span to enjoy the journey. Stoics don't believe in absolute determinism other than we can all say in our own lives we can "absolutely determine" that we're all going to die some day.

>>6313

I'm not sure where you've got the impression that you've replied to anything but a post randomly shitting on another.

its = possessive

it’s = it is

This just reads like metaphysical masturbation without any actual substance or understanding. It reads like you don’t know what you’re talking about, even if you think you do.

Go into more depth about the concepts you’re taking for granted: time, number, unit, metaphysical principle, logic, science, all that shit—and maybe something slightly cohesive will come of it.

>>1484

Because Atheists are actually Agnostics.

>>1510

Not Op, but I guess he's talking about atheistic materialism, which in itself is a rejection of metaphysic concepts and reduces reality to empirical positivism. As such morality, as argued, itself could at best be a biological imperative, and as such practically interchangeable or alterable through evolution or genetic engineering. I'd argue that such a reduction is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of morality, which is not meant to be a system that only reflects favorable circumstances for a society, but a universal a priori set of rules for the human experience, that did not rose from necessity, but dictates necessity and as such formed it. I'd argue that this due to the overly complex nature of Morality, and the spiritual impact necessary for it to function being to complex to be a mere assembly of chance. I'd say the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual functions and capabilities of evolution from the side of the atheistic materialists. To address your point of differentiating morality from other concepts, I'd argue that morality is a base experience, that is not learned but experienced, and as such is contained in the necessary structure of the human experience itself. Equality and fairness on the other hand, are imposed concepts, they are not part of the necessary structure of the human experience but are instead of intellectual origin. In short a human derives morality by itself, as the sense for it isn't learned but felt, while the concepts of equality and fairness have to be intellectually derived to be grasped. In contrast to OP I would not make the argument that atheists reject morality, but that they misjudge it's scope and validity due to their inherent materialism.

But a different question that came to my mind while writing that. Is there a possibility to separate atheism from materialism, or is it possible to combine atheism and spiritualism? I'd argue that spiritualism is always a form of deism, just that the deity isn't personified in this context. And since atheism must reject all forms of deities, it can only hold it's ground through the reduction of reality to materialism. Finally there is no real distinction between materialism and atheism.

>>1485

>>1485

If morality isn't a "higher power", what is?

I dunno most compatiblist writers had an impact on me whether from an agnostic perspective (Hobbes) or religious (Saints Augustine and Aquinas come to mind)

I like Kant's Idealism

Nietszche and Schopenhauer when I'm looking into the void, Kierkegaard to extent too

although I despise almost all Utilitarians, especially Epistemological ones. absolute cancer.

unpopular opinion: I hate Spinoza.

Tao Te Ching for sure, also Zhuangzi.. Great balancing influence for atomized western thinking IMO.

"The fourth way" by P. D. Ouspensky and "Non-violent communication" by Marshall Rosenberg made me realize that I'm living in a society perpetuated by guilt of the past.

Taking responsibility for my own actions without having to justify them or any unintentional discomfort they may cause in others and not letting the successes and failures of my ancestors affect my decision making.

Meditations: Marcus Aurelius

The Analects: Confucius

We have a term for people like that in Swedish (Fackidiot = faculty retard) it's basically just a form of dunning-kruger effect where experts within a single field start to believe that they are experts in all the fields. You see this happen a lot with high profile hollywood actors who get into politics.

Learning when and when not to shut up is a form of intelligence all on it's own.

Technical difficulties

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKS9iHyw964&t=4s

>>3472

Why is the standard online encyclopedia hosted in Stanford on the west coast which isn't even that old of a university? You would think a philosophy wiki would be to the east at an older university.

Just start attempting to prove everything you believe. It doesn't matter if you actually finish, but act as if you intend to finish.

Don't forget to question your assumptions. And then your assumption's assumptions. And then your assumptions about what your assumptions are.

>>1750

>Start with the Greeks

Also Plutarch.

For the long answer it depends on what field of philosophy you are interested in. Starting in philosophy is like starting in science. The same way you do not science but you are interested in quantum physics or chemistry, the same way you do not philosophy, you can be into morality philosophy, political philosophy, metaphysics, art philosophy and many others. The same way that when you want to understand physics you start with at least a basic understanding of maths, the same way if you want to asses whether or not reality exist you start with the big greek classics; Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Marcus Aurelius. If you want easy stuff to start with you can start with political philosophy or morality philosophy, which is usually pretty down to earth so easier to follow: authors like; Machiavelli, Plutarch (his moral treatises), Montaigne.

If you want some hardcore shit that's gonna start with the basic stuff and blow your mind and are not afraid of reading... a lot... you can start with Kant, Plotinus, and if you can read french (I don't think this was ever translated in another language) "Commentaire de la logique d’Aristote" by Thomas d'Aquin

Books: "Tao Te Ching" and "Passion of the Western Mind" (a kind of history of western thought).

Lectures: Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism (due to its strange and toxic influence on western society today), in a similar vien the work of Jordan Peterson on similar topics for similar reasons.

>>1398

Perhaps this was merely an impression of yours, but it's hard to say what is it that concerns you. What subjects, in particular, you found in difficulty more often than your friends? Ask yourself this question first.

Your friends probably didn't have a "deeper" understanding of logic than you, but they could have had a more intuitive understanding of the subjects. Which is to say, for example, that they had a easier time following the steps of the a mathematical demonstration. This wasn't necessarily due to a familiarity with "logic", which is only a narrow field of knowledge, but rather their familiarity with definitions necessary to make such demonstrations, so that in their heads they were really "following" the teacher, rather than only being shown the steps.

Now, though I've said "logic" is only a particular field of knowledge, since you seem to be concerned with reasoning in general, there's no reason to avoid it. In fact, it might greatly beneficial. At a layman's level, Wikipedia suffices.

You could also try to dabble in philosophy, and to try to exercise your thought by understanding arguments. Platonic dialogues, though rather dull, portray philosophy in a very natural language, and characters present their viewpoints all in the form of arguments.

But really, anything you choose, so long as it's intellectually challenging, will be to your benefit.

BUMP

Mathematics is the true performance of the brain. It requires constant discipline and evaluation, and its results are directly proportionate with the amount of effort you put into it.

Very similar to body building, you can’t expect a beginner to bench their own weight, and if you stick with it the results will be obvious quickly, but take a lifetime to perfect.

Firstly, IQ is a thing, and it is likely that your friends have higher IQ than yours (no offence), explaining their quicker learning. Not to say that you can't learn, but perhaps just not as quickly.

As for understanding logic, I have found that watching the videos of Stefan Molyneux and Tom Woods has helped me understand logic and debate much better than I did before (also good for basic understanding of the modern world IMO), you might check them out and see if they work for you. Others would suggest Sam Harris on this count as well.

>>6087

No, not at all. Doesn't the idea of "censorship" already denote that the censored/suppressed news is actually true?

Censoring stuff isn't all bad; I wouldn't like to see the uncensored scarred body of a dead soldier on the news while having breakfast, for example.

What I'm not a fan of is censoring information other than photo/video, even if its bullshit. It's not unethical holding back false info, but in my opinion undoubtable fake news should be commented and corrected in an objective way instead of simply holding them back.

>>6087

Go back to running the country and stop asking imageboards for help.

>>6150

>law conforms to ethics

Law is in the interest of business.

On the surface I'd say no. Its unethical to spread fake news, so anything stemming an unethical practice is an ethical practice.

Depends on how much violence (or threats of violence) is used in the censorship efforts IMO.. punishment fitting the crime and all that.