/philosophy/ - Philosophy

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.

>>6042

>brainlet

Severe projection. Go back.

>>6053

He actually gave answers you are just a meme spouting McNobody

I would suggest Man and his Symbols (designed for the lay reader) or Memories, Dreams, Reflections (autobiography).

Tangentially, i find the audiobooks one of the few things that I can fall asleep to and wake up feeling relaxed (maybe some subconscious learning in there somehow?)..

Playlist of many of his audiobooks here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r8woGW-0qQ&list=PLsRJj8fxd4zPhCKPZf43iTMn0eNV-32fJ , also see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWqv_8eLqnb4bxTV44QwvrQ/playlists for a discussion and reading of other Jungian works (Red book included).

>>5555

He is boring and does a lot more harm than good. His views on violence is spot on though.

>>6164

The "missing responsibility" has nothing to do with any form of god/gods/religions. It's just that young dum-dums have sex without thinking about consequences. In best cases, they buy condoms. In other cases, they just make the child, leave to an orphanage and call it a day, no responsibility involved.

>If citizens could be called to responsibility for making babies with no way to legally get rid of it, would it be state tyranny?

^ i think he means that, not "Seek God"

I have found JP very useful in providing red pills on feminism, post-modernism, and cultural marxism..

Also seems to be having an effect in fighting the shame-based infantilization & emasculation of men that government schools/media/universities have been pushing for decades now..

>>6064

>>6075

>>6100

>complete lack of counter-argument to the post

>waaaaaah JP is wrong waaaaah i can't explain why

>>5648

>That is to say, Nietzsche had not a truth, but a perspective on the truth

You just prove that you know nothing about Nietzsche. He see truth as a convention between humans and not as the adequacy of the subject and the thing.

See On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense :

"A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins. "

bump for map

great centrist graphic! I cannot hold strong convictions towards most ideas. Frustrating but satisfying at the same clip.

No map will help. Try picking up A Treasury of Philosophy (edited by Dagobert D Runes) to see what I mean.

All I can suggest is read, read, read. Finished reading? read more. Discuss if you are lucky enough to find someone that understands you after all that reading.

>>6217

>No map will help.

When is lack of structure ever helpful?

>>6021

Not exactly what you're looking for, but you may want to read this:

https://www.lesserwrong.com/rationality

Stirner was a literal cuck and his philosophy never was about politics.

>>5030

>egoist

>cuck

pick one

>>3119

>3rd one doesnt even explain his position

I mad.

>all taken on the same day

Impressive.jpeg

>>5030

why would you want politics in your philosophy

>>5000

The same reason people like Diogenes.

>>6153

Jorges Luis Borges’ kingdom that constructed a perfect map was a lot more fun to read about. Baudrillard is a try hard hack- education was wasted on him.

>>6168

>>6170

Thanks

>Some of Baudrillard's writing style is downright painful. Maybe the original French is better?

I read Spirit of Terrorism and Carnival&Cannibal in English, now I'm trying to read The Gulf War Didn't Take Place in French. While my French is definitely worse than my English, and i have to look up many words, I feel like grammatically it reads noticeably smoother than in English. But surely he's also just obtuse. I'm not even trying to grasp the meaning of every single sentence.

>"Simulacra and Simulacrum" seems too hard to grasp

How can you be this stupid?

>>711

nah only atheists are faggots, unless you're Nietzche. why do you think they love sucking a robot dick all time. heaven only knows when no one is looking they prefer it anally rather than orally.

that also being said, Bertrand Russell needs to be set on fire.

>>685

what makes you the judge of that?

>>>>r/iamverysmart

>>607

agreed ignoring the sarcasm. Analytical philosophy is der juden incarnate

"Another possibility of such revelation [of beings as a whole] is concealed in our joy in the presence of Dasein--and not simply of the person--of a human being whom we love."

I know I should probably just tell you to go read Plato or something but I'm a faggot

Quote is from Heidegger's "What is Metaphysics?" and deals a lot with the totality of beings and the nothing (negation of totality of beings) and how it is possibly revealed through anxiety, boredom, or love. Love is the most cryptic section, I think. Maybe it's worth a read.

Interesting read for you:

Love Sick: Love as a Mental Illness by Dr. Frank Tallis

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/156285.Love_Sick

Heidegger isn't awful, and he was 20th century

>"In the modern era philosophy seems to be mostly centred on the self; reality doesn't exist, don't care about others, happiness is the only thing that truly matters, etc."

This differs significantly from early western philosophy (solipsism, egoism, hedonism, ect) how exactly? I fail to see how this is a symptom of "modern" philosophy rather than just some of the major recurring themes in the western tradition.

Also mate, just because you don't like whatever trends are in vogue at the moment doesn't mean that they are 'awful'. Really modern philosophy is actually quite well off these days as philosophy is no longer largely relegated to a privileged few and dissemination of ideas is basically cost free. Even with the dominance of natural philosophy you can still find authors publishing in just about every major school of thought.

>>6195

The English is correct, but either way what are you having a hard time understanding.

>>6199

>"Ones conscience involved in the world around it."

"Ones conscience IS involved in the world around it."

Nevermind though, i wrote that post while still sleepy

>>6200

The thought isn’t about the conscience in the world, it’s about the effect the conscience has on the “being” that is in the world.

>>6200

Either statement leaves the impression of being a being a tautology, nothing more. Something to drop midway into a boozy conversation, or at the beginning of a multi-level marketing educational, or a dreadfully typical standardized undergraduate essay hook, etc.

'Brain in a vat' memes are foolish. Our brains would be so much smaller if they were in vats, because all of the parts of the brain dedicated to bodily functions and facial recognition would be stripped away.

perhaps "substructionism" for method #2

>>6135

I think that with the second one you described the way i see language teaching in schools these days. You are just assumed to remember every little detail the teacher and books have tried to teach you. They do not care if you miss a step, they just go on without you. Of if you tag along, you end up with no foundation to keep building your language skill on, being stuck in an endless loop of "i know that this grammar rule works like it does because teacher said so, not because i know or understand why". Which is why i'm 21, been learning russian since 12 and can only read it fluently, but not understand jack shit

For the first part, the reason is largely that you can't prove very much from first principles*, not even mathematically thanks kurt "buzzkill" gödel so trying to be rigorous is super-boring and frustrating when you can just start from your conclusion and hand wave your way through the hazy parts of your reasoning like you seem to be describing in method 2.

*no, shut up renee descartes