/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Read Heraclitus.

>>4240

>Hegel

*tips fedora*

>>4241

Here's a tip for you too, kiddo: whether or not you believe, God is more real than any of us. You'll be a long way towards ending your depression once you stop rejecting faith out of teen rebellion.

>>4238

>ego

I want this meme to end.

How old is this pasta?

>>4243

Here's a tip for you too, kiddo: whether or not you believe, Kek is more real than any of us. You'll be a long way towards ending your depression once you stop rejecting memes out of teen rebellion, and you'll be a long way towards being memed out of existence if you don't.

Step 1: Rigorously define 'ego.'

Step 2: Try not to facepalm so hard you sprain your wrist when you realize what an idiot you made of yourself.

>>4199

Cool. I'll analyze them and get back here when I can.

>>4214

For those who are following (It can go without saying there isn't anyone following but despite that I will add this).

Now I see what is meant by wasting time however I still hold a position that Stefan and Peter are right in their own respect. There's too much dispute with them and I with here to address any of it.

All of my time is preoccupied with life matters. So for the time being I'll lay it to rest.

>>4186

Nature has conspired against them. I honestly can't see how this isn't already obvious, there's so many red flags.

Yes, Molyneux is a shithead 95% of the time. His truth about X series are fucking golden though, including this one. I do recommend putting them on as background to something else, though. It shouldn't be dense enough to fully absorb your attention except for a few key points.

>>4172

More like counter-enlightenment lol.

>>4180

Counter-enlightenment best enlightenment

>>4166

its the spiders bro. those fucking spiders

Here's a layman's introduction to philosophy... https://vimeo.com/53000177

There are many questions surrounding immortality. Sorry to say I don't have a straight answer for you but that's what makes philosophy both fun and strenuous at times in regards to mental faculties.

"i would also enjoy some light reading material to help me get started in philosophy"

Go big or go home. Use the sticky for reference.

>>4202

>is there a belief or theory that the only way to be immortal is through leaving a huge/long legacy? like if one's purpose in life is to not die, evade death with a legacy to still exist in a way

there is the roman maxim, "vita brevis; ars longa," which translates to, "life is short; art is long," which explains the general roman philosophy on the concept of immortality.

best answers to your question i can give you is counterpoints from old marky marc(us aurelious). consider reading meme philosophers like Nietzsche if you want someone supportive of your idea.

> Hippocrates after curing many diseases himself fell sick and died. The Chaldaei foretold the deaths of many, and then fate caught them too. Alexander, and Pompeius, and Caius Caesar, after so often completely destroying whole cities, and in battle cutting to pieces many ten thousands of cavalry and infantry, themselves too at last departed from life. Heraclitus, after so many speculations on the conflagration of the universe, was filled with water internally and died smeared all over with mud. And lice destroyed Democritus; and other lice killed Socrates. What means all this? Thou hast embarked, thou hast made the voyage, thou art come to shore; get out. If indeed to another life, there is no want of gods, not even there. But if to a state without sensation, thou wilt cease to be held by pains and pleasures, and to be a slave to the vessel, which is as much inferior as that which serves it is superior: for the one is intelligence and deity; the other is earth and corruption.

> Do not act as if thou wert going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over thee. While thou livest, while it is in thy power, be good.

> He who has a vehement desire for posthumous fame does not consider that every one of those who remember him will himself also die very soon; then again also they who have succeeded them, until the whole remembrance shall have been extinguished as it is transmitted through men who foolishly admire and perish. But suppose that those who will remember are even immortal, Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I personally think a hankering for immortality is a form of denial. There's something far more immediate that's bothering you. Indeed it's so close you can only get it out of focus by gazing at the farthest possible distance.

Stop bitching about immortality and look at the thing in front of you that's about to eat your face. Maybe it's worth the effort of stopping it? At the very least, even if I'm wrong, you'll be distracted from questions of eternity while you deal with it.

👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀 good shit go౦ԁ sHit👌 thats ✔ some good👌👌shit right👌👌there👌👌👌 right✔there ✔✔if i do ƽaү so my self 💯 i say so 💯 thats what im talking about right there right there mMMMMᎷМ💯 👌👌 👌 👌👌 👌 💯 👌 👀 👀 👀 👌👌Good shit

>>4100

>pre-enlightenment

Didn't know, sorry

>none of these ideas really form the basis of many philosophies to come

Didn't he basically inspire Newton and other physicists because he offered a method interpretation different from that of Aristotle?

>people still study Aquinas

Who isn't nearly as all the non-Aristotelians that's came after Descartes.

>>4073

>too embarassed

i think chalmers is pretty willing to argue for substance dualism if not cartesian dualism

that said,

descartes questions are what have relevance.

his answers (metaphysics in particular) while not held in high philosophical esteem, did a hell of a lot to reclaim philosophy from the church.

>>4112

>Didn't know, sorry

He might as well be Enlightenment, though, some people (THE FRENCH) claim he is the pre-cursor to it.

>Didn't he basically inspire Newton and other physicists because he offered a method interpretation different from that of Aristotle?

As a mathematician? Sure, but by that logic surely Pythagoras is equally worthy of praise. His bean theories should be as venerated as his mathematical theories are.

Book 2 of Principia Mathematica was written in response to Descartes, refuting his shit like Cartesian theory of vortices.

>Who isn't nearly as all the non-Aristotelians that's came after Descartes.

William Lane Craig.

But really it's a shame people see the pre-Enlightenment period as inferior, brainless retards who are all obsessed with gods. The Islamic Golden Age was almost like a mini-Enlightenment in itself.

>>4120

>chalmers

Substance dualism is Cartesian dualism. Chalmers supports property dualism. Property dualism is the non-embarrassing alternative to substance dualism.

>his answers did a hell of a lot to reclaim philosophy from the church.

How? His entire philosophy relies on the existence of God. If God does not exist then the problems he puts forward are still left unchallenged and leads to solipsism.

The problem with discarding Descartes is that substance dualism is true. Reality doesn't care how ridiculous you find it, or how ridiculous you find her messengers.

If you think you can do better, invent something on the scale of usefulness of Cartesian coordinates, then maybe you'll have some call for looking down on Descartes for being imperfect.

>>4153

Wisdom has no set meaning. The Sophists were relativists, which is what Plato hated above all. The whole idea of Socratic dialectic is to debate a concept until it is thoroughly pounded in agreement by both sides as to what it is. The idea is that every use of a concept carries some truth and has the central essence of the idea in it, but some concepts are so widely used in different contexts that it is bewildering what ties all those uses together in the concept. For all things that fundamentally mattered, yes, Socrates/Plato ultimately were bewildered as to what the concepts essentially meant in the end. Plato tried to really get at the core meaning of things like the good, wisdom, and beauty, etc., but he didn't really succeed.

If you take a Wittgensteinian view of wisdom and analyze how it's used, it's quite simple to see that wisdom is the proper/right use of knowledge. It is a concept that unites knowledge with ethics. One may know many things and yet be a complete idiot and not the least bit wise.

>>4115

okay thank you for the advice!

Tell me if i'm wrong but I was under the impression that I could read some philosophy that would basically teach me that life is wonderful and beautiful, and that would give me the inspiration to go do something awesome.

>>4116

I'm not handsome and I think reading brooding shit would depress me so I think that's not an option for me. If i was handsome, that would be great, I could be some vampire going around fucking gals but im ugly af

>>4122

You're wrong. Philosophy is supposed to make you think, not to make you feel good. Even if you're into existentialism, that stuff isn't supposed to be taken at face-value. What you're looking for is a self-help book, or a Bildungsroman.

But you'd be better off if you looked for a hobby rather than a book, anyway.

With sufficient dedication to philosophy, it grants you full mastery of both inner and outer worlds, and the generally confident demeanour that would imply, which is a mad chick magnet.

But 'sufficient dedication' is a couple orders of magnitude more than you think it is. You'll literally age out of being thirsty faster than you can obtain pussy through philosophy.

Also, 'inner world' includes your hunger for poon, so inner mastery means you can take or leave women, as you like. And they're huge time and money sinks even if you have total mastery of them.

>Did they know something we don't?

I'm going to go with 'no,' unless you mean they know things about music composition and marketing I don't.

Philosophy is about accumulating more truths and discarding more illusions. Asking questions is only philosophical if it reveals one of your beliefs to be an illusion. Asking philosophical-feeling questions for the sake of seeming philosophical is textbook wankery.

>>3974

Of course the money won't ever go to science because he already spent it on the ugliest nude ever. This could have been prevented if people like you wouldn't automatically apologize for wasteful narcisists. The average voter would have allocated this money better.

>>3976

>>4041

Accidentally the wrong post.

>>3781

>picasso fan this bootyblasted

It's not even about taste.

The painting was bought because it makes the billionaire more powerful. They don't give a shit what it looks like. The stuff they buy for their own consumption is bought without crowing to the world about it. You complaining about it reveals you to be a pleb because what he's really thinking doesn't even occur to you as a possibility and a poor pleb because you're envious.

>>3782

>Purchased just for his vanity!

Being resentful always helps...the rich. Thanks pleb, for falling into the trap. God, I can only imagine the shit taste you have, I bet it's even worse than the supposed taste you're so butthurt about.

>>3976

>The average voter would have allocated this money better.

*snrk*

You would have blown it on hookers, cocaine, and pretending to make Africa less poor. Folk like you win the lottery from time to time, so we've seen this happen over and over.

African economists - you know, the ones from Africa - keep begging the West to quit it with the foreign 'aid.' When Somalia lost its government and they couldn't organize 'aid' for the place anymore, it immediately started growing like gangbusters.

Useful idiots like you are first up against the wall come the revolution.

>>4128

Marquis de Sade.

>>4130

You answered your own question, it seems.

>>4130

One of those is false and the other is true.

>>4130

Historically, religion is a mythology pretending to be scientific.

Mythology is a way of getting to truth from the back side, through metaphor. You construct a story with the same emotional energy dynamics as the truth (this is what it means to 'resonate' - it resonates the way a board resonates with its fundamental sound frequency) and then examine the story to see what it can tell you about the truth.

Scientific truth is instead a detailed, mechanistic description. I sometimes call it the engineering description, because it's the kind of thing you need to build something.

However, mythology properly appreciated can most certainly lead to a scientific description, and engineering specs are often best understood through a mythology, depending on what you're using them for. E.g. a mythology of how a car works is more useful to the driver than an engine schematic.

Religious literalists are and were always the mistake. It's a necessary view for children, and it's always been true that many humans do not grow up, and retain their childist mythological literalism. Even hunter tribes have 'atheists' in the sense that some of them don't regard their myths as literally true.

The myths are supposed to be absurd when taken literally, as a hint that you're supposed to grow out of taking them literally.

There's been a good avatar of this truth lately in Jordan B. Peterson.

>>4063

>oh no he called me whitey

I didn't say you're wrong because you're white, it's not a fallacy nor is it illogical. You're just like the Jew who cringes to be called out and put in the open.

>>4065

>>4060

Are you Jewish?

As Marx himself basically admitted, he is not correct buy we wouldn't be able to discern real truthes in our capitalist world anyway. We need to evolve socially and that means changing our economy

>>4047

>If we indeed do have capitalism, it's automatically true.

Well we do have capitalism according to Marx, is there something we are missing before we can have capitalism?

>>4096

>what are the conditions for the possibility of generalized commodity exchange

Gee, I'm looking at a world of commodities right now. I wonder...?