Who are your favourite philosophers?

[constant escape]

I'm a pseudo-zealot when it comes to dialectics though.

 

[linebaugh]

I'm not a fan of those who say that reality is all in your head.



This makes no sense to me. It's so far from how I experience existence. Also seems boring.

Thats what I was getting at with the God thing earlier. Kant doesnt want to call things 'in themselves' because its god that is the true reality, and he beleives god is unreachable. I think if you go down the line of this thought to phenomenology- sartre, husserl, heidegger- then the thought gets interesting

 

[version]

I like going through the one-star reviews of philosophy books on Goodreads,

Critique of Pure Reason

This is the most abusively delusional garbage I have ever read.

This explains why some of my former friends who endeavored to study humanities can’t find any job and in their 30s are mentally incompetent simpletons.

Anyone giving this more then one star is in desperate need of serious psychiatric treatment.

Immanuel The Traitor of Civilization Kant makes hundreds of arbitrary false statements and continues as if they were self evident & proven truth. Why would he do such thing? In order to destroy mans reason and to save (his) religion.

What an abusively delusional simpleton

 

[luka]

lol

 

[luka]

philosophy makes people mad. we feel inadequate

 

[luka]

why cant i lift this weight that moron can lift. humiliating.

 

[linebaugh]

Damn there was a good meme of Marx reading all the one star good reads reviews for the communist manifesto on the D&G server but I cant find it

 

[version]

philosophy makes people mad. we feel inadequate

Yeah, a lot of the negative reviews amount to calling the philosopher a fraud and incomprehensible and anyone that likes them only pretending to.

 

[constant escape]

I'm not a fan of those who say that reality is all in your head.



This makes no sense to me. It's so far from how I experience existence. Also seems boring.

Well here I turn to semantics, phenomenon (appearance; the object that registers to us) and noumenon (object-in-itself).

Similar to genotype (the genetic code of a trait?) and phenotype (the manifestation, in appearance, of a trait). The genotype would be a certain gene (?) and the phenotype would be blonde hair. Appearance only factors in "above" the gene?

The concept of appearance is central. The thing's existence is one thing, but its appearance to us is what qualifies it as a phenomenon.

The thing-in-itself is what exists irrespective of whether or not it appears to us.

I don't take it to mean there is a world-to-experience underneath the world we do experience. I take it to mean that our experience of the world is enabled by factors that aren't essential to the world.

Beyond that, Kant's project is a bit blurry to me. I think it has to do with drawing lines between what is accessible to our cognition, and thus capable of being studied, and what is inaccessible to our cognition? Sort of a setting down of stakes in the interest of clarification?

How is this useful? Seemingly only for extenuating philosophical projects, but I'm sure we can think of more tangible/common takeaways.

 

[luka]

same with modernist literatire. pretnetious. a fraud.

 

[linebaugh]

philosophy makes people mad. we feel inadequate

theres alot of fun in watching people get their ass chapped though

there was also a 'what do you think of pynchon' thread on the true lit reddit and you could tell half the people in there were just really pissy

 

[luka]

good to laugh at others and god knows i never miss the opportunity but also good to see it in ourselves

 

[luka]

and i get badly triggered by philosophy and theory

 

[luka]

i like to think of myself as smart

 

[version]

There's a review of Anti-Oedipus that just says "more like de-loser and gua-farty".

 

[luka]

There's a review of Anti-Oedipus that just says "more like de-loser and gua-farty".

ben watson says delouse and gut-theory.

 

[luka]

but its not good enough

 

[constant escape]

Anyone can understand this stuff, just as anyone can make themselves smarter. You just really need to care - bordering on pathological. Or, at least, obsessional. And there's always more to understand, no?

More a question of will than smarts. You can will yourself to become smarter. You can will yourself to greater willpower.

That, and the time to do it.

It can also be a boundless outlet for passion and energy. Maybe there's a better way of articulating that.

If you don't believe you can make yourself smarter, you probably won't. But if you do believe, it's that much easier.

A lot of this obscure philosophy comes in handy when attempting to rewire your beliefs here, and other such nebulous tasks.

 

[luka]

yes, we know we can translate that language into ours

 

[luka]

but we are not sure it leaves us better off