/lit/ - Literature

>>1295703

Humans behave the way evolution guides them to. Unfortunately, culture and technology have developed more rapidly than our genes. Our evolved behavior and inclinations are inappropriate to our culture.

Life sucks, basically.

>>1295686

Look right above you, clever child.

>>1295690
>Germans other than Frege

Sorry, but no.

>science vs phenomenology

Introspection is unreliable. Observation is reliable. You jelly of my reliable methodology?

>didn't answer question. you look foolish. We aren't self-contained minds in a body.

That's exactly what I said, you faggot. Except for the German tomfoolery that followed.

What is truth?

Why didn't you respond to my response?

Do you go to Fordham? I'm fairly sure it's not NYU, and if it's CUNY, I feel sorry for you.

>>1295678

There is an absence of evidence because the ontological argument fails.

But go one level deeper.

Why does it fail?

There is a contraindication in the concept: infinitely perfect being.

Contradictions cannot be true. This is why we know that God does not exist.

>>1295668
> but please make your stance instead of indicating why you believe so.

These sort of go hand in hand.

I believe what I see. Do I see immaterial bullshit? NOPE. Do I see material stuff? YUP.

>Badiou

I've never read him. Like I said, philosophy takes time, and one can't have read anyone. If you feel like summarizing a stance you care about in particular, I will respond.

>>1295657
>brute facts ---> meaningful things, huh

They just do, thou fag.

>you believe that the breakdown of being into derivatives holds true

You make no sense.

>why you think we're self-contained minds, huh? you like all platonic/christian and shit?

Minds are bigger than brains, and they might share space.

>how's it feel knowing your epistemology is determined by plato/christianity

It isn't.

>>1295663

Actually no. You don't have a good proof of His existence? Then he doesn't exist. Simple as fucking that.

>>1295656

What, you don't think claims can be important and/or have wide scope?

>>1295637
>Why consider positivism and not idealism?

Esse is not percipi (what I mean to say is: idealism is false).

>>1295641

Every time you post, I imagine someone roughly looking like this making the post.

Anyways, you should be happy. It's all about collective/extended identity and loose shit like that.

>>1295640
> How does intellectual coersion of others thoughts 'free the mind'?

I didn't mention others; it was more from an individual perspective.

Doing philosophy takes time. You read shit. You write shit. You edit shit. You print it, and then find a typo, so you have to print it again. And then you realize that your argument is flawed. And then... you see where this is going?

The more time you spend thinking about God and metaphysics, the more hours of this labor you waste (God doesn't exist, you see).

>>1295628

As far as I can tell, he was depressed and butthurt because his mother was mean to him.

Should you trust him to be a reliable source of deep and universal truths? No. He seems broken. His perspective only makes sense or matters for similarly butthurt individuals.

>>1295625

Because god and metaphysics are silly. Dispensing with them frees the mind to think about things that actually exist.

>>1295619

Shit that you're fairly justified in believing. Go read about Bayesianism if you want to be all tight assed about it.

>>1295621
>legitimate critical theory

oh, why do you tempt me like that.

Talking about feminist/queer issues is fine, but if it fits under the umbrella of "critical theory", I am puzzled as to why it matters.

>>1295615
> language of babylon.

Problem?

>>1295612
>Derrida

Come on now.

>not answering
>still not answering

This is better? Really?

Anyways, I aim for accuracy rather than pleasantness. Sorry.

>>1295602

Because that book just didn't work out.

>>1295595

Love is an excitation of the soul, caused by the motion of the spirits, which incites it to join itself in volition to the objects that appear to be suitable to it.

Yes, Descartes has some sort of weird picture where you extend your identity to include some other object, presumably a person, and you regard his harm as an injury to yourself, etc.

In a less inspiring sense, limerence (potentially faded) + commitment. Limerence is the feeling of a crush; exhilaration is his presence, intrusive fantasies about him, etc.

Ask an analytic philosopher anything.

Critical theory/continental folks encouraged; I'm here to help re-educate you.