/lit/ - Literature

what is love?

How come math isn't logic?

>>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.

>>1295602

Because that book just didn't work out.

Can any action that a human commits that can be said morally correct actually a selfish action?

Is it true?

Is it possible to be a good person, or are we all evil from birth?

>>1295603
I've heard better, from movies in fact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyi8b7tJBlQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1BuNmhjAY

" re-educate "

this is the language of babylon.

<-----ma tête est pleine de baisent

So, what's knowledge?

Do you think there's any merit to feminist/gender/queer theory or is it largely a distraction from legitimate critical theory?

>>1295612
>Derrida

Come on now.

>not answering
>still not answering

This is better? Really?

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

>>1295595
baby don't hurt me

Why is positivism so great?

>>1295621
there's a feminist/gender/queer theory? Please enlighten me.

Eat a dick, Bert.

>>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?

>>1295627

That's Google Scholar's job.

>>1295625

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

>>1295583
How would you consider Badiou? What is to be said of reconstructing ontology by means of mathematical, logical axioms? Is Badiou successful?

Why consider positivism and not idealism? To me both seem requisite for a complete understanding of the universe.

>>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.

>>1295633
How are they silly? How does intellectual coersion of others thoughts 'free the mind'?

>>1295603

>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.

>>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).

>>1295641
>implying atheism isn't a religion

>>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.

>>1295639
>deep and universal truths

Yeah.

>>1295583
how you explain that brute facts ---> meaningful things, huh?

how you believe that the breakdown of being into derivatives holds true?

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

how's it feel knowing your epistemology is determined by plato/christianity and that heidey truly shows it to be a false way of looking at the world?

>>1295656

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

>>1295646
Isn't one of the consequences of positivism that metaphysical realities (if there are any) cannot be reasoned to or not to exist. (i.e. God could exist but its impossible for us to say anything intelligible about the issue).

>>1295663

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

>>1295653
I understand you believe that idealism is false, but please make your stance instead of indicating why you believe so.

You get no points for avoiding the Badiou questions. I'm interested in how you align Badiou with the analytic philosophers and the continental philosophers. What is it about Badiou that makes us question both projects, sort of like Heidegger.

>>1295659
Oh, they can have wide scope, all right. I don't think we've made any claims in this thread that don't have wide scope.

>>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.

>>1295650
all of my hate.

>>1295667
You're playing their game Mr. Russell. You cannot disprove the existence of god citing absence of evidence. That's a logical fallacy. This is just as much a fallacy as trying to prove god exists because of the fact you cannot disprove he exists. You cannot prove nor disprove. And that's a logical fact.

>>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.

>>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.

>>1295667
If the the existence of God can be falsified by lack emperical "proof" of some sort, then the existence of a God would rely on that proof for its existence, which is contradictory to the idea of God. I'm not arguing for his existence, I just don't see how lack of proof or evidence totally settles the issue.

>>1295675

>They just do, thou fag.

If you'd read heidegger, you'd have an answer. and not look like such a dumbass.

>You make no sense.

how's a breakdown into science better than phenomenology? it's not. you're uprooting yourself from teh earth, and lowering your chances to get pussy. girls think science is gay.

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

didn't answer question. you look foolish. We aren't self-contained minds in a body. We are embodied and what WE are, are Dasein. Are core is caring about things, and we are what we do.

>It isn't.

You think we are a self-contained mind in a body observing the world. You are descartian. He is completely a student of plato/christ.

>>1295690

>EDUT: pardon my poor anglais

>>1295678
one cannot prove that god does or does not exist given the current state of things, but thankfully we can think about the probability of a god existing, and the probability of a judea-christian god existing is close enough to nil where the subject is not worth a debate. We can safely assume that god does not exist.

>>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.

>>1295697
I like the cut of your jib.

i say, why is american society so uncivilized?

>>1295681 I believe what I see. Do I see immaterial bullshit? NOPE. Do I see material stuff? YUP.

I'm confused. Isn't philosophy the study of immaterial bullshit? Whose side are you on?

>>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.

>>1295703
that's simple, the answer is fox news.

>>1295705
>Isn't philosophy the study of immaterial bullshit?

It isn't. Naturalism (conformity with science) is all the rage, really. Even in ethics.

But if you go back a couple hundred years (or to continental), that's when the immaterial bullshit kicks in.

>Whose side are you on?

Good philosophy.

I love your use of language: this mix of pretensions pompous isodeep philosopher and 4chan slang.

You could be the next zizek if you don't look half bad. Also here's zizek on love:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuZXplZvlVU
He give a better explanation than you.

>>1295681
You are surrounded by the immaterial. When a poster earlier asked you to explain love, you explained it in immaterial terms. There was no positive methodology used. In fact, you relied on intuition to give your answer, not observation.

As for the Badiou question, here is the stance: What is to be said of reconstructing ontology by means of mathematical, logical axioms?

What do you think of that? Does this limit positivism, or does it allow positivism to communicate with "immaterial philosophies."

>>1295712
>You could be the next zizek

Excuse me while I kill myself

I own Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations and have for years, got it as a gift from my sister for some reason. I haven't read it yet. Is it worth reading?

Tell me about something you've come to discover on your own, an original idea.

>>1295720
>When a poster earlier asked you to explain love, you explained it in immaterial terms.

But no, sirrah. On the Cartesian account, it's all about motions in the pineal gland. On the account I gave, it's a combination of brain chemistry and social obligation/desire.

>What is to be said of reconstructing ontology by means of mathematical, logical axioms?

Nothing. Intuitions are unreliable, and your project involves relying on our intuitions to create some sort of mapping between human intuition and genuine ontology. Just back the fuck off and observe some shit.

>>1295725

Yes and no. He has some good points about the importance of social contexts. He has some shitty intuitions about the significance of brain processes and the public-private distinction. If you read it, keep this in mind, and be careful.

Also keep in mind that "meaning is use" lacks the resources to account for disagreement. Wittgenstein was a dick, basically.

>Tell me about something you've come to discover on your own,

You can't make a scimitar out of cotton candy.

So, Bert, what do you think of the objections offered to your theory of descriptions mentioned in the SEP article about it?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descriptions/

>You are surrounded by the immaterial.

It's only immaterial when you don't understand it. Science has turned most of the immaterial world into material. The atomic world is a bustling universe filled with energy and reactions. Emotions and morality can be broken down into reactions in the brain and logical/evolutionary systems, respectively.

I guess my question is a simple one. What is the point of philosophy in modern day society? I find the study of philosophy fascinating, but I am struggling to find a practical use other than flexing the intellectual muscle and debate in academia.

>>1295747

Strawchucklefuck has bad intuitions.

>>1295733
You did not argue the "pineal gland" but instead you made the metaphysical claim that taking on a love means an extension of you identity, your immaterial identity for that matter. I understand, of course, that this is Descartes, but it is the metaphysical Descartes. If you had mentioned the "pineal gland" anywhere then perhaps my response would have been different. Quit trying to backpedal, because that's exactly what mentioning the "pineal gland" was.

Social obligation and desire are immaterial concepts and cannot be fully explained or realized through a methodology of observation. You can make sociological observations, but to say anything about human desire would require an immaterial philosophy, unless, of course, you wish to adapt a "mapping between human intuition and genuine ontology." This would give your claim some methodology.

Also, a note on the Badiou argument: what is keeping one from "observing" the structure of events and then trying to breakdown a simplified mathematical equation explaining how the event happened? Especially in the realm of set theory! This could be done, as Badiou attempts, by using the scientific method to reproduce these events using the discovered axioms.

Why do you all willingly, knowingly fail to understand that the 20th century traditions of analytic and continental philosophy are a waste of time? What pleasure or reward do you get by going through these motions? The truth of the matter is that it is all useless. Nor is this to obfuscate attempts to reify meaning and relevance in specific contexts; the irrelevance of these older debates are hammered further and further home with each technological leap.

Here is the gospel. Work, buy, consume, die. A line of questioning that insists through its teachers that it must or should be read chronologically, without modification, is dead. Dead, unable to answer the newer questions, and endemically handicapped in that venture.

>>1295603
>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.
wait, you don't believe that crock of bullshit do you?

>>1295765
>ou did not argue the "pineal gland"

On the Cartesian account, love corresponds to pineal motions. I did not mention this. It is compatible with what I mentioned.

>Social obligation and desire are immaterial concepts and cannot be fully explained or realized through a methodology of observation.

Desire is a mental state: taking some proposition as "to be brought about". Propositions are mental representations. Mental things are physical. Physical things are material and observable.

> "observing" the structure of events

What is an event? I'm not sure what they are.

>>1295748
Your argument rests on this statement. As far as I know, scientists have only been able to intuit this as being a reality. We cannot prove or replicate (reproduce) emotion and reality. The immaterial is not just what we do not understand, rather it is exactly what can be described as not having material form. Emotions do not have a material form. Neurons do, but emotions happen between the firing of these neurons,as they are speaking to one another.

>>1295739

Okay, cool. I guess I'll actually get around to reading it then.

A follow-up, though: I read the Tractatus and didn't understand about 99% of it. So wtf was he trying to say in that?

>>1295776
>A line of questioning that insists through its teachers that it must or should be read chronologically, without modification, is dead.

Ayup, I don't read chronologically. I read what the fuck I want: because I'm alpha and shit. Still got problems?

>>1295784
lay off the alcohol, grandpa.

>>1295748
>What is the point of philosophy in modern day society? I find the study of philosophy fascinating, but I am struggling to find a practical use other than flexing the intellectual muscle and debate in academia.

Doing philosophy results in increased reading and writing abilities. Also in knowing more true propositions, or rather, recognizing how many true ones you know.

Yeah, that's all I've got. Sorry.

Maybe the continental thread will tell you that it makes your identity immanent and shit.

>>1295707
nazi much?

>>1295791

No.

>>1295782
so would you argue that antidepressant drugs that noticeably and measurably change the mood of someone as something that creates a false emotion? are true emotions invulnerable to study?

>>1295779
>On the Cartesian account, love corresponds to pineal motions. I did not mention this. It is compatible with what I mentioned.

Regardless, you used a metaphysical claim. I don't care if some of Descartes's other theorems are compatible -- the point is is that you used a metaphysical assertion while trying to defend the uselessness of metaphysics or immaterial philosophy in general.

>Propositions are mental representations. Mental things are physical.

Representational is one of the key words here. This is an imitation, nothing existing in our physical world really.

>Mental things are physical

The components are physical, but you cannot prove that thought is a physical, measurable object.

>Desire is a mental state: taking some proposition as "to be brought about".

So your entire argument rests on this axiom. You accept, without validity, that desire must be a proposition. But what if desire is not stated? What if it is even unknown or misunderstood by the individual experiencing it? Turning it into a proposition seems calculating, especially consider the ambiguity involved with a concept like desire.

>>1295801
>are true emotions invulnerable to study?

No, they are observable.

>>1295791
I have the distinct feeling that I've stumbled into some complex and ongoing philosophical feud and that my questions are retarded. I will see myself out of this thread.

Why is it OK that free will doesn't exist and that we have no control over who we are or what happens to us

>observation is reliable

Are you claiming some kind of objective observational ability, here?

>>1295804

Ask any question, and I will be kind. And kinder than I have been previously.

>Representational is one of the key words here. This is an imitation, nothing existing in our physical world really.

Representations are arrangements of neurons caused by a state of affairs in the world plus our perceptual system. Physical? YUP.

>You accept, without validity, that desire must be a proposition.

Desire is an attitude towards a proposition. Not a proposition.

>Regardless, you used a metaphysical claim

YOU GOT ME

>>1295810

It's not ok but it's true. I recommend drinking.

>>1295814

Yes. Problem?

>>1295801
No, I would not argue that it creates a false emotion. You may say that a person is sad and try to evaluate, on your own terms, what "level" of sadness they are at. You may even give them medication that makes that same individual happy and then try to evaluate how much of a change occurred. From this, you cannot sense and emotion as a physical object existing separate and possibly outside of the individual. The sadness and happiness are only observable in terms of the physical neurons of the brain and the medication itself. At the end of the day, you are not holding happiness in your hands, and the drug that made one individual happy may have a severely different affect on another individual.

Does the universe only seem to have order, like "laws of physics", because its all our simple human minds can comprehend. And so is science/atheism just as much a religion?

Why doesn't fatalism make sense?

Two questions:
What kind of work can a philosopher find?

How do you feel about non-analytics like Nietzsche, Philo, Kant?

>>1295823

No, it doesn't seem to have order. It actually has order. Glad I could help!

>fatalism

It makes sense. Given that nature of our minds, though, it's impossible to genuinely endorse it. Glad I could help!

>>1295827

1. teaching philosophy.

2. Anything a different humanities graduate could get

3. law

4. Busking

>How do you feel about non-analytics like Nietzsche, Philo, Kant?

I hate them; I don't know who philo is; Kant is analytic

>>1295829
so is determinism just a more elegant and fleshed out version of fatalism?

>>1295841

Fatalism is a reaction to determinism.

>>1295841
fatalism.

No.

>Determinism

Fix'd.

>>1295829
yeah but reality is subjective. so your infinity cut off from the truth. your understanding of laws of physics are infinity different from mine and infinitely different from the truth. If you can't fully understand something it might as well not exist at all.

>>1295816
>Representations are arrangements of neurons caused by a state of affairs in the world plus our perceptual system. Physical? YUP.

Of course neurons are physical. Of course worldly affairs are physical. Of course our senses are physical, at least their organs and glands. But the feeling that arises from the physical world does not join it in matter. Happiness, once introduced by the neurons responding to stimuli, does not materialize. The means is physical, but the ends are not.

>Desire is an attitude towards a proposition. Not a proposition.

I had read you incorrectly. I understand your statement now; the axiom, however, still rests on desire implicating the existence of a proposition. A proposition must be stated, right? Logically,even, correct? I will argue that desire is never broken down like this on a conscious level. You may claim that it is purely because you can conceive of an instance where desire may cognitively lead to a proposition being carried out, that this must be true. This sounds like intuitive thought, rather than rigorous methodology.

>>1295849

Good point, sir. Guess I will stop posting.

>>1295843
Oh duh, after further reading of the wikipedia articles that is plainly true. I would have to say those are the most interesting branch of philosophical "ism's" that I've encountered so far. Any recommendations on further reading on the topic?

>>1295829 it's impossible to genuinely endorse it

lol that's brilliant.

>>1295849
Your understanding does not determine the universe.

Your perspective is wrong in the face of objective truth (i.e. scientific knowledge). Just because you don't understand the laws of physics does not mean that they stand stripped of their universality.

You're just an idiot.

>>1295849

>>1295834
>kant is analytic

haha, this is what they are teaching you in school?!?!?

>>1295857
>objective truth

If only anyone could ever know objective truth, then you'd be in business.

Why you be ignorin my Tractatus question?

You a bitch.

If you're still here or come back please could you explain why we see colors? Oh wait, you can't.

I think I am the anti-christ.

Mark Twain is the devil.

>>1295857
We know that some things are fundamentally unknowable. It's this idea, whether it be in the form of no hidden variables/locality or in the form of provably unprovable conjectures, this is what characterizes contemporary science and maths.

>>1295583

How did you feel when Quine made your entire field obsolete? (Or, since you weren't born back then, how did you feel when reading Two Dogmas of Empiricism?)

Do you believe ethics is a legitimate branch of philosophy? Is-ought problem and all that...

Do you believe numbers exist?

Do you believe objects with parts exist?

>>1296350

Just to make it clear, I'm talking about normative ethics.

Numbers are lies.

>>1295817
>Are you claiming some kind of objective observational ability, here?
>Yes. Problem?
I'm gonna stay on the other side of the Atlantic, folks, this is too silly.

this is a nice thread

You are wicked!!!

Analytic Philosophy is like joining the Badminton Club because you're not cut out for Tennis.

>>1296396

Continental philosophy is like a collection of D&E posts.

>>1295583 Ask an analytic philosopher anything.

Would you please define "truth" without resorting to tautology?

>>1296407

>>1296407
>define * without resorting to tautology

I don't think you understand what "truth" and "tautology" mean.

> mfw nobody realises that the division between "analytic" and "continental" philsophy is just another way of island inbreeders to distuingish themselves from the civilized world

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

I want to do political theory in grad school. What can I do to make sure I'm not devoting my career to pointless metaphysics?

>>1296433

Wrap yourself around the idea that everything you'll end up doing in life will be pointless.

>>1296415
>>1296415 I don't think you understand what "truth" and "tautology" mean.

No, I do know what "tautology" means. I don't know what "truth" means, and I'd like to hear OP's opinion on the relationship of the two.

>>1295583

What do you have to say about the power of the human ego? I often wonder how it is that the human mind can sustain a feeling of importance despite overwhelming evidence that a single person has almost no effect or power on not only the world at large, but the universe itself. I feel that we have evolved this mechanism of self importance to stop everyone committing suicide when something really horrible occurs, or once they reach the conclusion that they aren't actually important.

Often wonder if anyone has a similar take on this.

>>1296440
erm... let open up some Popper on your ass (not OP btw.)

A tautology is a sentence that can not be falsified.
Example:
Tomorrow it will rain or not.

The sentences that have any epistemological value are falsifiable. They are to be regarded as TRUE untill they have actually been falsified.
Black Swan example:
All Swans are white. - > this was considered to be true for the longest time in the western world due to the epistemiologic phenomenon that no Swans where ever found having any other color thatn white.
But with the discovery of Australia they found black Swans.
Now a true sentence would be: Swans can be black or white.

>>1296412
Sorry, Tarski, but you've been dead for over 20 years. It's thus required by law that the post-grad community dedicate itself to finding a way to disagree with you.

> temporary pagloyd

>>1296453

Popper's falsification theory is an interesting choice for the definition of tautology, but let's go with it/

Thank you for an example of a true statement. I agree that the statement is true. I can think of lots of examples of true statements.

What I don't understand is what makes them true.

>>1296468

>What I don't understand is what makes them true.

cos they correspond to some state of affairs in reality geeeeeeez oblimoron

>>1296468
they are true because they aren't yet falsified (meaning they are replaced by a true sentence). This is more an explanation of how we arrive at scientific results and one of its premises is, that humans are not able to perceive absolute truth. They only try to get as close as possible by ruling out whats not possible to be true.

Of course it completely disregards any sociological factors in the scientific process.

tl;dr True is what can not be called untrue even though there is the possibility it might (falsifiable).

Why waste time with shit like philosophy?

It's silly. Science is much more productive. You can actually learn or determine a fundamental fact about the universe.

The best way to see that your idea is right, and not wrong, is to observe what you're claiming ofter, and to test for any possible situations in which it does not apply.

Critical Thinking is to Science what Theological/Metaphysics is to Critical Thinking.

>>1296919
>Why waste time with shit like philosophy?
I assume it's like masturbation but for your brain.

>philosophy

Fucking sage for pretentious, meaningless bullshit. Get a real job OP.

>>1296473 cos they correspond to some state of affairs in reality

You can't be serious.

>>1296473 they are true because they aren't yet falsified (meaning they are replaced by a true sentence)

Dangerously close to tautology.

>This is more an explanation of how we arrive at scientific results and one of its premises is, that humans are not able to perceive absolute truth.

What about one plus one equaling two?

>>1297282

No oblimo, I lean towards the deflationary

did ya all observe how !!lYVA4YXz75M was driven out of this thread?

>>1297288

Just what is the difference between deflationism and plain ol' reductionism, anyway?

bunch of fags using weird words but not grasping half of them

philo major here, enjoy your onanism, anons