/lit/ - Literature

>>13419856
The "math field" you describe could be totally dealt with by defining a function that bijects any object in the set of objects that have value to an interval of the real numbers

This is literally baby's-first-set-theory-tier

It also smells like you have a really serious agenda, not to mention that "intrinsic value" is totally ridiculous as a concept

>>13419872
It's just for fun.

Yeah I'm open to sets, I'm just against using numbers as they are in a pluralistic interpretation but I'm not sure howtoreplacd them with something more monist (like colors?).

What do you dislike about intrinsic values? What do you call an object apple being an object apple?

>>13419882
What do you mean by pluralist and monist with numbers? Do you mean they shouldn't be reducible to each other through arithmetical operations?

We're using the term "value" differently. You must mean something like "characteristic" or "quality". No, there's no reason to believe that object distinctions are directly tied to objects themselves.

lit can't even agree on materialism vs non-materialism. there is no coherent lit philosophy. there is only a collective of personal philosophies.

>>13419919
Most of us are actually Guenonian traditionalists who realize that spiritual metaphysics alone can reach the highest plane of knowledge above philosophy but we still engage in the charade of pretending to like it to fool new people to the board

>>13419914
So I don't like the pluralism that comes with individualism subjectivity etc. Thus I don't like 9 being such a separate concept from 3, for example (or even an imaginary number from a cardinal). I think there should be one thing that makes a number a number and it is expressed through hierarchy, perhaps like dots or something that pythagoras used to tell what a square is or cube. A number as we have it just doesn't lend itself to the intuitionism of math. Plus godel showed our math system has contradictions even if coherent systems work within it.

Yeah we might be, I definitely mean quality or nature.
Can you give an example where a distinction is entirely divorced from the object?

>>13419929
Well I'm assuming mysticism must be representable in philosophy even if it's not the end goal (which I agree with)

>>13419919
Yesh we can. Matter exists immaterial is divine

>>13419856
Hey /lit/ I'm intentionally poorly read, because I believe that abstracting reality through language to understand it is an oxymoron.

Ironically, after a lot of pestering by people close to me I'm writing a book on my philosophies.

Just wanted to let you guys know I exist.

>>13419949
Very cool keep doing your thing bro

>>13419949
>abstracting through reality is bad
>writing a book on my perspective on reality

>>13419957
Abstracting reality through language*
Typo

>>13419949
Wittgenstein already did this.

>>13419957
If you disagree with my contradictions made necessary by my existence, how can you justify your own?
Accept what's in front of you brosef.

>>13419955
Hey thanks man.

>>13419965
I really doubt he wrote my book for me.

>>13419971
Care to share tidbits of your thoughts?

>>13419971
Sure, he didn't literally write your book. Whatever you write will be simply restating Wittgensteinian thought in 2019 language. Congrats.

>>13419970
I don't disagree with your contradictions, you find it futile to read because it's abstraction of reality through language yet you are doing the same in your book

>>13419989
This, there clearly is an intrinsic value to language

>>13419992
No, it's not clear. The idea that it can be totally worthless and we would still participate in it is not contradictionary.

>>13419981
>care to gush about your favorite topic?
Sure, the book starts with some basic tenets I ask the reader to entertain to enjoy the rest of the book:
>Conceptualization of reality reduces it. Understanding how we each misinterpret our world will allow us to manually correct for it.
>All events in time happen simultaneously. It’s only conceptualization of these events that is separate.
>Our minds are not superimposed over reality, they exist within it, and should be counted among the rocks and dirt as universal mass.
>Life-and-reality is The Answer.
I'm basically translating from a perspective of an absence of language, so it's a bit awkward.
No bully.

>>13419988
That's quite an assumption, anon.

>>13419989
Your reasoning is understandable but incorrect.
My entire philosophy was developed as much as possible outside of all language and conceptualization.
The contradiction is only present because we are using language now, outside language my actual two ideologies are not in conflict.

>>13419992
For sure, it's a tool for communication.
But for the philosophical hobbyist it reduces your perspective to preconceived notions.
If you intend to tell anyone it makes sense to think in language, if you don't it just fucks you up.

>>13420034
Your attempt at communicating that I was making an assumption was just an abstraction of my attempt of abstracting your thought thus an even bigger assumption.

>>13420052
I believe you are necessary and a part of myself anon.
If I could help you feel for a moment the way I feel all the time I would gladly do so.
You can't imagine the pain of the pure empathy I feel for all things at all times.
Your mocking hurts me because I know we're cut from the same cloth.

>>13419856
Why is it always such a cringefest when amateurs who don't have the slightest clue about philosophical vocabulary, schools and traditions try to philosophize?

>>13420059
hurt feelings is a bad argument.

>>13419856
>We've created a philosophy guide (which should be edited a bit)
where may i find this guide?

>>13420034
>topics
Well I agree about this I just don't understand what you use as an anchor for reality if you dislike language, I'm assuming you can't use physics or any derivative of language

>>13420106
Google lit philosophy guide

Bump

>>13420034
>My entire philosophy was developed as much as possible outside of all language and conceptualization.

So you don't deny the value of language right? Still begs the question, why should we read your book and not any others? And is "experience of reality" obscured by books? It's impossible to purely experience reality, it's not line you live on an island. I doubt abstinence from books will help your philosophy, sorry anon.

Would still read though

>>13419856
Are you open to or opposed to learning more about philosophy work that's been done in the academy the past century and a half? I think there's a lot that you would benefit from. But it takes a lot of time to learn all that stuff. Majoring and going to grad school is ideally supposed to help you get better pointers. You also have to do a lot of on-the-side research. Many people on /lit/ hate academic philosophy but you should visualize it as a big compendium of writing by people bouncing off each other the past hundred years. The sheer scale of the project (temporal as well as in terms of participants) means many, many ideas have been conceived and talked about already, and people on the sidelines don't know them and end up recreating the wheel at their best. People on /lit/ take easily-available books (including philosophy books) seriously enough, but not lesser-known academic literature, oh well. Point being, your own philosophical system will maybe turn out shallow or naive if you develop it at present. As for a /lit/ philosophy pooled from out of all of us, I would be more up for that if it weren't for the awful over-representation of bad ideas and dumb opinions that many pseuds on /lit/ have.

>>13420426
basically you're saying just read SEP and work from there?

>>13420432
If you have to start somewhere, SEP would be a resource for sure.

>>13420524
What other resources do you recommend?

>>13419882
You are open to sets ok but are you open to open sets?

>>13420524
IEP is also good, and a little easier to read for philosophy scrubs

>>13419856
Objectivism reporting in

>>13420573
she was a parasite

>>13420531
For starters it's worth getting a good grip on surface-level history of philosophy, since mostly anything else will piggyback off that kind of stuff. Then just never stop learning and aim for the sub-surface content. Become an excavator of philosophical literature, read what nobody on /lit/ reads. That includes books and journal articles. Taking higher-level classes as a major/grad student also helps because it gives exposure to literature and dialogue that you wouldn't have easily stumbled upon otherwise.

>>13420554
IEP is of lesser quality than SEP.

>>13420554
>>13420596
IEP is fine. SEP is very technical, IEP is usually easier to digest. You're not going to go to hell for using IEP now and then. Also, sometimes SEP doesn't cover things but IEP does, so it's what you've got. But SEP is in fact better.

>>13420034
It sounds like what you're developing is a brand of mysticism and not philosophy. The assertion that reality cannot be understood through language is basically a mystic tenent. Philosophy is virtually always viewed as a discursive activity, taking place within language.

The problem is that a mystic could not convince a philosopher of anything since they are not even playing the same game. A philosopher is not going to accept following gestures or mystical "looking" as a means of proving anything.

And, of course, coherentist philosophers are just going to say that your philosophy is based on the manner in which you conceive of reality. You could avoid that by pleading mysticism, but then you aren't playing the philosophy game anymore.

You could try and be a non-doxastic foundationalist, and say that the foundation of your philosophy is based in the self-evidence of experience, but given the claims you are making, that looks like an implausible avenue. Foundationalists usually endorse very modest beliefs as enjoying non-doxastic justification, such as "I am thinking", "I am appeared to redly", etc.

>>13420548

undergraaaaaaaaaaaaaaads!!!!!

>>13420574
>You know your critics are desperate when they accuse you of hypocrisy without bothering to investigate your stated principles. The desperation is especially palpable if you’ve explained how those principles apply to the very action you’re being criticized for.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/The-Myth-about-Ayn-Rand-and-Social-Security

>>13420632
No, what that anon is saying is actually quite certainly philosophical, it's just embryonic compared to the complexity of advanced philosophy. It's also been said by actual philosophers several times. For example: Kant would say that you can't access noumenal reality, that when you apply concepts to intuitions you are constructing a world which is separate from the reality that offers (via representation) the sensuous matter for your intuition of objects. Since Kant that's been repeated over and over by all sorts of people in both analytic and continental philosophy. The bit about conceptualization putting events into temporal order is also quasi-Kantian, Kant says we order everything according to the forms of intuition of which one is time, but no such thing exists for the noumenal world. The next bit about minds existing within reality and counted among everything else may be what everyone already sort of endorses, but it reminds me especially of the emphasis on a flat ontology from people like the speculative realists. Does that mean all philosophers agree with anon? No, I don't buy the quasi-Kantian linguistic idealism too much, much less the thing about time., but that doesn't mean those ideas aren't philosophical when they're more than well-represented in philosophy.

>>13420725
>when you apply concepts to intuitions
opinion disregarded

>>13420733
For Kant intuitions are of objects, and it's not improper to call the intuitions-of-objects intuitions for short. You think the object through concepts. You subsume the object under concepts.

>>13420753
>when you apply concepts to intuitions
read what you just wrote and compare it with the phrase above
>For Kant intuitions are of objects
no

>>13420725
Well it depends on the way you read Kant. If Kant is saying that the noumenal cannot be subsumed under any concepts whatsoever, then he's fallen into making a basically mystical claim which, from the philosophical point of view, has to be counted as nonsense. There are more modest readings of Kant, where the noumenal can be thought of in a limited way. You can even read him as not trying to say anything about some "realm", and rather as just saying that the world conceived absolutely, apart from the conditions of possible experience, is just nonsense.

Also, you could look to the Tractatus. Wittgenstein cleanly separates the project of philosophy, which he conceives of as the analysis of language (how molecular statements are built up from atomic statements - he thinks via double-negation/N-operator), from the mystical - "whereof one cannot speak".

>>13420765
>In whatever manner and by whatever means a mode of knowledge may relate to objects, intuition is that through which it is in immediate relation to them, and from which all thought gains its material. But intuition takes place only in so far as the object is given to us ... Objects are given to us by means of sensibility, and it alone yields us intuitions; they are thought through the understanding, and from the understanding arise concepts.
>An objective perception is knowledge (cognitio). This is either intuition or concept (intuitus vel cocneptus). The former relates immediately to the object and is single, the latter refers to it mediately by means of a feature which several things may have in common.
Why don't you say what your problem is?

>>13419856
>a lit philosophy
literally one of the most cringe posts os a long time

>>13420782
Wittgenstein had a polemical notion of what philosophy proper should be, and that required him to dismiss a lot of genuine philosophical work, as reckoned by philosophers, as "mysticism." We don't need to accept Wittgenstein's opinions as canonical expressions of what the field itself neutrally thinks philosophy is. In the most neutral sense, of course Kant's "mystical" views and plenty Wittgensteinian "nonsense" are philosophy. I happen to strongly disagree with Wittgenstein myself, but putting aside our differences, you have to be neutral when saying what is or isn't philosophy. Speaking neutrally, philosophy is more or less a matter of quality and method and an academic community (with some engagement with amateurs also) that has its heritage reaching to Thales, and not of whether Wittgenstein thinks you're doing meaningless metaphysics.

>>13419929
kek

>>13420765
>>13420811
Kant believed in pure intuitions which were a priori, alongside emperical intuitions of objects, so you are both wrong

>>13420849
Not wrong, just restricting my domain to empirical intuitions. Don't know about the other anon.

>>13420836
Well the point didn't hinge on what Wittgenstein takes to fall under the heading "whereof one cannot speak", just that such things couldn't be the proper object of philosophy.

>>13420929
But I am telling you that's not very neutral. It's very polemical and clearly intended to dismiss a lot of bona fide philosophy as "mysticism." You can be very sophisticated in your reasoning and engage the philosophical tradition thoroughly and even have a PhD and be a professor at a top 50 university, but if you do something like contemporary metaphysics, then according to your view that's mysticism not philosophy. See how that's not at all neutral and quite polemical? There's actual non-philosophical mysticism out there, crap that misleads pseuds, lacking intellectual rigor. Kant isn't like that.

>>13420974
How is contemporary metaphysics mystical? They are clearly thinking using concepts.

>>13421343
Exactly my point. Contemporary metaphysics isn't mysticism, they're thinking using concepts, it's rigorous work, it's part of the longer tradition stretching back to Thales, and very sophisticated and intelligent. Actual mysticism by pseuds is completely different.

>>13422293
Right but I'm talking about mysticism in the sense of the notion that reality is not capturable in language, which seems to exclude it from the traditional notion of philosophy.

>>13419988
Sounds like an interesting pulp sci-fi.
Famous historical figure travels into the future and steals anon's book.