/lit/ - Literature

>>14046224
I'm going to be completely honest: skip philosophy and just read books that you like.

consensus is overrated, especially in philosophy and art

>>14046224
>there's no consensus
That's why you should read philosophy

Eastern philosophy makes you better. Western makes you shrewder.

>>14046224
classical theism was the consensus before modern trends

>>14046224
Consensus and authority can only be a guiding light but truth isn't determined by it, even in science.

>>14046224
I reject the very notion of consensus

>>14046272
these days eastern philosophy makes you either a weed loving hippie or a literal nobody who brainfucks himself into fake satisfaction, and western philosophy just makes you a cynical asshole

>>14046224
Analytic ruined the fun for everyone.

>>14046224
Because there's way too much to understand and no efficient way of getting people to comprehend so much high level abstraction fast enough to get them to understand because philosophy TRANSCENDS ego relations on the surface level of persona roleplay interaction

>>14046497
why is Stirner such a meme, especially in 4chan?

>>14046224
I felt like this but with politics. Skip politics and just read philosophy.

>>14046535
He's fun to meme because his egoist philosophy has an aspect of smug defiance to it. If you're intellectually heinous enough you can boil it down to "fuck you and your systems, I do what I want".

>>14046535
>>14046675
Not to mention he has only one major work which made Marx seethe and write a full polemic document really just shittalking him.

>>14046514
lol not there's not,
>>7439999 >>>/his/7439999

>>14046224
Correction: Eastern philosophy has reached a basic consensus, while Western philosophy hasn’t. This is due to a heap of false premises that Western philosophers accept at face value, without further examination.

>>14046224
>It seems pretty clear from this board that nobody comes out of philosophy better than they were coming in.
Well ... no, but yeah, sure. I know what you mean. I'd say the modern philosophers who people read don't know what they're talking about, with a few exceptions.

Find someone to teach you about NeoPlatonic Excellence; Arete and Ataraxia.

We have better than this today though, or we complimentary things to this in Psychoanalysis. That's your problem, you don't realize that Freud, Arendt and Reich is PhilosophyPlus.

>>14046710
>Eastern philosophy has reached a basic consensus,
very true. The Te is a subject moderner western academics can't wrap their minds around, perhaps it's the religious framework we have about it in our culture.

>>14046710
What is eastern philosophy's consensus, 'non-duality'?

>>14046780
Yes, which on its own is enough to narrow the number of possible conclusions.

>>14046224
Derrida already solved it

>>14046690
Is Marx's polemic considered seething or more of a strong intellectual challenge or rebuttal of Stirner's work?

>>14046842
>Is Marx's polemic considered seething or-
Yes

>>14046842
It honestly wasnt all that seething, it was just a meme started by anarchists when they used to post on /lit/.
Marx's criticism of him was mainly that his philosophy lacked revolutionary potential and would invite complacency, other than that Marx wasnt buttblasted about it

>>14046842
>>14046916
It's good to note that Stirner despite the meme he is, was the main reason Marx avoided an appeal to moral arguments in his philosophy.

>>14046693
>Once you've come to that you've achieved Ataraxia; suspension of prejudicial judgment and you've learned to detach from opinion and think only in logic.
Disgusting. The bane of all positivism has been and always will be anthropocentric philosophies of language. We will never stop projecting intelligent design, we do it when we're toddlers and it isn't due to the parents either, it'll be ok anon

>>14046535
His work was so extremist there was nowhere to go beyond it. He represents an endpoint most people cannot bear to reach so accepting him naturally grants one an air of superiority to lord over lesser beings.
It makes more sense for old 4chan when matters of taste held far more significance than today and conformity was far more shunned. Again, his philosophy is a symbol of both; he himself is really just a symbol for Der Einzige.

>>14047089
>The bane of all positivism has been and always will be anthropocentric philosophies of language. We will never stop projecting intelligent design, we do it when we're toddlers and it isn't due to the parents either,
What're you saying here? Hard to tell whether you're agreeing with me or vehemently disagreeing with me. Oh the fun of Language!

Assuming you're championing the contrary; that Arete and Ataraxia; Excellence and Moderation, are 'not' the point of humanism and philosophy (are you?) because we think reactively and extremely bent toward bias when we're toddlers,
>we (all think this way) when we're toddlers
but we grow up. i.e. the teletubbies ceases to grip your imagination to you at age 4 or 5, cable news at age 10 for instance; the lower the bar the faster and faster we abandon these hokey toddler-aimed things.

> intelligent design, we do it when we're toddlers and it isn't due to the parents either,
As infants we look around in wonder, that's to be expected since it's all new to us. It only takes to the age of 12 or 13 for that to wear off and the tedium to set in.

Wait ... what has this got to do with Ataraxia?

>>14047316
>His work was so extremist there was nowhere to go beyond it.
Haha I just wiki'd him,

He's ... almost every 17 yr old you meet who's read Nietzsche and taken it grimly seriously.

>He represents an endpoint most people cannot bear to reach so accepting him naturally grants one an air of superiority to lord over lesser beings.
Strongly disagree. He's actually way inferior since he thinks other people are unknowable; it's solipsism verbatim. He's the western world today, just without the Pervitin that we have.

>>14047332
>He's ... almost every 17 yr old you meet who's read Nietzsche and taken it grimly seriously.
That's a grossly ignorant assessment, but Wikipedia won't lead one anywhere else.
I recommend pic related, The Nihilistic Egoist Max Stirner by R.W.K. Paterson, as well as Roots of the Right's introductory essay on their reprint of The Ego and Its Own. They explain very well what egoism actually is, which is difficult for most people to really comprehend.
It's actually a very mature viewpoint, and arguably more dignified than Judeo-Christian-inspired moralizing and hypothesizing. Stirner even talks about practical politics and gives way too many examples that illustrate how egoism works and how non-egoism is fallacious.
But like I said, see if your library has either of those two analytical works and they'll make him clear.
>Strongly disagree. He's actually way inferior since he thinks other people are unknowable; it's solipsism verbatim.
He's unconcerned with others, but this doesn't even respond to what I was insinuating.

>>14047332
Other people truly are unknowable. No matter how well you know someone you cannot know them as you know yourself. We are distinct beings, with different comprehensions of the world and the things in it. No matter how well you know someone, there is no way to perceive things from any other perspective than that of your own.

>>14047345
Even in that sense though you're essentially telling me that you do in fact 'know' everybody; i.e. you've discerned what they are. I would ask next, what matter if you don't know their favorite flavor of ... prophylactic ... if you've pinned them down from twenty other angles already, like a Lilliputian, they're spread eagled. Doesn't matter very much about their pet likes and dislikes after that.

>>14047338
>That's a grossly ignorant assessment, but Wikipedia won't lead one anywhere else.
Probably, yes. I'm wary of people from that place in time. It's pre-Freud who really made sense of a lot of the gripes these guys were tying themselves in knots over.

>It's actually a very mature viewpoint, and arguably more dignified than Judeo-Christian-inspired moralizing and hypothesizing.
Anything is lol

>He's unconcerned with others,
That's healthier then, as solipsism is more akin to bewilderment; one can know people/society deeply and be unconcerned about them. Like a lion watching a mouse or a duck or a pig.

Stirner was just Engels shitposting anyway

>>14046224
>he needs a consensus for philosophy

you are so far from what is essential

>>14046842
It consists bunch of vague 'negative' sentiments regarding Saint Max himself, as well as a marxist rebuttal of Stirner's view on the historical man, as well as some other things I can't remember. It's on the anarchist library if you wanna read it.

>>14047325
>What're you saying here?
Teleology is an innate subjective impulse of humans and will never escape language so that we can all become autonomous logic spewing bots

I read a scientific study about the toddlers. It's clear to me from this that either God exists or we project higher metaphysical truths from ourSelves and I personally lean toward the latter. It's an innate part of humanity, not a bias we grow up to learn and fall prey to, unlike your Civilization aimed NPCism.

>>14046499
The former sounds better than the latter.

>>14046535
Because lazy dilettantes like philosophy that comes pre-packaged with formulas for producing "hot-takes"

Because it’s interesting and increases your critical thinking capabilities

>>14046224
Protip: philosophy isn't worth wasting your time on

>>14046224
Well, yes, but I would think then you could not be self assured in any of your moral or politica or social values. You would have to remain silent on a topic as I was because I could not defend why I wanted things to happen or how I saw things.

Although there is no concensous, Philo at least gives you a framework to rationalize what you think is right/wrong, real/not real, relivent/not relivent.

If you are a complete amoralist I would say yah, you can skip philo, (Though even then there are some interesting figures like Stirner you could get stuff out off).

If you have a hyper sense of ambivilance I applaud you.