/lit/ - Literature

I don't understand that outlook. Life is fucking boring and gay. It's filled with normalfags who would eat spoonfuls of sugar 24 hours a day for 50 years and then die. If you're an unconscious sugar consumer, you are, and you don't need to ask this question. But if you have had even a glimmer of what philosophy is, how can you even ask the question? How can you not want to leave the cave? Truth is truth. The desire for ultimate absolute truth and knowledge of reality seems to me so strong that it's not possible to ignore it, once you've even tasted it. Even if you know the truth must be so big that you will likely never see it yourself, it's still so important that it justifies living your whole life in service to it.

I don't understand how someone could get a taste of that and then think "how is this enhancing my sugar bag consumption."

It’s pretty clear that philosophy is an enormous academic waste, however its wastes are inevitable and ultimately necessary, apparently, for anthropological development.
But yeah I mean, ask someone what Hegel or Kant actually meant. Lol. There are so many concepts filtered through language, technique, experience, that it’s almost meaningless, and when meaning is actually discerned, all that I seem to have actually achieved is the sensation of having arranged these concepts into tight and seemingly clever configurations, though seldom are these lessons actually directing my morals, or instructing my conduct.

Intellectualism in general has a tendency to obscure concepts, and although there are actually interesting explorations that wouldn’t be possible without it, I’m not sure if it’s ultimate value is something to root oneself, or one’s identity in. Philosophically speaking, which great thinker wouldn’t admit that a brisk hike up the mountainside and a rabbit hunt won’t do as much for a man as a lesson in metaphysics.

>>17710344
I don't think life is boring. Isn't studying philosophy because you don't like life just a form of escapism?
I don't enjoy the consumerist lifestyle either, but it's not an either-or situation, and I also realized that part of my interest in philosophy — not all of it, not even most of it, but a part — was unconsciously motivated by a prideful sense of superiority, the idea that I'd be discovering truths the other dumb NPCs don't have because they're asleep, and that mindset seems perverse in hindsight. I'm not more awake now, I'm just more aware of some questions to which I don't have an answer. And what use is there to being obsessed with these questions?
Unless I misunderstood your post, you operate under the assumption that philosophy can really tell us what this ultimate absolute truth and knowledge of reality is. Of course I am attracted to such a prospect, but whereas you say philosophy leads to it, I remain unconvinced by this when I stop for a moment to actually take in the feeling of existence or whatever you want to call it.

It’s useful when you get down to the nitty gritty hard truths of reality which dictate a sort of rigid functionalism that can only be accessed through discrete methods of analyzation. Generally though, you should be smart enough to distill the qualifications required by reality in order to procure a set of truths which are not requisitioned by some halfwit academic who needed a lifetime to say what everyone’s been doing since time memoria.

>>17710331
I just read it for fun desu

>>17710392
I agree, I didn't mean to say philosophy as a whole was useless, just that some of its developments lead to a loop of metaphysical questioning that seems quite pointless to me.
As you say, living life does as much for me (more, in fact) than shutting everything out to question its nature.

>>17710331
You either do philosophy well or badly, but everyone is necessarily committed to philosophical engagement by virtue of being alive. Even deciding that we're inherently limited and biased is a philosophically contentious position. I'm not saying its wrong, but it is a claim. If you develop that out and really work through the implications of it, you might arrive at something like Hume or Pyrrho. Thats really whats going on with philosophy. Simple thoughts given their proper due, taken to their full flowering, which maybe turn out to be less simple than anyone realized before that.

>Reality itself is such a strange thing, why not just go with that?
I mean, yeah, but then what?

>>17710331
Philosophy has utility in that it attempts to pick up where materialistic science drops the ball. Pure science is concerned with nothing more than discovery and understanding. Philosophy is the same way, but it works under a different set of presuppositions. Science is a very useful framework for dealing with phenomena, but it takes on a near-religious quality as we march onwards through history. It is—essentially—just the dominant ontological framework of the West, and its underlying assumption is that because phenomena A is known and understood (let's dodge the entire field of epistemology here) and phenomenon B is understood to have a relationship with A, then for any similarly related phenomena X and Y, if X is understood then Y must be knowable based on its observable qualities and relationship with X. It's inductive logic. Even if there are deductions within its framework, the foundations are just as rotten as the often-criticized inductive nature of much of philosophy.

The unchecked materialistic tendencies of scientism ironically set science up for the intrusions of genuine unknowables. We are, notably, already running into some of these in QM. At this juncture, science self-refutes its own assumptions and gives philosophy a place at the table. We're all just trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.

>>17710472
Philosophy is necessary and inevitable, but that doesn't really say anything about its legitimacy as a way to uncover truths — and yes, I'm aware this is a philosophical position too. But that's my point. You're always going to have those thoughts and those questions and it's probably fair to assume the answers won't follow. By developing these thoughts, "taking them to their full flowering" as you say, you're merely complexifying things. It's interesting, as a lot of fields of study are, but I am saying that going in there expecting answers has personally led me to become disgruntled, so I think it's good to retain a level of distance from the thoughts you entertain. Philosophy seems more all-encompassing than other fields, which makes it easier to fall for the mistaken assumption that it does encompass everything. In the end though, it's a field of study made by our fallible minds and it appears unwise to treat it as the key to the mysteries of existence.
>then what?
Then you live life. Should this thought be analyzed further? I don't mean to drift into anti-intellectualism, but philosophy gives you the habit of questioning everything and developing every insight as much as you logically can, but maybe that's not always necessary.

>>17710438
yeah absolutely.
academia insists upon itself. and for what? practice, maybe.
a hike up the mountain provides us with more than it incurred.

>>17710331
i was just rereading seneca and he echoes this same sentiment in one of the letters. that true philosophy is "counsel," not word thinking

>>17710532
If we understand that science is not perfect, it should follow that it is also unreasonable to expect philosophy to shed light on everything. As I said, it's harder to accept because these very observations are themselves included in and encompassed by philosophy. But I think philosophy is just the ultimate tool our rational mind affords us. We can never escape it as long as we ask questions and expect logical answers, but that doesn't mean nothing can.

>>17710344
>Truth is truth. The desire for ultimate absolute truth and knowledge of reality seems to me so strong that it's not possible to ignore it, once you've even tasted it.
You're presupposing that complex semantic games are a straight avenue to universal truth, i think some reflection will show this not to be the case, unless you have some very significant revelations to share with us

>>17710331
>>17710392
>>17710419
>>17710438
>>17710532
>>17710534
>Zoinks! Look out Scoobs! Philosophical zombies!
>Ruh-Roh, Shaggy!

>>17710534
>that doesn't really say anything about its legitimacy as a way to uncover truths
What is the alternative? Relying on empirical observations, for example, is a modern conceit, and reflects a series of starting premises that we've stopped noticing or questioning, rather than a more natural basis for epistemology. I'm not quite sure what your point is with this.

>going in there expecting answers has personally led me to become disgruntled,
That sounds like a problem with your expectations more than the field itself. Also, plenty of philosophers propose answers, but it sound like they weren't satisfying to you. If not, why is this the case? What is it you didn't like? Figuring out why you disagree with things can be every bit as enlightening as reading thing you agree with.

>In the end though, it's a field of study made by our fallible minds and it appears unwise to treat it as the key to the mysteries of existence
Its not nearly as esoteric as all that. Its thinking about thinking, and learning to think well. How this looks and functions is entirely up to you, whether its apprehending some kind of divine truth or recognizing our flawed limitations.

>Then you live life.
This doesn't say much. Living life seems inextricable from some kind of self-interpretive or at least deliberative process, unless you're a master monk or drooling halfwit. Everyone is out there "living life" but I think we can agree that some people seem to be doing better than others. Not financially or socially or anything like that, but some people seem more capable in their own skin and less prone to bad life decisions than others. Why is this? If it was as simple as just living life, I don't think we'd see these types of qualitative differences in life paths quite so distinctly. Clearly there is something more to be said on the issue, and unless you're committed to a stance that humans are dopamine machines made out of meat, I don't think that the answer can be found in anatomy or clinical psychology or neuroscience. Sociology offers a similarly mechanistic picture, but from the outside rather than from within. Even deciding what angle to approach the human question from is necessarily a statement of philosophical commitment. Living life is a vague truism, at best, without some kind of shading and valuation.

>>17710616
Criticizing philosophy makes one a p-zombie? Makes no sense.

>>17710331
Study what philosophically intrigues you.
As you go about life, and enter into discussions or new idea streams, then you may find yourself wanting to explore what philosophy has to say on the matter.
By narrowing it down to what interests you you can focus on what is personally meaningful, its easier to ignore philosophical wastelands, because there may be much in philosophy and certain philosophers that could deserve to remain irrelevant and ignored.

>>17710618
>What is the alternative?
For me it's understanding that Reason is a paradox machine when you dig too far into it, that Mind is an illusion created by our capacity for language, and that true peace is found in Being rather than Knowing

>>17710621
>Criticizing philosophy makes one a p-zombie? Makes no sense.

>>17710637
You're exactly what I describe in >>17710419. I hope you snap out of it, it's obnoxious

>>17710637
Canned response, NPC

>>17710644
>There are diseases today for which there is no cure, so the entire field of medicine is defunct.
>what's the use of curing these diseases anyhow? Just live, my dude!

>>17710618
>What is the alternative?
I don't think there is one, as I said in >>17710570. Philosophy is the best thing we have but this does not mean it's the best thing period, and thinking we can rely on it for everything is also conceited.
>plenty of philosophers propose answers, but it sound like they weren't satisfying to you
They weren't satisfying for the reasons I gave previously. This is a problem with my expectations, that's true, since it was very stupid of me to look for answers in philosophy considering my position.
It all just ties back to what I said in the OP, and what another anon has pointed out. It isn't so much that I disagreed with what I read. Yes, the provided model could be right, but there is really no way to confirm it and the possibility that it is completely wrong remains. There are several equally interesting theories of mind or ontologies that just eventually lead me to shrug and move on because I think "sure, maybe they're right, but it all fundamentally boils down to conjecture".
As I reread what I just wrote, my impression is that it's a Joe Rogan-tier platitude (dude maybe everyone's wrong and everything is so much more bizarre than it seems lmao) but even after admitting this, my position doesn't change. As dumb as it probably is to just handwave philosophy like this, it makes sense in my mind.
>Its thinking about thinking, and learning to think well.
This is not the aspect of philosophy I am arguing against. As I said in the OP, many branches of philosophy are obviously useful and even practically useful. Where I start getting doubts is when it gets into the speculative abstractions of metaphysics and ontology.
>This doesn't say much.
Just as I said above, at that point you're looking to adopt a proper philosophy of life that can help you live in a way you consider to be good. I am not saying you should just exist and let yourself be bashed around by the currents like a ragdoll. But adopting a philosophy for how you live your life does not require insight into what life actually is, why it is, and so on.

>>17710633
Books on this? Western preferably

>>17710724
>>17710708
isn't this just what Kant was trying to get at?

>>17710331
Philosophy is to make you realize how little you actually know. This can be done by reading Plato, and see how Socrates can make all these faggots so certain of their knowledge seem like retards.
Then comes the process of structuring what we can actually know as fact, which is the entire project of philosophy after Plato. Without philosophy you could be made to believe literally anything because you wouldn't question whatever you have been taught.

>>17710768
Are you saying the goal of philosophy is not to reach truths, but to become skeptical of what is presented to be true?

>>17710708
You are a nihilist. When will you be killing yourself?

>>17710780
Why do you say that?

>>17710782
Calling everything mere conjecture is the cornerstone of nihilism.

>>17710794
What if you call conjecture "mere conjecture"? I would conjecture that this statement of conjecture could be dismissed as such, if the discussion took that turn.

>>17710794
Sounds more like fallibilism.

>>17710780
Epistemological nihilism does not imply existential nihilism, much less suicide.

>>17710780
>>17710794
>thats nihilism therefor wrong
Label thinker.

>>17710331
>posts escapist fantasy
>asks whether philosophy is "useful" (bugman word)
oh sheesh, looks like a great and intellectual thread

I can get by that sentiment if you’re doing stuff yourself. Sailing, trekking, camping, and other outdoor activities sustained over long periods of time. But for most people who like philosophy (well, you can even make that most people and my argument won’t change) the alternative is boring office job where you’re constantly under scrutiny by a boss and perform meaningless work just so a company can make a buck off of your sweat.

>>17710772
No, that is the start of philosophy. Learn to read.
At first you need to realize you don't know shit. All your thoughts are not the result of absolute knowledge. This is Socrates main point. Then after Socrates, all of philosophy has been about "If we don't know shit, then how can we know shit" and this is where Plato's forms, Aristotles logic, Descartes cogito ergo sum etc come in, as they all try and argue and reason what can be seen as true or false. Literally all philosophy after Socrates has been about "how can we know something and be certain of it".
If you're not interested in upheaving your own beliefs, then fine live your life. If you want to go beneath the surface and actually know if your thinking is reasonable, then read philosophy and realize how much of what you know is not founded on any kind of sound reasoning. Philosophy is for people interested in examining their lives and questioning their beliefs, not for people who just want to be content doing whatever.

>>17710817
>"useful" (bugman word)
Get outside a bit my friend

>>17710331
I can relate because I'm mostly really fucking tired of -isms
My experience is my own and not anyone else's, it is ineffable by definition
But philosophy probably has an -ism for that exact though too, which makes it even more annoying

>>17710810
If you conjecture that there is no knowledge, how do you expect to derive any sort of meaning from existence?

>>17710849
Why does meaning presuppose knowledge? Faith exists.

>>17710839
I don't think my problem comes from being unwilling to uproot my beliefs because I already know I don't know anything, and I'm reluctant to believe in anything. This is what I've been saying in all my posts ITT. I don't pretend to have knowledge, and I am skeptical of the idea that my reasoning is worth anything.

>>17710884
Then you are doing philosophy. I think you're taking this position of yours for granted, considering 2000 years ago people literally believed the God's were the cause of everything. You're probably doing philosophy everyday when considering different stances, weighing different options using logic to try and predict the outcome of your actions. If you want to develop these skills, and actually have consistent reasoning for your beliefs, then you must read philosophy. Else most of your beliefs will be random happenstance, as most people have no consistency in their in their opinions unless they are thoroughly aware of the reasoning behind their opinions. To investigate those reasonings is philosophy.

>>17710860
Faith presupposes knowledge.

>>17710794
What's the difference with skepticism?

>>17710897
In my everyday life, my choices are permeated by philosophical reasoning, but as I said here >>17710708, the philosophical views you choose to follow for the sake of living your life in a certain way do not require that you form an opinion on the fundamental questions of existence. This is why I don't understand why you're saying my beliefs are unfounded.

All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?

>>17710331
explain to me this picture.

>>17710984
>All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.
Can you prove this?
Unironically, doesn't this statement refute itself?

>>17711012
Politics are not worth your time

>>17711015
Philosophy is the ultimate pilpul. As soon as you engage a philosopher, if only to tell him he's a faggot, you're already playing his game.

>>17711012
frog turns off the television stress machine to enjoy beauty of simple being

>>17710750
I don't think so

>>17710708
>my impression is that it's a Joe Rogan-tier platitude
It actually is, literally. I remember hearing the exact same thoughts from one of his dude weed podcasts.

>>17711339
Remember which one?
I mean I get the guy isn't very smart but that doesn't mean all he says is automatically nonsense.

>>17711012
frog is happy because local man says n-word

>>17710957
Because then you hold whatever beliefs stumble upon you. It's like being given a bag to carry around, without ever looking what's inside and inspecting its contents. Who knows, it might be filled with rocks you can toss or, or some useful parts you should expand upon and keep.

>>17711421
It's good to examine the contents of the bag and see if you're holding on to anything useless, but that analysis should lead you to a conclusion similar to >>17710984 after which you choose what to keep in the bag based on aesthetic criteria.

>>17711515
>based on aesthetic criteria
Yeah, philosophy is not for you.

>>17711543
Explain what I got wrong please.

>>17710331
Philosophy is the ultimate cope
Whatever you do you're going to die and none of the thinkers you'll have studied will have given you answers on anything. It is a complete waste of time
>but what about living virtuously
Just don't be an asshole, why do philosopher autists need to complicate everything?

>>17711548
If you read Plato and the early socratic dialogues you will immediately see that the whole point for Socrates was to atgue against "aesthetic criteria". Like Euthyphro who argues he is right in accusing his father because it's virtuous and what the gods want. THEN Socrates questioning reveals that knowing what the gods want is impossible as they all want different things, and deciding what is virtuous is also not as easy as it sounds. Basicly he demolishes Euthyphro's a esthetic reasoning with philosophical questioning. That is the essence of philosophy, to examine beliefs and arguments to see their internal consistency and also the reasoning behind them. You can live without doing this, but it would be very much akin to just waking up and either doing whatever you feel like whenever you want to, like shoplifting, buying new shoes because of commercials or hell even raping a random woman as you thought she was hot. Whatever morals or dilemmas you run into where you must debate with yourself what is "right" is an ethical decision and philosophy deals with this. When you must know if something is true or if your are being consistent in your reasoning, then you must do philosophy. If you're making a statement and asks "how can you know this?" or "why?" you must use philosophy to answer. If som you ever wonder the nature or existence of this world, you're pondering metaphysics which is also philosophy. You can live without philosophy, but then you will sort of be stuck on default mode, and never change due to your own philosophical inquiry, your opinion will change depending what you see on the TV or you will simply hold whatever position your feelings tell you is right. Of course you can live like this, but to argue that philosophy is useless is ironically something you need philosophy to prove.

TL:DR a esthetic reasoning is just whatever appears to you first of all the thoughts you could have, and therefore it's pretty much just random what your beliefs and position on things will be. Whatever appeals to your anesthetic sense, might not be what is true, but you need philosophy to find out.

>>17711630
>what is existentialism
Brainlet

>>17710331
Again, what is useful, usefulness to you? Useful is what is common, most prominently goods or processes you require to survive: water and food, value and love, shelter and occupation, these might be most useful if you lack them but entirely irrlevant if you do not: what do you require a second shelter if your current one suffices in all aspects, and how could that shelter be just as useful as the first; though what is common might also what is essentially universially exercisable; that is what you might find joy in as occupation, you require occupation as a person, and philosophy might be something you find joy in--or it might not be so, because you do not find joy in philosophy particularly: there might then be another occupation, you choose to exercise, which provides you with sufficient joy.
It matters little what is useful universially, because universially useful things tend to lose their relative usefulness with time, while more complex useful things do so less. You might simply not be at a point--because there is no definitive 'a point' anywhere--where you want to learn about metaphysics, language and logic, but that point might might come, or not. You finding something (less) useful doesn't make it less useful.
In the end; nothing but fucking and eating, being born and dying is useful: ultimately.

>>17711702
I get why what I said concerning aesthetics was wrong. I have a question though. I'm actually reading Euthyphro right now and as you say, the dialogue is about Euthyphro making claims built on shaky foundations and Socrates demonstrating they're wrong by making Euthyphro contradict himself. The impression I get is that Socrates is just saying Euthyphro is wrong because his views are arbitrary. Socrates never actually gives a definitive answer to the dialogue's problem, hence the aporetic ending. He uses logic to prove Euthyphro is wrong, but shouldn't Socrates first be able to demonstrate all philosophical questions can be examined with logic?
Piety also relates to ethics, and moral philosophy is quite different from metaphysics, ontology and the philosophy of mind in how it is examined and how it involves bias. You could make a case for Socrates' logic being acceptable because logic is used as a benchmark in society, and moral philosophy is concerned with the welfare of society, but what about metaphysics and so on?

And by the way, I've never argued philosophy was useless, I said the most abstract branches of metaphysics, ontology and phenomenology went nowhere. Was the OP post ambiguous? I thought I expressed what I meant clearly but there are a lot of replies ITT claiming I said philosophy as a whole was useless which wasn't my point at all.

Giving yourself the language to think with more depth is never a bad thing. I agree reading about metaphysics won’t help you directly, but indirectly it will.

>>17711037
I don’t understand why this is such a hard thing to realize for the white educated people that make up the majority of this board. I mean, I was the same way, but once I critically asked myself what had actually changed in my life after, say, a presidential election the only non-online thing I could come up with was that there were a couple of protests during the Trump years. Beyond that there was no sign Obama hadn’t continued being president.

>>17710331
>Reality itself is such a strange thing, why not just go with that? Sure, your specific view could be the right one, but if you're honest with yourself you'll have doubts. Our minds are limited and we're inherently biased, so all your ideas that seem to make sense could also be wrong. I'm not advocating for nihilism, but for a more simple way to relate to things.
Francis Bacon talks about this is you want to know a good classification for how we are affected by biases in a general way. But to answer your first question, you'd be surprised what you can learn and know that's seemingly unknowable. The purpose is to broaden your understanding, and often times you find yourself intuitively understanding metaphysical concepts once you gain enough insight into the philosophers of the field. It can also bring you to religion, which can be another source of life and tranquility

>>17711943
>you'd be surprised what you can learn and know that's seemingly unknowable.
What do you mean?

>>17711630
>>but what about living virtuously
>Just don't be an asshole
Are you this stupid? "just don't be an asshole" is so different depending on the person. Different people have different standards of harm. Would I be an asshole for selling heroin? What if the buyer really wants it? you're being and asshole and a retard right now.
>one day we're all gonna die!
>none of the thinkers you'll have studied will have given you answers on anything
Philosophy has given me all the answers I needed. Living with discipline, making a happy and loving home, being a pillar of the community, and working on improvement. How would the 'don't be an asshole' philosophy work when dealing with kids? Are you an asshole to not give kids what they want? spanking kids? What if you disagree with your wife? are you an asshole then? Is she an asshole? What a 6th graders interpretation of philosophy, it's pure leftism

>>17711979
>pure leftism
Direction brain faggots like you aren't any better

>>17711961
Well Im not sure of your thoughts on God, but many philosophers have made proofs for God's existence, and ancient texts often describe things that we initially disregard as impossible, but later turn out to be historically accurate. (great example is the 10 foot white red haired giants you can find on /x/)
My point is that learning about being and these "abstract concepts or phenomenon" start to show patterns, and these patterns can help inform your worldview, and make you more openminded to the world far beyond its material part. Does that make sense? I feel like the red hair giants part came from nowhere, but I was just trying to give a physical example of something that seems fake and lame at the outset and turns out to be true.

>>17712013
>many philosophers have made proofs for God's existence
I've read a basic summary of the five ways and I didn't find them very impressive. The problem that always comes up with these views is that you may think they're infaillible but there's always the possibility that they could be wrong due to an unforeseen factor that eludes your current understaning or even your comprehension altogether.
>the world far beyond its material part
It's not like I put my trust in the physical either. I'm far from being a positivist but I'm not any kind of other "ist" when it comes to metaphysics. The most likely hypothesis to me (but that could be wrong too) is new mysterianism but applied to reality and not just consciousness.

>>17711714
Existentialism crumbles if you aren't bothered by meaning or lack thereof

It's ironic how the cave allegory is in full effect here.

>>17712315
What point are you trying to make?

>>17712315
The only way out of the cave is death.

>>17711349
Found it
youtube.com/watch?v=pSEUmoNqdFg

>>17712402
The presentation is extremely cringe and the popsci stuff is bullshit but I agree with him in essence. His statement that the reality of things could infinitely more complex than what we can even understand seems possible but I've never really heard anyone talk about it. I think what he's trying to say is that there is a strong possibility that all the theories we have could be wrong, and that the inherent strangeness of existence is rarely fully acknowledged, which is basically what I've been saying ITT as well.
>how do you know that knocking on things isn't a dream
Has anyone extended Descartes' dream argument to a priori knowledge?

>>17712094
>but there's always the possibility that they could be wrong due to an unforeseen factor that eludes your current understaning or even your comprehension altogether.
I understand what you're saying, but if you're main point of contention is that "what if a completely unforeseen completely ground-shattering factor outside of comprehension itself that totally changes the rules" then you're really just nitpicking. Occam's Razor anon, the simplest answer (than we can find with the evidence we have) is likely true

>>17712094
>I've read a basic summary of the five ways and I didn't find them very impressive
Wait can you explain this please? I found those proofs to be quite compelling. How can something come from nothing if not from an "unmoved mover" as it were?

>>17712505
>>17712518
Usually when others ask me why I don't agree with positivism, I say that any method of inquiry into the nature of reality is necessarily material, so it makes no sense to assume you would be able to demonstrate the existence of something that eludes the laws of science by using scientific means. A less lousy way of explaining it is that an eye doesn't see itself.
I think it extends to this case, and I don't agree that occam's razor applies. It doesn't need to be a ground-shattering factor as long as you assume that our minds are fallible. I have to leave for a bit but if this post wasn't clear just tell me and I'll try to explain as well as I can later.

>>17710331
Philosophy is whatever you take away from it. For me, it is enjoyable watching common arguments get destroyed like in Hippias Minor and Charmides.

>>17712647
You first part cleared it up for me a bit better, and I'd agree that it seems counterintuitive for the answers to metaphysiclal problems to be explained wholly in physical means (and eye cant see itself yeah)
>It doesn't need to be a ground-shattering factor as long as you assume that our minds are fallible.
I may need this to be expanded, because my issue is just because our minds are fallible doesn't mean we can't solve more existential questions, and that each mind is fallible in the same way. Hypothetically (but this can be said as true about religion) the reason why religious documents are 'so true' is because they incorporate hundreds of people's wisdom, experience, and account of events. They effectively cancel out each other's deficiencies in wisdom (the way I heard it explained was by C.S. Lewis who said would you have a made made by 1 person (you) or 1000 cartographers over time that look at each other's maps and make one big one) Hopefully i'm making my point clear but im just trying to say humans have a small but significant "infallibility" built from thousands of years of trial and error built up. but yeah lol ill hear from you later perhaps

>>17710331
I enjoy being alone but it can get boring fast. Metaphysics help me cope with the boredom of loneliness. Probably once we go back to pre covid I’ll stop caring about metaphysics

>>17712821
I think I get where you're coming from, here's where I disagree
>just because our minds are fallible doesn't mean we can't solve more existential questions
You run into the same "eye can't see itself" issue when you try to construct a proper philosophy of mind by using the mind, or to have a system of metaphysics that reflects the fundemental nature of reality when you cannot even take a step back from said reality.
>they incorporate hundreds of people's wisdom, experience, and account of events
The issue here is that there is absolutely no way to know what our biases are, let alone a way to know if our biases can even be eliminated just by increasing the population size. I would say definitely not, because the human mind remains limited in similar ways no matter what. If you ask one person to imagine a color outside of the visible spectrum, you'll get the same result than if you ask ten thousand people: nothing.
Donald Hoffman makes a good argument for this even if I don't like the evopsych approach and apparently his methodology isn't the best.
Therefore, I don't think humans are infallible when it comes to fields that deal with such elusive things as the nature of existence or the nature of our own mind. In those cases, we are the eye trying to observe itself, so there is a significant bias, a grey area that makes it impossible to test our theories and even make proper observations. How could you know the true, fundemental nature of reality if you can't even observe reality from afar? Not to pile up the shitty metaphors, but a fish couldn't comprehend air exists before jumping out of its water environment. Similarly, we could be overlooking something fundamdental because we cannot "jump out" of reality.

>>17712928
>we cannot "jump out" of reality.
I would agree with this but apparently people that take DMT or even acid say that it has that ability. As for the rest of what you said, I understand what you're getting as, especially with the light metaphor, but think of the fact that we have made tools that have allowed us to detect those other parts of the light spectrum (night vision goggles, learning about the effects of tanning beds, the lights used to grow plants, etc.) Or even think of the fact that in math we are able to prove extra dimensions past the 3rd. Anything that "matters" to us as humans would means its acting on us or through us (physical things, UV light, radiation, time, God, the Devil, dimensions etc.). If there is some alien metaphysical being that has great power, but never interacts with us in any way, or affects how we live and exist, than does its existence matter to us? Is it really a "bias" or proof that "our minds will always be fallible"? Id say no. All that needs to concern humans regarding a metaphysical framework is the things that can impact it. You may say that some bigger metaphysical thing can affect us indirectly, but in that case we would only need to be concerned with that final effect that it has, and how to work with/around it. (which is often the case for religions, whose goals is to understand how to live in such a way as to be secure in the afterlife) The human mind has the ability to solve every problem it needs to.

>>17713821
>people that take DMT or even acid say that it has that ability.
I've heard people say that the things they see on DMT feel more real than reality, or make this reality feel like a dream. Sure, why not, but since these people often can't really describe what they saw aside from some aesthetic details, and don't seem to get any philosophical insights, it doesn't help.
>Anything that "matters" to us as humans would means its acting on us or through us
Yes, but that doesn't mean we can understand it. You talk about higher dimensions, it's kind of a dumb popsci example but if a hypercube passed through our three-dimensional plane, we'd see a cube. Similarly, if you presented two-dimensional beings a cube, they'd see a square. See what I mean? We may identify causes but fail to understand the big picture, and there's absolutely no way to know unless we manage to jump out of reality as said previously, which we haven't managed to do so far.
You're right, if something doesn't affect us directly, it needn't be considered, but that means you're potentially overlooking a lot of things (and there's really nothing you can do about that, you just have to accept it).
I don't know about the afterlife. I don't think it's like how religions depict it, either heaven or reincarnation, but that's just my personal belief and not a reasoned philosophical position. I just extrapolate from my idea that we're not seeing the big picture in this life that we're probably not even close to seeing it regarding what happens after this life.

the Chad eastern phil living praxis buddhist wins again. have your masturbatory wikipedia reading intellectual puzzles improved your life?

>>17713945
What? Buddhism has an enormous scriptural canon, and the amount of painfully autistic debates on this board between advaitins and buddhists really don't make a good case for your praxis.

>>17710344
you are a jaded 16 year old and will stop hating mommy and daddy one day. probably the same day you throw all the metaphysics in the trash when you realize life is all we have and you wasted it moping about how someone fucked your oneitis in high school or something and projected your own failures on the rest of the world. your autistic fixation on sugar is really all one needs to see to write off all your opinions. how does that factor into your ontology?

>>17714011
>you throw all the metaphysics in the trash
I'd like to do that but it would feel like a cope.

>>17714018
Retard

>>17710331
It's not, everything else not less so. To realize this is the point of philosophy.

>>17710331
Abstract philosophy is not really useful. Some normal "abstract" stuff is fine; what is the grounding for ethics, does god exist, what is the nature of the laws of nature. those questions are cool, and can be talked about reasonably. most modern stuff is just retarded though.

>>17713883
Ive had a good time discussing with you, but at this point I'd have to know more about your personal life to understand our fundamental differences. I get where you're coming from in large part, a have a friend who shares similar opinions, but I think since your a good faith guy, the only thing I could offer to help is just read more. I usually just give my own "wisdom" if you can call it that, and more answers from general principles. In your case, I think you do the same but come up w different stuff cuz you have different stuff you've read. If you don't "get" the deal w religion, or
> but that means you're potentially overlooking a lot of things (and there's really nothing you can do about that, you just have to accept it).
I just have a huge issue with the word "potentially" overlooking. You could be right, but I just find it hard to believe that after all the different philosophers who dedicated their lives to these ideas, that they "overlooked" something. We could all be potentially not smart enough to ever get the full picture, but to me, "overlook" implies its something very simple yet totally impacts us in a severe way, which I think is (no offense cuz you seem chill and good willed and everything) naïve.
I would just say look more into the people who are most well known in those fields (ontology, stoicism ig, or really ethics in general but stoicism nails it IMO). I don't know who you've read so far, but I would suggest Aristotle, because he gives a lot of fundamental ideas about WHY we exist and some pretty good proofs of how everything has a design and serves a function and stuff.

Bump

>>17716178
I do think personal circumstances play a large part in this. The fact that I've always been prone to derealization surely contributed to shape the way I relate to the reality around me. From our discussion, I get the feeling that you're more grounded than me and can lean more comfortably on rational analysis to figure out how things work. As this thread shows, I personally just tend to doubt everything, with no real exception. I don't think it's because we read different things, since this way of thinking predates my interest in philosophy.
>I just find it hard to believe that after all the different philosophers who dedicated their lives to these ideas, that they "overlooked" something.
Doesn't it come down to faith, then?
Within the system our minds are constrained to, I agree that it's very unlikely for the past millenia of philosophy to have missed something. But again, this assumes the system is all-encompassing. Of course if there's something outside our perception that doesn't impact us, surely everyone's missed it, but as you said, it wouldn't matter. However it's not out of the realm of possibility that something that does impact us has been overlooked because it simply cannot be perceived by us in our current state. There are a bunch of half-assed analogies I could make to illustrate the point but you're probably getting tired of those.
In the end, I think we just operate on very different fundamental assumptions.
>stoicism
>ethics
Aren't we mostly arguing about meta-ontology here?

>>17711012
>AAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
>ahhhh

>>17712315
>t. read cave allegory yesterday and now bases his whole worldview around it

>>17719007
kek I know a guy who did exactly that, he can't shut the fuck up about how we're in the matrix now

The real question for me is, do you actually get anything out of reading - especially 20th century - philosophers instead of just absorbing their main points from various sources?
I feel like I learned more about Being & Time by reading wikipedia articles, Critchley's 8 part blog series, and a few youtube videos, than by actually slogging through the book.

>>17719007
what worldview? It's a reference to op's retarded point

>>17719296
Typical pseud.

>>17711988
>didn't answer a single part about what "dont be an asshole" meant
And it is leftism btw, no traditional, cultural conservative person would do any of the things that stem from the "just don't be an asshole" life policy. They would CONSERVE THEIR TRADITONS maintain order in society. It that's "being an asshole" because you tell people they can't drink smoke and fuck while watching porn all day everyday with everyone, then so be it

>>17720973
Jesus christ you are fucking unhinged, stop watching the news it's rotting your brain

>>17710331
God I hate *pu posters

>>17721353
>didn't answer the argument AGAIN
lmao thanks for proving my point, keep seething