/lit/ - Literature

>>18352030
With modern shit you have to know that you do not know everything in the text and its ok.

If you mean early modern like enlightenment then people like anselm - descartes - spinoza - leibniz very much build on each other
Post-modern you have to recognize its ok to now know

>>18352101
Yes im talking from early modern say descartes to german idealism, older texts are read so easily where their work is not always but alot of time dense and incomprehensible to me

>>18352030
Start with the foundational works of the early moderns, maybe focusing on practical philosophy and work your way up to the more complex works that build upon them.

Sample progression:

Descartes Meditations, Spinoza's Ethics, Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Treatises, Rousseau's Discourses, Kant's Groundwork.

Don't move on to the next sentence until you understand what you've read. Look for declarative statements and make sure you see how the premises support the conclusions.

>>18352030
Try to get a grasp on metaphysical structures (foundationalism, reverse foundationalism, progressivism, coherentism etc). It's literally a structure for how you think reality works (foundationalism is a tree, progressivism is the thesis-antithesis-synthesis arrow, coherentism is a chain, etc). Everything would fundamentally look like the structure you believe reality is and a lot of these structures are already apparent in logic, programming, math (for trees). If you ever have doubt to what they're saying check to see how it matches up to the metaphysical structure you've thought and debated about. If it's a good structure then it'll be universally applicable.
A relationship is inherent in these but, for trees again (I'm a huge foundationalist), to see how to go from base to branch to branch you should know what inference rules best describe how you traverse through them. I use an inhibit inference rule but you'd have to justify yours. This is more for you putting things together rather than following along because philosophers, including analytic, are pretty informal sometimes by necessity and they may make a mistake anyways and you'll be left trying to square a circle.
The last, but easiest and quickest, way to follow along is ontological dimensions (like monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism). They're like metaphysical structures but a more micro element. If you see kant having an unwieldy trialist split that goes into a dualist split then another trialist then a single branch with absolutely no justification except as an informal observation then this helps you put it into terms and see where their metaphysics is lacking. Aristotle does this by asserting everything is fundamentally derived from substances (pluralism) which can be broken down (or made universal through his logic getting the actualities of them) into the 4/5 elements. He revisits a quadrilism in his 4 causes. Again philosophers aren't as formal as they should be but I've found this helps keep things structured until I've found the metaphysical structure and can derive things from it that match their conclusions.

>>18352154
Thanks this was my conclusion aswell so i started taking things chronologically, i have little interest in hob or locke in your example so getting through their works might be harder than usual

>>18352165
>The last, but easiest and quickest, way to follow along is ontological dimensions (like monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism). They're like metaphysical structures but a more micro element. If you see kant having an unwieldy trialist split that goes into a dualist split then another trialist then a single branch with absolutely no justification except as an informal observation then this helps you put it into terms and see where their metaphysics is lacking. Aristotle does this by asserting everything is fundamentally derived from substances (pluralism) which can be broken down (or made universal through his logic getting the actualities of them) into the 4/5 elements. He revisits a quadrilism in his 4 causes. Again philosophers aren't as formal as they should be but I've found this helps keep things structured until I've found the metaphysical structure and can derive things from it that match their conclusions.

Can you elaborate further? i don't understand the monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism part

>>18352146
then as i said read >>18352154 but also add leibniz

and Berkeley and hume before kant

>>18352190
I have a masters in philosophy and have no idea what he's talking about. Probably some Continental pomo nonsense from a literature department.

>>18352030
most philosophy is literal trash designed to psyop you into wasting copious amounts of your precious time.

>>18352210
>Probably some Continental pomo nonsense from a literature department.
Not the previous poster but get your head out of your fucking arse

>>18352211
problem?

>>18352030
why dont you go philosophize my fist in your ass you stupid fuckin MORON.

>>18352223
>The last, but easiest and quickest, way to follow along is ontological dimensions (like monism, dualism, trialism, quad/penta/plural/nihilism). They're like metaphysical structures but a more micro element. If you see kant having an unwieldy trialist split that goes into a dualist split then another trialist then a single branch with absolutely no justification except as an informal observation then this helps you put it into terms and see where their metaphysics is lacking. Aristotle does this by asserting everything is fundamentally derived from substances (pluralism) which can be broken down (or made universal through his logic getting the actualities of them) into the 4/5 elements. He revisits a quadrilism in his 4 causes.

This is literal schizo word salad. It makes philosophy look like an illegitimate field of academic study to be associated with such nonsense.

>>18352257
I'm not defending the previous anon's wordsalad, but you sound like an analytic from the 80's: I thought there was pretty much academic consensus now that the analytic/continental division is bullcrap and much new academic research within philosophy tries to bridge that gap.

>>18352190
Yeah I can give examples of how to use them.
So for monism: darkness is absence of light, cold/temperature, evil/good, zero/number, xy is a derivation of xx. Anyways by these you can already see that you can do math, science, ethics etc with it and have I be fruitful.
For dualisms: wave-particle interpretations of light, digital computers take a dualist approach in 1 or 0 (monism wouldn't have zero be operable it would look for what the 1 would be derived from or conjoined with). Classical logic follows this truth structure as well. Male/female etc. You can see how a dualist interpretation doesn't necessarily have to contradict monist or other dimensions. You can have multiple dimensions (say monism derives dualism derives etc) and if anything a metaphysics implies I should be able to explain them all anyways (even if false, why they are false).
Trialism is something I enjoy: trinity, so everything is interpreted through three fundamentally, beginning-middle-end in books or climax for middle (it asserts the macro and micro aspects of stories are like this), intuitionist logic, male/female/intersex.

Anyways there are lots of examples and they inform how you'll interpret or communicate your thoughts and they give a rigorousness to any subject or field you're in. If you're making a computer you would make it in a dimension you believe is correct and that would, if it's in line with reality, would get you a better computer better technology. You can literally Rick and Morty your philosophy of technology by having a good value system and structure for the next technology rather than waiting to see what the democracies are brainwashed into thinking is cool to buy.

Data structures in computer science are a good example of metaphysical structures, relationships and ontological dimensions.

>>18352257
he is just talking about basic structures that you can reduce philosopher's theories to, whats so hard to understand. You have masters, but no reading comprehension. And I say this advising against reduction of theories, its just dumb.

>>18352210
>>18352211
>>18352257
Haters gonna hate.

1, I founded metaphysics. If you want to understand metaphysics you need to found it and it'll look like mine to some degree.

2, data structures do this exact same thing but more particularly obviously to computers.

3, we do this crap all the time. People say the Americanism, "government makes laws based on either safety or freedom". Anyways you can actually dive into that now

4, again 1, you can either learn I or be a pseud idrc. Reinvent it and change some token amount of vocabulary so you can jerk yourself off but you have to learn it anyways if you're interested in analytic metaphysics

>>18352304
We're trying to help a person who has trouble following Descartes and Spinoza, and this jargon-riddled extremely confused babbling is supposed to provide clarity?

>>18352335
It's formal. If you're an analytic philosopher with a masters degree you understand the benefit of formal over simple right?

>>18352335
first of all, if someone has hard time following descartes, maybe he shouldnt even bother with philosophy

>>18352146

German idealism is pretty difficult since it puts a lot of emphasis on abstract ideas. It's usually works that requires a bit of effort to understand, like re-reading paragraphs and making sure you really understood what it means and how it ties with everything else that you've read. Sometimes you might even have to look for a secondary source to explain some stuff you just don't get.

>>18352030
Is this a good Greek spice?

>>18352345
Formal works very carefully define terms with as much clarity as possible before moving on to composing premises and conclusions. Stop pretending you aren't a very confused mentally ill person.

>>18352210

I also have a master's degree in philosophy but I never heard anything about "trialism"quadrilism"pentalalalala" crap.

>>18352335
Descartes i can understand, it was just a general statement for the timeframe
spinoza on the other hand i am kind of 50/50 especially on more abstract concepts, but the further i go the less i understand so i am worried about what is to come

>>18352379
I am greek and i usually do something similar to this but skip the garlic powder and instead use fresh garlic and onion, salt to taste of course it doesn't go in the mix, nutmeg to taste aswell or i skip it sometimes

>>18352322
>if you're interested in analytic metaphysics
yeah, that's another funny point: you are doing analytic metaphysics.

>>18352388
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialism

Again I founded analytic metaphysics so this is original work.

>>18352383
That's bullshit and you know it. We don't have epistemology certainty so we take some things on faith it would be impossible to perfectly define everything before getting to the next. If you know this then you are simply being a contrarian. If you have particular terms you think should be defined better then bring those up but you sound ridiculous right now from a purely analytic philosophical view.

>>18352411
It's not the early 20th century anymore. You have to grow up. There's analytic marxism, analytic metaphysics, theology, feminism etc with many papers I each. If you don't know this you did not study to be at least an analytic philosopher.

>>18352210
>>18352257
lmao I am not really familiar with Aristotle at all but his reduction of the metaphysical structure of Kant's a priori judgements is pretty basic if you have an understanding of Kant's Categories. Granted you have to have reading comprehension and the autism to read and understand Kant
>>18352335
>using technical language to describe a technical topic
I understand your critique that this can be a barrier to providing clarity, but if you aren't willing to put in the work to understand philosophy, don't complain when you can't understand something. If others can understand it and you can't, that's a YOU problem.

>>18352421
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialism

What do you want to prove with that trialism ? The only "Trialism" I've ever heard of was the soul concept of Plato (which was tripartite).

Sounds like schizo to me.

>>18352421

What do you mean you founded "analytic metaphysics" ?

>>18352500
Yeah I wrote half a book using this to derive everything from it. I forgot to include plato's tripartite, aristotle's governments (with their negations) but you've surely heard of trinitarianism no? I put examples here >>18352290

>>18352510
Founding means to have an acceptable foundation and deriving the field from that foundation. I used existence as a foundation. It's a realistic term that may be at odds with your libero-historical conception of what founding means.

Difficulty with Descartes doesn't indicate a lack of potential.

It was translated from a language that uses sentence structure which makes more difficult the english version for english only readers.

And picking up on what terms are technical and need to be probed into deeper is not always intuitive.

You will improve as you go along, and will read tomorrow with a little bit more clarity what was totally incomprehensible today.

>>18352400
Thanks, I’ve been wanting to cook more Mediterranean food

>>18352510
This is all me >>/lit/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=%22Ontological+dimensions%22&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

Lurker here and just saying I like where this thread is going. Bump

>>18352579
i read everything in greek, although i may truly be retarded because i never even though of the possibility that i found ancient texts easier since they are translated better and i can also look at the source if i don't get something and translations might aswell be shit in my case

Niggers

>>18352432
this >>18352411 was a response to >>18352210

>>18354628
Tongue

>>18354680
My

>cumin for "taco" seasonings
jesus christ why. Why are anglos obsessed with cumin, it's gross.