/lit/ - Literature

Zizek is still living.

>>2713057
political commentators are not philosophers

>comparing wittgenstein to regular philosophers

laughingduckrabbit.gif

Adorno.

I don't know too much philosophy, but I really like Camus and Sartre.

Zizek and Hofstadter. And me- why not?

>>2713080
/lit/ in a nutshell.

saved.

Husserl, Heidegger

Its all been downhill since Socrates.

David Lewis.

>>2713095
So, looks like homosexual pedophiles hold the key to philosophy right? Think so

Ben Richards (in op), ~18yo, was the last lover of Witt.

Philosophy died with Royce.

Wittgenstein is all right but I've only ever "passively" read his works. I have stacks of his books lying around but have never taken the time to sit there and analyze everything I read.

Charles Taylor

This is a nice cap.

Rawls

Henri Laborit
>put hypster glasses on

John Rawls

>>2713064
>Tractus
>Not philosophy
>wat

>>2713281
>not understanding it's a poem
>2012

Faggots, it is Frank Zappa.

Donald Davidson

Deep&Edgy
huehuehuehuehue

Deleuze

>>2713681
I wouldn't hazard to call him a philosopher. He was a talented and funny guy, though.

>>2713684

>>2713117

bahahahahahahahaha 10/10.

Definetly Rorty. I don't think single man philosophy will be relevant after him. He's covered everything for half a century at least to come.

>>2713707
>Last great buggerer

fixed

>>2713735
LOL. No.

>>2713735

haha
Fuck that fat retard im glad hes dead ...key example of the defeated liberal's eventual last resort: baseless pragmatism and intellectual suicide

>>2713752
What's the alternative in standard metaphysical/epistemological inquiry?

>>2713765

>>2713765

anything which addresses the issues rather than lazily shrugging them off in favor of some liberal headlong expedition backed by theoretical nothingness.
sentimental training is a farce if we cannot come up with a metaphysical reason for its existence (ie. that humans are indeed the kinds of things that posses inalienable rights, etc.)
they're not

>>2713769
>implying sentiment is not itself the metaphysical reason

>>2713769

satan here. trip wont work.

>>2713770

thats exactly what im implying you idiot lol

>>2713769
>>2713769
My recent experience with arguing actual metaphysical issues is that there are rarely much more than 3 or 4 ways of dealing with a metaphysical problem like free will or personal identity. None of them are particularly satisfactory for the issue at hand.

My recent experience with arguing epistemological issues like scepticism and induction is that there are no ways of dealing with them at all.

Are there useful philosophical issues to not discard on pragmatic grounds? I can see the use of developing logic further, I can see the use of developing philosophy of language further from a layman's perspective, I can see the use of developing centre areas of philosophy of mind like emotive philosophy and the philosophy of cognitive science, I can see the use of developing political theory further, I can see the use of developing philosophy of physics and philosophy of social sciences (applied philosophy) further, I cannot much see the use of developing ethics (apart from certain applied cases), epistemology (again apart from certain applied cases) or metaphysics (unless in the really abstruse fields like time and causation).

See if you can come up with a none tried and tested formulation of free will, if you want to prove these fields of philosophy non-exhaustive. It is not honestly not an issue of political orientation...

>>2713775
>>2713769
My recent experience with arguing actual metaphysical issues is that there are rarely much more than 3 or 4 ways of dealing with a metaphysical problem like free will or personal identity. None of them are particularly satisfactory for the issue at hand.

My recent experience with arguing epistemological issues like scepticism and induction is that there are no ways of dealing with them at all.

Are there useful issues to discuss further before discarding them on grounds of pragmatism? I can see the use of developing logic further, I can see the use of developing philosophy of language further from a layman's perspective, I can see the use of developing centre areas of philosophy of mind like emotive philosophy and the philosophy of cognitive science, I can see the use of developing political theory further, I can see the use of developing philosophy of physics and philosophy of social sciences (applied philosophy) further, I cannot much see the use of developing ethics (apart from certain applied cases), epistemology (again apart from certain applied cases) or metaphysics (unless in the really abstruse fields like time and causation).

See if you can come up with a none tried and tested formulation of free will, if you want to prove these fields of philosophy non-exhaustive. It's honestly not an issue of political orientation either.

>>2713793
>>2713796
>I can see the use of developing non-central areas of philosophy of mind like emotive philosophy and the philosophy of cognitive science

>It is honestly not an issue of political orientation...

>>2713793

>None of them are particularly satisfactory for the issue at hand.

precisely because you are assuming liberal,humanitarian goals to begin with.
None will be satisfactory in supporting the furthering of human rights simply because humans aren't the kinds of things which posses rights in virtue of their existence.

>Are there useful issues to discuss further before discarding them on grounds of pragmatism? I can see the use of developing logic further, I can see the use of developing philosophy of language further from a layman's perspective, I can see the use of developing centre areas of philosophy of mind like emotive philosophy and the philosophy of cognitive science,etc.

agreed, though irrelevant to our topic at hand.

as for political theory...it must necessarily rest on ethical and metaphysical presuppositions...so far people (like Rawls) have been basing their entire systems on shaky ethical assumptions (with an empty disclaimer that his (Rawls') theories can have overarching consensus regardless of ethical beliefs...which is in itself most impressive piece of bullshit ever conceived.)

>I cannot much see the use of developing ethics (apart from certain applied cases), epistemology (again apart from certain applied cases) or metaphysics (unless in the really abstruse fields like time and causation).

again, this varies according to one's goals...in the case of sentimental training, rorty would necessarily have to agree with you since he won't ever get backing from these fields...backing which is needed in order to make it legitimate.

>>2713812
>>2713812
>precisely because you are assuming liberal,humanitarian goals to begin with.None will be satisfactory in supporting the furthering of human rights simply because humans aren't the kinds of things which posses rights in virtue of their existence.
I could see what you mean here if we're just dealing with metaphysical issues like free will and personal identity. An anti-humanist would suppose these were no problems; who are we to suppose that we have a self through term or an agency untramelled by causation? This is surely another sort of pragmatism based on a distrust in any emergent humanist phenomena like the 'self' and 'human freedom'; this position would need the same sort of justification that Rorty's pragmatism does.
>as for political theory...it must necessarily rest on ethical and metaphysical presuppositions...so far people (like Rawls) have been basing their entire systems on shaky ethical assumptions (with an empty disclaimer that his (Rawls') theories can have overarching consensus regardless of ethical beliefs...which is in itself most impressive piece of bullshit ever conceived.)
Sure, the basis for these ideas is that political theories are instrumental and that we should instrumentalize them on ethical (but not necessarily metaphysical surely) issues. What I think is that Rawls and Nozick have started something that people should attempt to develop and to take in different directions and to think about and, yes, to examine the worth of instrumentalizing political theory on ethical grounds.

>again, this varies according to one's goals..
Well, what are your goals? Mine are fairly liberal humanist with some rather large misgivings (the general failure of liberal humanism to deal with certain issues up to this very day, like the divide between individual and humanity as abstract noun).

>>2713812
>>2713812
>precisely because you are assuming liberal,humanitarian goals to begin with.
None will be satisfactory in supporting the furthering of human rights simply because humans aren't the kinds of things which posses rights in virtue of their existence.

I could see what you mean here if we're just dealing with metaphysical issues like free will and personal identity. An anti-humanist would suppose these were no problems; who are we to suppose that we have a self through term or an agency untramelled by causation? This is surely another sort of pragmatism based on a distrust in any emergent humanist phenomena like the 'self' and 'human freedom'; this position would need the same sort of justification that Rorty's pragmatism does.
>as for political theory...it must necessarily rest on ethical and metaphysical presuppositions...so far people (like Rawls) have been basing their entire systems on shaky ethical assumptions (with an empty disclaimer that his (Rawls') theories can have overarching consensus regardless of ethical beliefs...which is in itself most impressive piece of bullshit ever conceived.)

Sure, the basis for these ideas is that political theories are instrumental and that we should instrumentalize them on ethical (but not necessarily metaphysical surely) issues. What I think is that Rawls and Nozick have started something that people should attempt to develop and to take in different directions and to think about and, yes, to examine the worth of instrumentalizing political theory on ethical grounds.

>again, this varies according to one's goals..
Well, what are your goals? Mine are fairly liberal humanist with some rather large misgivings (the general failure of liberal humanism to deal with certain issues up to this very day, like the divide between individual and humanity as abstract noun).

>>2713821
>a self through time

>we should instrumentalize them on ethical (but not necessarily metaphysical surely) grounds

As addendum, I guess I hold liberal humanist ideas because this is where the more interesting and untreated problems lie right now and that's sort of why I acknowledge the issues with it, but also am willing to delve into the sort of theory it provides

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IF THIS PHILOSOPHER ISN'T A NIHILIST, ATHIRST, EXISTENTIALIST, THEN THIS PHILOSOPHER IS WORTHLESS WAHHH

FUCK YOU /lit/ FUCK CAMUS AND SARTRE AND YOUR MISUNDERSTANDING OF NIETZSCHE
FUCK DAWKINS TOO

YOU DON'T KNOW TRUTH, KEEP SCIENCE OUT OF PHILOSOPHY TOO WE DON'T NEED NO NIHILISTIC MATERIALISTS AROUND HERE

>>2713835

Nietzsche wasn't a materialist. He was fucking influenced by Schopenhauer and Hegel.