/lit/ - Literature

Why do these threads pop up everyday on every writer. Why don't you educate yourself so you yourself can understand and interpret it in your own way? Really that lazy? I'm 90% sure you're an American.

>>3217113
are you a republican or a democrat? do you vote? what state are you from? kalifornia? amerika is my favourite country. so many nice people, no serious libraries.

Maybe I didn't make it clear, but I was trying to explain that I was asking here - asking somebody else - because my own efforts at 'educating myself' had failed. Do you think that every student at school is lazy because their education is being guided by a teacher?

If you really didn't want to answer the question you could've ignored it. And no, I'm not American. I'm English. It's sort of like 'American-lite'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human,_All_Too_Human_(TV_series)

Your welcome.

http://www.philosophybro.com/2011/02/martin-heideggers-being-and-time.html

Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed philosophy wasn't a subject where ideas could be interpreted in a subjective way. You either get it or you don't. It's not poetry. Since I said I didn't get it, it seems reasonable to ask somebody else to have a go at explaining it to me. Would you tell somebody asking for help with a maths problem to interpret it in their own way?

>>3217131
>>3217132

Thanks.

>>3217138
>maybe I'm wrong

Yes.

why do edgy teenagers take up on Heidegger before having a solid understanding of the important philosophers before him? same with Nietzsche.

>>3217175
I second that.

>>3217187
For Nietzsche you really don't need a solid understanding of the philosophers before him.

>>3217215
You need to know Kant and the greeks, at least.
A lot of the time he's attacking Kant, which you wouldn't pick up on unless you knew Kant. You'd just think he's a " GOD IS DEAD! lets fucking kill everything!!" type of edgy teen nihilist.

>>3217215

>>3217113
You need a firm grounding in greek philosophy and knowledge of the history of philosophy. So, Aristotle, Plato, and everyone else important. He thought that philosophy had gone wrong since the pre-socratics, so you need to have a good understanding of the history of philosophy since then to understand what he's trying to say, and why he thinks we should go back to the pre-socratics. Otherwise it wont make any sense.

Some people make the mistake of thinking this means you can read him without having read anything else, which is wrong. He's still talking about philosophical concepts like 'essence' and ontology, which you need to have learnt from the greeks and the history of already.

When I first read him it took a little while to understand, but you eventually realise he's just using different language to talk about things like essence and Being.

>>3217230
He's right though.

>>3217237
Perhaps only for Thus Spake Zarathustra.

>>3217255
the more i understand nietzsche, the less i want to understand nietzsche. i agree with him in everything but i just don't want to "understand" like he did.

>>3217215
HAHAHAHAHA
Yes you do, motherfucker. Otherwsie people who read him will think he is a nihilist and "hurr durr nothing is true everything is permitted".
You will be unable to grasp the meaning of almost all of his texts, for instance, Von Der Hinterweltlern. Without further knowledge you will miss the point being made and the brilliance of it, namely, showing that Kant as well as Plato are making the same mistake. He shows that Plato's World of Forms and Kant's Ding an Sich are both derived from the same mistake and explains his critique on it in one big metaphor.
I'll bet 5:1 you have never read anything of Nietzsche (especially not in original German) and are an American.

>>3217113
OP, first read Dilthey and Husserl to get a grasp of phenomenology. If you haven't a clue what phenomenology is reading Heidegger is a waste of time. Heidegger cannot be explained in terms easier than he uses himself. He isn't just trying his best to be as hard to read as possible, he actually needs those terms to say what he's got to say. So, to understand him you will have to read the original texts, in German. Because of his unique view on language the texts are untranslatable.
In conclusion, do these two things if you didn't do them already:
Learn what phenomenology is.
Learn to read German.

>>3217259
If you really want to understand him, read 'Who is to be master of this world' by Anthony Ludovici. It's Nietzschean philosophy in its rawest. It was written before World War 2, before all the far right ideas present in Nietzsche became verboten.

One of the few books that had such a heavy impact on me. I felt like I had been crushed.

'You have to be familiar with the philosophers before him' has become somewhat of a kneejerk reaction for lots of people. It's accurate most of the time, but not for Nietzsche. He simply does not engage with the philosophers before him very deeply. Of course, there are things on Schopenhauer and so on, but compared to other philosophers there is a lot of stuff in Nietzsche that is about culture and psychology, and those aspects are mostly independent from the history of philosophy. If you look at Zur Genealogie der Moral, you can read it perfectly well without having any prior knowledge of philosophy. So far, every time I read it, it turns out somehow different, but never because of how I relate Nietzsche to other thinkers (except maybe Stirner), but because of his style.

>>3217268
have. i read him in all the hardback ludovici translations before i got to kaufmann and all the other jews.

>>3217215
The fuck am I reading?

>>3217274
also, i would recommend them if you want to read a translation that is more germanic, more saxon.

>>3217279
That sounds like a good idea. I always had some reservations about reading Kaufmann. I didn't like the fact that he was more or less trying to rehabiliate Nietzsche into some kind of enlightened liberal.

Here's my attempt

Dasein basically refers to human being, but the better definition means "thing that naturally asks 'why is there something rather than nothing'

Heidegger thinks most philosophy except some bros like Aristotle and the pre-socratics and the Taoists have forgotten this most essential question "why is there something rather than nothing?" This question really is fundamental to existence, and philosophy usually just talks about how things are, rather than ask why there are any things at all.

The next big idea he's saying is that humans (Dasein) do not exist IN time. Time doesn't really exist, it's just a framework we use to escape the fact that we're gonna die, but it's a shitty framework and doesn't help us live authentically, if anything it makes us live less. What Heidegger wants is for us to realize that this question "why is there something rather than nothing" is tied to the fact that every Dasein knows that it will die. Death is certain, but you never know when you're going to die and once you're dead, you can't know anything.

Heidegger says we need to think about just Being. Not being IN time, but just Being. When you really think about Being, you'll find that there is no time, and you can sort of live with more intensity, because you're really present in the world, really living. When people say "live in the now"....that's impossible because the now is always fleeting. Heidegger says, just BE, and you'll have everything.

Hope this helps. Check out his lectures, he's not that difficult, you just first need ot get acquainted with his language, and you'll find when he says nonsensical shit like "The Nothing itself nothings" it actually makes intuitive sense.

>>3217273
Zur Genealogie der Moral and arguably Also Sprach Zarathustra are the only ones that can be read without prior knowledge.

>>3217282
the only "problem" you might have with them, is that you'll never be able to read any other translation again without feeling like they're too feminine honest. i thought i was turning into a homosexual or a woman when i read kaufmann. i was a strange nietzschified kid.

>>3217273
How do you know you understand him, when you haven't read anything other than him (except Stirner)? Especially since each time you read him it turns out differently. Nietzsche's entire philosophy is Anti-Platonism. It mostly consist of rejecting of what others said. He is the philosopher with the hammer, he destroys what others made and has a few original ideas (3 to be precise). I do believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

>He simply does not engage with the philosophers before him very deeply.
>mfw that's practically the only thing he does

>>3217266
>I'll bet 5:1 you have never read anything of Nietzsche (especially not in original German) and are an American.

You are wrong, I have read Nietzsche, only in German, and I am German. Alas, I haven't read that one text the name of which you almost got right. Also, see my other post:

>>3217273

Of course it is necessary for understanding some parts to have a general idea of what is going on in philosophy, but in Nietzsche this is far less the case than for other philosophers. Nietzsche himself read relatively little philosophy: By Kant only Kritik der Urteilskraft, Hartmann's Philosophie des Unbewußten, Spinoza's Ethics. For Hegel he mostly relied on his critics.

If you want to understand the context of Nietzsche's thought, it is more important to know about literature and science, Hölderlin, Schiller, Goethe, Voltaire, etc. Apparently Montinaris critical edition is very good for figuring out these intertextualities. [most of the above was generously cribbed from Nietzsche Lesen by Volker Gerhardt]

>>3217294
i agree with this. the gay science alone is full of enough implicit bibliography to keep most casuals busy reading for the rest of their lives.

>>3217294
>>impyling I haven't read anyone else

I have. I just said it is not necessary to have intensive knowledge of the thinkers before him to understand him. Also, 'the thinkers before him' seems to suggest something like Hegel, Schelling, Fichte. Yes, he is opposed to Platonism, but you don't really have to have in-depth knowledge of Platon to understand that, as long as you have a rough idea what Platonism is about.

>>3217298
you forgot schopenhauer. what about his philological education? he would've read plato/presocratics in the original. he also owes some debt to the philosophy of history that runs through thucydides to sallust, and the sarcastic philosophy of life that horace evinces, which he praises in 'daybreak.'

>>3217298
i don't know where nietzsche stands vis a vis dialectics (hegel). is there an aphorism on this? i know that in the late preface he attached to the birth of tragedy he criticised it as being somewhat 'hegelian', although, characteristic of him, he just says this rather vaguely, assuming total knowledge of his works which i don't have.

>>3217310
>you forgot schopenhauer

I didn't forget him, he was already in my other post. Also, I didn't mean to say that Nietzsche is entirely detached from everything else in philosophy. However, I do maintain that the big emphasis that is put on his relation to other philosophers is an artifact of institutional (academic) philosophy, which seeks to create broader movements and put everything in relation to 'the big picture' or itself, rather than appreciating the singularity of an author. Of course it is a 'good' way to approach Nietzsche, but it will most likely create boring knowledge, rather than interesting knowledge.

>>3217315
Hegel -

He influenced many writers and philosophers, including those who agreed with him (Bradley, Sartre, Küng, Bauer, Stirner, Marx), and those who did not agree with him (Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Schelling).

>>3217317
very good. but that doesn't answer the question hombre.

>>3217315
He will refer to things as 'reeking of Tübinger Stift', which was the school that Hegel, Schelling and Hölderlin attended together.

>>3217288

Thanks a lot. That was helpful, and decent of you to actually try to help. Thanks to everyone else who's given me pointers as well. I haven't read very much Western philosophy at all, never having studied the subject...hence I didn't realise it was important. I'll try to remedy this.

>>3217175

I don't understand this. Philosophy /can/ be interpreted subjectively? Could you or somebody else explain this to me? I always thought philosophers had a set idea about life that they were trying to write down in as clear a way as possible in order to get this idea across. Art can be interpreted as the viewer/listener/etc chooses, but I never thought philosophy was art...

>>3217317

The goof is strong with this one. Claiming that Bauer, Stirner and Marx 'agreed' with Hegel is terribad. Stirner broke with Hegel completely, along with Bauer and Marx he was engaged in the slightly complicated business of turning Hegel's philosophy into a number of things more or less unlike itself.

Stirner is opposed to Hegel pretty much in the same way that Nietzsche is, you may want to refer to the Stirner/Nietzsche controversy of the 1890s.

>>3217334
it was a copy paste from Wikipedia, dude.

>>3217330
>Philosophy /can/ be interpreted subjectively? Could you or somebody else explain this to me? I always thought philosophers had a set idea about life that they were trying to write down in as clear a way as possible in order to get this idea across.

Yes, that presumably is what they try to do, alas, it never works. For each big philosopher, there are entire careers dedicated to defending one reading of his work against another, and so on. Philosohpy is not formal logic, there is no definite way of evaluating it. Any summary even includes a decision, a weighing, almost a creative act. There is no neutral reproduction involved in reading or interpreting philosophy.

>>3217338
So...?

Do all philosophy related threads quickly turn into discussions about Nietzsche? How the hell did this happen...

>>3217343
so, you want us to take your opinion over Wikipedia's?

>>3217348
cut it out you fucking dick.

>>3217345
It was about Heidegger and they are both related to nihilism and Nietzsche is more entry level so people here, entry level "philosophers", are more prone to take about him than Heidegger.

>>3217339

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It's great when you get a reply that actually tries to help rather than just put people down for their lack of knowledge. Also makes you look a lot more informed.

>>3217330
Yeah, no problem.

Just to add a bit more. Thinking about Being and Being itself is really difficult to do. It's on the very edge of our language and thinking. But once you do it, the awareness of simply Being is like an opening up of time. Heidegger says it opens up the past and gives time, rather than "living in the present" which only functions to lose it.

It's good stuff to think about, Heidegger is very dear to me.

>>3217381

I think you hit the nail on the there when you said that it's on the very edge of our language and thinking. When I was reading him I almost felt as if I'd have to wait for some epiphany to reveal the meaning to me, which I think is why he's always had a certain appeal.

I'll keep away at him; it seems he's got some pretty profound ideas. I also love the fact he'd come up with ideas whilst busying himself with woodwork in his shed. Sounds pretty unpretentious for a philosopher.

>>3217113
I can help you to understand the Dasein meaning.
There is 2 ways of intepreting Dasin (and Heidegger accept and use both).

DA - sein : being THERE. Its a kind of act of pointing ! There is being instead of nothing! Its a kind of surprise that seize you.

da - SEIN : the Openess of the Dasein. Dasein is the only thing that can understand being, because he is a part of it, and he is open.

You can also see a kind of categorical imperative : Be there! Be authentic! Be there!

>>3218112
>be there

where? in the moment of 'now'?

Thie is a job for....

SuperCahoone !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFzHa9g0xpo

>>3218124
No, its a bit more complicated. Being authentic, being there for Heidegger is very specific. Dasein can be authentic of inauthentic, for Heidegger it mean something like to accept Being as it is - temporal. Heidegger suppose that we are aways away, that when i'm playing video game, i am away from myself, i try to run away from myself. When i talk about jersey shore, when i listen to bad holiwood movies, etc. i am away from myself, i am away from the fact that i will die. This is a part of the critique of metaphysical concept. Being is always perceived as eternal, when in reality being and time is the same thing (go read >>3217288 for the time explanation)
You have to be there, as someone who is about to die someday, and only now you can face true freedom, but a kind of dostoieski freedom, like a pain, like a burden.
Dasein = freedom, but its so hard to be a Dasein. First Heidegger will tell you that its part of the Dasein constitution to be away. Last Heidegger will tell you its because of history of metaphysics, always perceived being in supratemporal terms. Its a lot more complicated and rich, but its the best i can explain in such a context.

>>3218124
there are no other moments than now, you'd "be there" anyway but you just wouldn't be aware of it

>>3217113
This thread is terrible. Basically:

If you are the kind of thing that can think of things in terms of other things then:

1) you have a past
2) you are going to die
3) you have to act by:

1)living in the past
2)living in the future
3)living in the present

and if you live in the present you are engaging in authentic discourse with the world by:

1) rejecting existing values
2) creating your own values
3) mediating the worlds values

>>3218155
reads a lot like the moment of 'now' actually, only described in a luxurious language

I would check out the Heidegger entry in the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and the internet encyclopedia of philosophy for a general overview, then maybe try reading him again. Both are pretty great sources - the IEP being a little easier to understand.

If that doesn't help, there's surely plenty of secondary literature on him. I personally haven't studied him yet, but I did happen to attend a little conference about him out of happenstance. All I remember is "Das Ein" = central to his philosophy and "volkskunde" means folklore. gl!

The constant reminder that we need to have read other works to understand a given work is really tiresome. We all have to start somewhere.

Furthermore a strictly chronological approach to philosophy is impractical (as well as impracticable) for the same reasons as in history - any event is illuminated from both the future and the past, we have to let our interest be the arbiter.

This is not to deny that Nietzsche makes more sense when you understand the subject of his critique, or that Heidegger is more fully understood with a knowledge of phenomenology, but we have realize that the idea of the 'correct' reading is too nebulous to be worth the risk of losing interest.

>>3218211
It's can definitely be a massive and often unreasonable undertaking to read through 2,000 years of philosophy just to understand what one guy is trying to say, but what a lot of people don't take into account is the fact that this is an ongoing conversation that started a LONG time ago. Nobody wants to explain what's going on to the guy who sits down at the end of a movie and starts asking questions. Unfortunately, nobody wants to read Plato to understand Neoplatonism to understand St. Augustine.

I do agree that you should follow your interests and your passions, especially when it comes to reading philosophy, but if you're going to try and understand something that you think is important to you, I think you should at least make the effort and spend a little time researching why Heidegger or whoever is saying what they're saying instead of diving right in with no context and run the risk of getting it completely wrong.

>>3217288
Have you read more than the Introduction To Metaphysics? Cause, unless he went full circle hermeneutically, everything you said about time seemed...wrong. I've only read B&T and TQCT.
>>3218192

Basically, that's right. Also, Kant thought everything was in the mind, Wittgenstein paid attention to language, and Plato thought of ideas.

>>3217330
Philosophy could best be described as "what do you think I am saying, and why do you think that. Also, maybe you can come over for some lines?"

If that sounds stupid, irrelevant, or silly, you are one step closer to understanding philosophy (we have been at this game since the dawn of time. I think everyone might as well start publishing papers. Might be interesting to see what comes up.)

>>3217113
Part 1

Heidegger took being as the foundation of all knowledge and experience. If we couldn't distinguish between being and non-being, then life would be super trippy. For centuries the law of the excluded middle was axiomatic for logic and scholastic thought in general. SO, Heidegger asks, we kinda know what "being" is, but if we try to precisely define it or put it into any concrete concept, "being" always escapes us.

Well, because this is such an important philosophical project, Heidegger tries to figure out why something like "being" is both so obvious but still elusive. He does this phenomenologically; that is, he doesn't use formal logic (because it presupposes being) or other traditional philosophical methods; instead, he just looks at and deals with things like everyone does on a daily basis
You see, because we don't have a precise concept of "being," and can't analytically dissect it like we could with other philosophical problems, maybe thinking about being is counterproductive to understanding being. Heidegger figures the best method to understand being is to see how he deals with beings everyday.

>>3219620
Part 2

This is why he writes about using hammers. A better example nowadays is typing. When I interact with my keyboard, as i am doing right now, I can't precisely define what my hands are doing, they are just dancing around the keyboard--this is similar to our understanding of being. For Heidegger, the people who have known more about being have never been philosophers, they were the gymnasts (who know the being of their body and equipment), the musicians (who can read a venue and play instruments without thinking about it), and the lumberjacks (if you've never done it, you'd never know.)

Because he puts the foundation of everything known to you and me as different ways being reveals itself to us, and not by Cartesian doubt, his attempt to understand being primordially calls into question the relevancy of much of western philosophy. There are simply too many implications to list.

Basically, it's about the self, and how we make the self.

The word Dasein literally means 'being there'.

Heidegger's big argument from Being and Time was that the self is sort of a hermeneutic deconstruction of itself, using the concept of time as a point of reference. Basically he is saying we make ourselves by narrating this story about ourselves in the given moment, or the perceived moment. It is by this continuous engagement of just being there we narrate this sense of the self, and with the concept of past, present, and future we build a history of the self.

But the trouble, Heidegger points out, is that any truth we find would slip out of our hands, because the condition of the self being hermeneutic required continuous interpretation. He is saying because the narrative we give are self that makes who we are, is constantly being interpreted, when we change that interpretation we change the truths we've collected. We repeatably revolutionize our world really. Have you ever look back at something in your past in a different light? That phenomenon is what Heidegger is talking about.

Through out the book he repeats this argument by presenting how the self relates at being somewhere or with something, be it a situation, (i.e. the anxiety before death) or a moment of time (Past, Present, Future).

>>3217113
i want to shit all over his moustaches then fuck him in the ass

>>3219806

>>3219809
amilitcorenow?

>>3219828

>thatsthejoke

>>3219836
whichrysander?!

>>3219771
You should re-read 64. Care and Selfhood. (pg.364) and all of section IV Division II (pg.383) You are articulating a way of being which he critiques as being inauthentic in these sections. Excellent thinking either way, but doesn't weigh up to Heidegger genius.

>>3219846

Precisely.

>>3219513
>mad cause Heidegger isn't that hard
He said in terms an idiot could understand, if he wanted all of the shitty terminology he would just read the book.

>>3219936
If you honestly can't sit through the book's "shitty" terminology, I'm not confident in your ability to tell an idiot from a genius.

>>3219848
>doesn't weigh up to Heidegger genius.

i'm pretty sure he copy pasted his wonderful ideas from eastern philosophies.

>>3219964
Stay sure of yourself and never read more than six months of Heidegger. His explicitation of Death is essentially against the classic eastern philosophies.

He does jive with many of the Easterns, but only in a superficial way. I can say this because I wrote a paper comparing Heidegger with Buddhism and Taoism before I read the second division of B&T one-on-one with a prof and found most of what I wrote to be barking up the wrong tree.

In other words, either back up what you are saying in light of what was found in the second division or stop pretending you know shit about what the man wrote.

>>3219992
>I wrote a paper comparing Heidegger with Buddhism and Taoism
can i look at it online? interesting

>In other words, either back up what you are saying in light of what was found in the second division or stop pretending you know shit about what the man wrote.

no back up - sorry, his concepts are just very familiar to me, because i've read a lot of eastern stuff. but how can you be so sure that he _didn't_ actually copy paste some of their ideas and changed a few nuances to pose and appear as original?

>>3219998
>copy paste some of their ideas and changed a few nuances to pose and appear as original?

Because German western philosophers have been obsessed with eastern philosophy since Schopenhauer.

>>3219998
Sadly, I've been drinking and am mostly sure my old paper is on another computer that is currently unavailable. Anyway:
Heidegger took so much from Aristotle, Dilthey, Hegel, and a few other German, or--at least--western philosophers explicitly in B&T. He was super arrogant and would have written down in pride all the philosophers he criticised (like, all of them) but none of which he was greatly influenced by. My thinking is he would have written about Buddhism's view of death at least indirectly if he cared about it. Instead, he was preoccupied with nothing more than the entire history of western philosophy. Instead, because I have no clues at all in his texts, i cannot even conjecture much direct eastern influence in his writings. My best guess is both Heidegger and much of the eastern tradition resonates more with "reality" than their antagonistic counterparts; namely, pretentious assholes like my horny asshole named Alvin or traditional western philosophy.

His use of his intellect was used to pretend Nietzche didn't mean the things he said. He liked the idea of being, because it meant he was doing all the right things as a Nazi. Heidegger didn't believe in ideas. He believed in being passionate and trying to not have ideas.

>>3217132
That site is beyond fucking awesome.

>>3220107
it's not 'becoming and time', monsieur, and why is that?s 'being'? and post-nietzsche too. in light (or in dark) of nietzsche's rather convincing slash against the wall of 'being' as statis, nihilism/idealism, it always struck me as strange, as if heidy were being ontologically rebarbative, and yet the man wrote volumes on nietzsche, more than jung.

>>3220124
it's beyong fucking awful.

>>3220131
Stay pretentious, faggot

>>3220151
gladly. that website is an implicit argument for pretentiousness. not only condescending as fuck, with the disgusting and gimmicky familiarity, "bro" etc, but also worthless. look at the coverage of articles.

>>3219998
Being in the world is a direct copypaste from a german translation of the Book of Tea which is referring to Chuang-Tzu's philosophy as "being in the world"

He copypasted a lot from the easterns but I don't care. I think he's a genius alone for being able to transpose Eastern ideas into the western tradition.

>>3220360
What about old Monsieur Arturo Chopin-Howitzers?

>>3217113
Just read the wikipedia entry about Heidegger. He is basically a fraud. Heck, most Professors in philosophy doesn't "understand" him. Anyone who tell you otherwise is just being edgy, young and stupid enough to understand better.

>>3220406
come on, this is getting tiring.

what's this obsession with claiming every continental philosopher as a charlatan? it just betrays a narcissistic arrogance.

Heidegger is the comedic Jerry Lewis of Philosophy

>>3220414
Jerry Lee Lewis I meant.

This is Heidegger Daseining.

http://youtu.be/opYxE6iXCcA?t=2m44s

>>3220411
french continental philosophers ARE charlatans

the germans are good

>>3217138

>but I assumed philosophy wasn't a subject where ideas could be interpreted in a subjective way. You either get it or you don't. It's not poetry.

>poetry is objective

wow you really are an idiot, it hurts my eyes tyo read your post. just get the fuck out

>>3217138
holy shit. and the math part of your post is wrong too...

>>3219848

Stop, just stop already. You're not impressing anybody, maybe a few friends. (But they're on the same short-bus as you.) I can see through your blatant lying you're just trying to intimidate by spitting rhetoric. You must be young, that's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with.

If you're only able to parrot back what you read and not be able to make an annotation, you don't know shit about Philosophy. You're just putting up a front. If you can't read analytically and derive a critical understanding, you don't know shit about Philosophy. Your just lying to your self.

I know a sham when I see one.

>>3220836
>If you can't read analytically and derive a critical understanding,
>analytically, critical understanding
>you don't know shit about Philosophy.
>Stop, just stop already.

ahhahahahah

do you know how i know you're no older than 17?

>>3220844

Was that suppose to rile me up? Are you sure you're not acting 17

>>3220844

Thanks by the way, you've proved my point.

>>3220836
>Your just lying to your self.
>talking about Heidegger
>can't even fucking spell

17? Make that 8.

ITT: Babby's first Heiddy

>>3220836
Bahaha look at this fucking faggot.

>>3217118

Oh man, how offensive to spell those names with a "k" instead of a "c"! I am offended!

>>3217138
>You either get it or you don't.

Only on 4chan is Philosophy tossed about with the slogan 'either you get it, or you don't' This is a place of egos over content. This is a place to make the other look like a fool. Always remember: here on 4chan you'll be dealing with fools looking to prove something.

So, that's how 4chan maligns what Philosophy is. But what is Philosophy? It is actually just managing curiosity. Most of Philosophy is about wrestling with a conundrum, trying to figure out something. The practice is to put all those questions and ideas, you have about something, together like gears in a mechanical clock. If all the gears work well together, then you really got something. And if it proves something worth knowing, somebody might come along take it apart, add or modify somethings, and then put it back together as something new. And the whole process repeats itself, generation after generation. Some clocks are older than others, some are more complex. Philosophy is a continuous engagement, you may even find yourself reassembling the same clock repeatedly for a life time. Philosophy is about managing your curiosities, and to do that well. That is Philosophy.

FYI: Philosophy does not have to render out some conclusion or some objectivity. Philosophy can be about raising more question. The Ancient Greeks did that under the term: aporia. The
Euthyphro Dialogue is a prime example of that

>>3220890

If all you got to latch on to is a minor spelling error, then you don't have anything really.

>>3220976

Disregard that 'The' after aporia. There should be a line break.

My bad.

>>3217138
>>3217138
>You either get it or you don't.

Only on 4chan is Philosophy tossed about with the slogan 'either you get it, or you don't.' This is a place of egos over content. This is a place to make the other look like a fool. Always remember: here on 4chan you'll be dealing with fools looking to prove something.

So, that's how 4chan maligns what Philosophy is. But what is Philosophy? It is actually just managing curiosity. Most of Philosophy is about wrestling with a conundrum, trying to figure out something. The practice is to put all those questions and ideas, you have about something, together like gears in a mechanical clock. If all the gears work well together, then you really got something. And if it proves something worth knowing, somebody might come along take it apart, add or modify somethings, and then put it back together as something new. And the whole process repeats itself, generation after generation. Some clocks are older than others, some are more complex. Philosophy is a continuous engagement. You may even find yourself reassembling the same clock repeatedly for a life time. Philosophy is about managing your curiosities, and to do that well. That's Philosophy.

FYI: Philosophy does not have to render out some conclusion or some objectivity. Philosophy can be about raising more questions. The Ancient Greeks did that under the term: aporia. The Euthyphro Dialogue is a prime example of that.

>>3221010
>Only on 4chan is Philosophy tossed about with the slogan 'either you get it, or you don't.' This is a place of egos over content. This is a place to make the other look like a fool. Always remember: here on 4chan you'll be dealing with fools looking to prove something.

Stop generalizing your personal experiences. You being made to look like a fool numerous times these last two days, points to you being a fool, not to a general trend of the board.

>>3221010
>That's Philosophy.

i think you've been deluded for a long, long time. philosophy is the love for wisdom, bub.

>>3220981
Nice comeback, bro! Check you later at school on monday xdxd lol!!1!

>>3220976
Good little summary, it would have been better if you left "That is Philosophy."' out of it at the end of the final paragraph. Too stiffly.
However, as a reader of Heidegger I do oppose your clockwork analogy. With that, so much is assumed and so much is lost.
Philosophy could be the roots of a tree too, or the eyeglass through which you look to the world. Even these three things cover a minimal part of what philosophy encompasses.

I present exibit A:

>>3221018

And nothing was proven you dolt, just the regular mud slinging we all see here everyday.

>>3221019
>philosophy is the love for wisdom

That is a tired old remark repeated in every introductory course about philosophy. It goes without saying:

philo- "loving" + sophia "knowledge, wisdom,"

I think you've been repeating back what you've read, or heard, for so long, you're now incapable of creating a thought on your own.

Polly want a cracker?

>>3221020

What the fuck are you babbling about? You're trying too hard to troll. You're not even making a cohesive point anymore.

>>3221043
the goof is strong in this one.

it is what it means, sport.

i'll just assume you haven't been reading much philosophy, youngster, if you happen to think you have any thoughts of your own, that you can call "your own", bub.

>>3221047
>mfw you can't swallow your pride and admit defeat and I'm too lazy to deliver the killing blow

hello, I'm Heidegger. I'm a wanna be nazi. LOVE ME, PLEASE LOVE ME

Exhibit B:

>>3221055
>>3221062

Notice how they both don't contribute anything meaningful. Notice how much their remarks are contrived of ego boasting.

>>3221027
>>3221088
Exhibit C:
Notice how each and every exhibit is applicable to itself as well.

>>3221187

Nope. You see, in my posts I extract a point for my argument, while citing examples. But, if it's true about what you're saying then by that you'd be doing the same thing with your post there. So which is it?

Would you like to be evidence for further exhibit?

>>3221244
I was trying to hint you should shut up, but as it seems I was being too subtle: shut up.

>>3221439

>waaahhh somebodies fucking with me on my /lit/