/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13374769]

What is the hardest philosophy concept to understand? The one which is the ultimate brainlet filter.

[Anonymous No.13374776]

German idealism, specially Hegelian dialectic. But it's mostly because they are fucked up concepts by default, over complicated for no actual reason.

[Anonymous No.13374779]

Zero

[Anonymous No.13374780]

>>13374769
Casualty

[Anonymous No.13374784]

Xenofeminism.

[Anonymous No.13374785]

>>13374776
Nah.

German Idealism, Plato's Forms, Deleuze's univocity of being.

[Anonymous No.13374791]

>>13374785
>Nah.

[Anonymous No.13374793]

>>13374769
For me, it's the Tao. Both immanent and transcendent, talked about as both substance and principle but treated as the latter mostly... it's a bit hard to wrap your head around, I'd say. The first line of the Daodejing literally says that it cannot be known/understood completely by anyone, ever.

[Anonymous No.13374798]

what about concepts of contemporary philosophy? things for which you need a degree in the matter in order to understand them?

[Anonymous No.13374806]

>>13374784
>Xenofeminism
>capitalism bad
>men worse
>anything outside the in group is essentially fascism

Woah, so this is the power of xenofeminism?

[Anonymous No.13374808]

>>13374798
>concepts of contemporary philosophy
Give examples.

[Anonymous No.13374809]

>>13374769
The self as a relation between itself and its own self, or as that which relates itself to itself in the relation, not a third term as a negative unity but as a positive third term

[Anonymous No.13374812]

>>13374808
but im asking for them

[Anonymous No.13374814]

We're all just chickens in a blender

[Anonymous No.13374819]

>>13374814
Please don't say these things. Reading this stuff unironically make me depressing, let me live in a relatively peaceful ignorance.

[Anonymous No.13374825]

>>13374809
There was like a solid 150 years after Kant where Westerners just kept coming up with Buddhism over and over again.

[Anonymous No.13374827]

>>13374769
a nigga name

[Anonymous No.13374848]

>>13374819
The devil's already bothered you and set you adrift and your dog ideals have died and you are only now learning how to jump in and out of different graves

[Anonymous No.13374851]

>>13374769
Rastafarianism

[Anonymous No.13374853]

Teleoplexy

Positive feedback runaway

Capital

Hyperstition

intelligence

[Anonymous No.13374854]

>>13374819
WHATS IN A NIGGA NAME

[Anonymous No.13374859]

>>13374776
Nigga, German Idealism is just one branch of perenialism

>There is One
The Divine, which is ultimate Spirit/Geist
This thing is Absolute, Infinite Consciousness
Your own individual consciousness is a finite and individualized manifestation of that Divinity that manifests itself in its ever increasingly intricate exploration of Itself
Nature knowing Nature through what Nature brings about (the process of consciousness)
You will return back into the infinity once the delimited and determinated finitude which you call yourself is further determined into its absolute Negation (death)

[Anonymous No.13374861]

>>13374859
German Idealism thoroughly immanentizes the One, it is perhaps only Schelling himself who was the true perennialist

[Anonymous No.13374895]

>>13374769
Literally anything that requires students to view things from a different perspective than they already believe. Exploring an idea for its own sake is an extremely rare skill.

Most philosophy students are interested in one thing "hur dur atheism" and read that into every reading and discussion.

- nuances of free will arguments. compatibalism etc,
- nuances of epistemic limitations. Most stop at "what if our eyes can't see" or "induction means nothing.".

Others cannot grasp anything which is not universally agreed upon now.

- Aristotle's views on the cosmos, women vs men, and teleology.
- Aristostle's categories.

[Anonymous No.13374903]

>>13374769
Body without organs

[Anonymous No.13374904]

>>13374769
The Illuminati Initiates Illumination Introductory

[Anonymous No.13374923]

>>13374814
I see a fellow sleeper that wishes he slept no longer. How do we get out of the existential Osterizer?

[Anonymous No.13374930]

>>13374895
I can agree but relativism is only tolerable in certain elite academic circles. Lets not forget postmodernism is what really fucked the world.

[Anonymous No.13374938]

>>13374923
when you die you wake up.

[Anonymous No.13374950]

>>13374769
I thought this was a Melee thread for a second when I saw the OP image. Anyways you could argue that fascism has become somewhat of a brainlet filter for Americans — not because the ideology itself is difficult to comprehend, but because a lot of recent political discourse consists of the left & right trying to push the label of "fascist" to the other (e.g. Dinesh D'souza).

[Anonymous No.13374960]

>>13374930
studying alternative views doesn't mean you don't believe in objective truth.

I hate relativism too. That on the other hand is very easy to learn. what if everything/nothing is true?

[Anonymous No.13375062]

>>13374960
>what if everything/nothing is true?
Don't even think we are allowed to consider that.

[Anonymous No.13375065]

>>13374861
I see random quotes from him posted here all the time that are very similar to Vedanta

[Anonymous No.13375071]

>>13374769
Has "philosophy" ever contributed anything of merit?

[Anonymous No.13375076]

what the FUCK is in a nigga's name, i ask you

[Anonymous No.13375086]

>>13374769
There aren't really any difficult concepts to understand. The way concepts are presented might impede understanding, but the concepts themselves are not all that difficult. What is usually the case is that the notions and implications of these concepts are a lot harder to grasp.

[Anonymous No.13375100]

>>13375065
>I see random quotes from him posted here all the time that are very similar to Vedanta

there is no transcendent ground in hegel, the ground is immanently grounded by its own self-movement, there is no unmanifest that manifests, there is only manifestation and its eternal, dialectic cyclicity

[Anonymous No.13375103]

[Anonymous No.13375212]

>>13375103
I don't see "golf rumors (proceed with caution)", so this is a shit list.

[Anonymous No.13375229]

>>13375103
>concrete enemas

YOU DARE REVEAL THIS PRACTICE TO THE UNINITIATED?

[Anonymous No.13375534]

>>13375071
NPC

[Anonymous No.13375546]

>>13374779
Zero is the absence of essence. Woah, that was so hard!

[Anonymous No.13375549]

>>13374769
Metaphysics in general, but Ontology. Epistemology isnt for brainlets too.

[Anonymous No.13375551]

>>13375546
retard

[Anonymous No.13375556]

>>13375546

tfw brainlet.

The actual conceptual breakthrough is seeing the need for an additive identity. Algebraic structures are discovered when you start thinking about operations themselves and similarities between operations.

[Anonymous No.13375558]

>>13375556
>tfw brainlet
I hope you meant that for yourself, lad. Lmao...

[Anonymous No.13375566]

The rule against perpetuities

[Anonymous No.13375577]

>>13375103
Does "god's ego death" mean as same as mainlander's theory on death of god?

[Anonymous No.13375587]

>>13375558
> he doesn't know abstract algebra.

that's ok, please just fuck right off of this topic though

[Anonymous No.13375588]

>>13374784
>achieving human instrumentality by cutting your dick off and shitposting on Twitter
It IS hard to really understand I guess.

[Anonymous No.13375591]

>>13375588
Kek

[Anonymous No.13375594]

>>13375587
>assuming things
Epic brainletto

[Anonymous No.13375612]

>>13374769
It's either German Idealism, Heidegger, or very deep analytic epistemology stuff.

[Anonymous No.13375613]

>>13375594
major cope here

[Anonymous No.13375634]

>>13374769
quaternions and their practical applications in human morality

[Anonymous No.13375640]

>>13374793
The dao can be entirely understood in an instant, it just can't be analyzed or explained with language

[Anonymous No.13375647]

>>13375612
Is there someone who dig more deeply on elistemology in analytic tradition, than Wilfrid Sellars?

[Anonymous No.13375745]

>>13374785
Plato's Forms is really easy to understand. German Idealism is the final boss of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13375754]

>>13375745
>German Idealism
Borderline bullshit. Hegel is complex, but he writed with his ass. That alone adds a big layer of obscurity

[Anonymous No.13375787]

Finland doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.13375823]

>>13374769
I would say either german idealism or the works associated with the CCRU. But honestly I came to the conclusion that marx is the biggest and easiest pleb filter

[Anonymous No.13375865]

>>13375787
>r/finlandconspiracy

[Anonymous No.13375878]

>>13374769
Truth

[Anonymous No.13375907]

>>13374809
Admittedly this is not an intuitive definition, but it opens up a little as you spend time with his work and come to appreciate how thoroughly he rekt Hegel.

>>13374825
I wish you would leave and never come back.

>>13374895
My undergrad experience in a nutshell. Any system that mentions God even once is apparently too much to handle, even as a thought experiment.

>>13375612
Heidegger is definitely a contender. I would also nominate David Lewis. Find me someone who can appreciate modal realism and understand even 1/10th of the logic behind it, even if they don't subscribe to it, and that person is probably a competent philosopher.

[Anonymous No.13375913]

Randomness

[Anonymous No.13375930]

>>13374769
Everything related to Immaunel Kant

[Anonymous No.13375978]

>>13374769
Hardest is deciding which character is best: Fox jiggly or peach

[Anonymous No.13376065]

Me ? I am mew2kingist

[Anonymous No.13376119]

>>13374806
Braaaaappppp

[Anonymous No.13376129]

>>13375071
how we eat shit & think

[Anonymous No.13376137]

>>13375930
If someone said "lol Hegel is definitely harder than Kant in any way", how you going to respond to it?

[Anonymous No.13376159]

Why I am a virgin at 22.
Actually, it's pretty easy.

[Anonymous No.13376174]

>>13374769
Lurk more

[Anonymous No.13376180]

>>13374769
If you count mathematics as a part of philosophy, probably inter Universal Teichmüller theory.

[Anonymous No.13376184]

>>13376129
I dont eat shit..

[Anonymous No.13376186]

Ousia
Nous/dianoia
Pyr
Logos
Haecceity
Gelazenheit
Transcendental Ego (Husserl)
Noesis/noema
Ereignis
das Geviert
Désoeuvrement
Il y a
der Grund
der Ungrund
der Abgrund
die Begierde
Ablassen
Aufheben
Trope
Apeiron/unendlichkeit
Metaxy/Eros/daemon
Wu-wei
Chronotope
Dao
Nijūsekainaisonzai
Metanoetics
Khôra
Idol/icon (Marion)
Phronesis

[Anonymous No.13376189]

>>13376180
Nah, i will still say Langlands program and finding structures in Spectrum of Z is hardest

[Anonymous No.13376209]

>>13376189
I honestly wouldn't know, at some point you have to accept that certain things are just beyond your understanding, so you might be entirely right.

[Anonymous No.13376223]

Richard Rorty

[Anonymous No.13376266]

>>13375212
Tier 9

[Anonymous No.13376318]

>>13376186
a few more:

Nonphilosophy
Monad
Inscape/instress
Individuation
Aeon/chronos
Emanation/ekstasis
Subjectum
Metaphor
Conatus

[Anonymous No.13376509]

>>13375745
>Plato's Forms are really easy to understand

read this and get back to me

[Anonymous No.13376569]

NIGGA NAME?!

[Anonymous No.13377724]

Universals
Representation
Peircean phaneroscopy and semieotic
the given

[Anonymous No.13377749]

>>13374769
bruh what's Armada doing here. Come out of retirement already you bitch

[Anonymous No.13377757]

Unironically dasein.

[Anonymous No.13377772]

>>13374769
ooo

[Anonymous No.13377779]

>>13374809
Sounds like atman.

[Anonymous No.13377792]

>>13374769
Every philosophical concept is the hardest concept if you just dig deep enough

[Anonymous No.13377804]

>>13374769
Probably something simply, like a sense of humour, if humour can be considered a philosophical concept. Humour is definitely a brainlet filter.

[Anonymous No.13377822]

>>13377792
Nah man, don't go too far to the point it gets absurd. Nobody takes Zeno's paradox seriously anymore, it was just all about sloppy logic of sophists

[Anonymous No.13377875]

>>13377822
>t. Never go deep on Zeno's paradoxes

[Anonymous No.13377911]

>>13374769
Providence

[Anonymous No.13378046]

>>13374769
Mew VS Mewtwo

[Anonymous No.13378063]

>>13374769
pro-skub vs. anti-skub

[Anonymous No.13378244]

>>13377804
Based

[Anonymous No.13378273]

>>13374923
Read de Maistre and Horstmann, we're alreadyat full speed baby.

[Anonymous No.13378317]

>>13374930
>postmodernism is what really fucked the world.
I disagree. Cult of Reason was worse and we still haven't recovered from the trauma. The greatest humiliation mankind has seen, and by its own hand - no wonder we who gain knowledge are drowning in irony.

[Anonymous No.13378328]

>>13374960
Everything is true. That's what truth is; the collection of everything to everything.

[Anonymous No.13378595]

>>13374780
Unironically this

[Anonymous No.13378685]

Dialectical Materialism, given no-one ever seems to say right about it.

[Anonymous No.13378710]

Being qua Being

[Anonymous No.13378725]

>>13374827
NIGGA NAME?

[Anonymous No.13378760]

>>13374769
I've bounced off Anti-Oedipus pretty hard.

[Anonymous No.13378771]

That philosophy is ultimately pointless.

[Anonymous No.13378992]

>>13375071

Yes. Logic, early computational theory, the scientific method, most subsequent improvements of the scientific method, the best political systems, all of our remotely rational ethical views, to name a few

[Anonymous No.13379008]

>>13378992
>"everything is philosophy!!!"
Such a tired platitude.

[Anonymous No.13379107]

>>13379008

No, these are some of the achievements of philosophy, very narrowly defined. As in philosophers, doing philosophy, in philosophy departments, came up with these things before anyone else.

[Anonymous No.13379117]

>>13374769
Christianity.

[Anonymous No.13379129]

>>13379107
>philosophers, doing philosophy, in philosophy departments, came up with these things before anyone else
But they weren't doing philosophy as it is defined today.

So either we use the old school definition of philosophy in which case this discussion is pointless because everything is philosophy, or we use the current definition of philosophy in which case you are forced to concede that it's a waste of time.

Either way this a boring argument to have and I'm speaking from experience because I've had it before and I know exactly how it goes.

[Anonymous No.13379145]

>>13375907
The description of modal realism in wikipedia is pretty simple, what about modal realism can be described as hard?

[Anonymous No.13379172]

>>13379129

Must of been wrong back then as well. Becuase i specifically chose examples that are considered philosophy, narrowly defined in modern departments. Most of them were done this century by analytic philosophers for fuck sake lol. This isn't a "everything is philosophy" argument, its a list of whats, with one exception, been done in the past century by philosophers in the most modern conception of it. Not that the modern conception is as divorced from the older stuff as is commonly thought.

[Anonymous No.13379209]

Timeless decision theory

[Anonymous No.13379233]

>>13379145
The concept itself isn't bad, as far as analytic metaphysics goes, I meant more of Lewis as a thinker and his larger body of work. Trying to follow his logic that leads him, plausibly, to a conclusion like modal realism can be kind of mind bending. As a primary text author he is fascinating and frustrating, died way too soon.

[Anonymous No.13379247]

>>13379172
>Must of

I'm incredibly suspicious of all of your claims because I'm actually more than usually familiar with one of the fields you make a claim in and the claim you make about it is patently absurd, which leads me to believe that all of your claims probably are.

I know people who work in government at a senior level, by which I mean people who have actual control over policy decisionmaking. I can guarantee you that philosophy is not involved in government in any way, shape, or form.

>"but what about ethics?"
Sure, ethics is involved. But the decisionmakers don't sit down and have rational philosophical debate about it. They just act based on their intuitive understanding of 'the right thing to do' when they feel the need to. Their ethical decisions are products of people running on philosophical autopilot and channelling the ethical zeitgeist, not any form of philosophy.

>"but philosophers are responsible for the form of that zeitgeist"
Pffft haha no they're not.

>"but what about the design of the systems"
Basically just policy decisions with lawyers involved.

Take it from someone who has been there: government has no connection with philosophy. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. It never has and never will. Your claim that philosophers have been responsible for the best political systems at any time, let alone within the last century, is absurd. I base this on my actual research into politics as well as my firsthand experience of it and my access to a wide range of firsthand accounts from people who have literally been there making decisions that impacted millions of people, actually wielding the kinds of power that philosophers talk about. On this basis, I judge that on the balance of probabilities your other claims are similarly absurd.

Anyway I'm not going to bother posting any more in this thread because it's, as I said, ultimately pointless. I intend to live my values, unlike philosophers. Ciao.

[Anonymous No.13379308]

>>13379247

I could pull you up on details here,, but there's no point, becuase you're not responding to what I said. Which is that the best forms of government was influenced by philosophy. Just look at the American Consitituion. I wasn't talking about what politicians actually do. I don't care that politicians are shit ethical reasoners, the point is that the best ethical reasoning they could employ, were they so inclined, exists becuase it was invented by philosophers.

By "contributions", I don't mean that a bunch of civil servents are philosophically literate, i mean that philosophy has made a bunch of tehcnical discoveries.

[Anonymous No.13379357]

>>13374769

Understanding how much of it is actually bullshit; categories that don't describe anything concrete, mere webs of abstraction.

For a discipline that ostensibly requires one to be brutally logical, dogma abounds in philosophical circles. It's sclerotic, haunted by antiquated notions and mysticism, hubristic and divided. You see it here all the time, and in academia... 'Intellectuals' going apeshit when the vague concepts they can barely define are criticized. They'll worship at the altars of dead men instead of holding the ideas themselves up to the proper scrutiny of logic.

tl;dr Hardest part is not getting spooked. If you can do that, then philosophy is the best way to to learn critical thinking (to whatever extent that can actually be taught).

[Anonymous No.13379372]

>>13379357
>and in academia... 'Intellectuals' going apeshit when the vague concepts they can barely define are criticized. They'll worship at the altars of dead men instead of holding the ideas themselves up to the proper scrutiny of logic.

yes, it´s the best way to become arrogant, fuck intellectuals and fuck the academia who think they´re above everyone else

[Anonymous No.13379385]

>>13378992
You are correct anon, philosophy is really about formalized logic, which those achievements do stem from. Nor did you imply that 'philosophy is everything'.

[Anonymous No.13379512]

>>13379357
Everything you're saying is its own dogma an spookery. You sound like you just read Quine for the first time. Philosophy requires logic and formal argumentation, but these references to "mysticism" and this statement about "[worshipping] at the altars of dead men instead of holding the ideas themselves up to the proper scrutiny of logic" makes me think this is just analytic arrogance masquerading as clear thinking.

[Anonymous No.13380906]

>>13379512
>makes me feel...
FTFY

Thank you for the demonstration.

[Anonymous No.13380912]

>>13375549

The OP asked for individual concepts, not branches of philosophical inquiry.

>herp derp but I am instead treating the branch-as-such as the concept, you have shown yourself a dunderpate

[Anonymous No.13380935]

>>13374895
I fucking hate the “translator’s notes” in philo books for this reason. The translator has to put his own twist on things because he’s oversocialized and the subject matter hurts his sensibilities.

>inb4 “read it in the language it was written”

[Anonymous No.13380959]

>>13380906
>makes me think
>HAHA, makes me feel...
>gotcha
nice.

[Anonymous No.13381103]

>>13374769
Noese, noeme (especially its distinction from object).

[Anonymous No.13381124]

>>13374769

Philosophy itself. Anyone who wastes time with this instead of studying hard sciences is a brainlet. That was the test all along and everyone in this thread failed.
Start studying analysis physics.

[Anonymous No.13381140]

>>13374769
Electricity according to Tesla.

[Anonymous No.13381161]

Machine philosophy

[Anonymous No.13381185]

>everyone fails to mention reality

[Anonymous No.13381226]

>>13374895
good post

sucks that youre an npc

[Anonymous No.13381241]

>tfw philosophy is just a cope against uncertainty

[Anonymous No.13381242]

>>13374769
therse no god

[Anonymous No.13381247]

>>13374769
Hauntology
Lacan's Four Discourses
Univocity of Being

[Anonymous No.13381272]

>>13374825

>It took Westerners so long to recreate Buddhism lmao
>Implying Buddha wasn't "Western"

[Anonymous No.13381339]

>>13380906
>Ignores my entire post and instead changes my words to make a point, using an insignificant turn of phrase as the target

If I call you a retard, would you prefer I translate it into propositional logic so you can understand with that big ol analytic brain of yours?

[Anonymous No.13381366]

>>13374776
German Idealism is just poor man's "neo"Platonism.

[Anonymous No.13381436]

>>13374769
Deconstruction

[Anonymous No.13381510]

this board is so fucking stupid

[Anonymous No.13381547]

>>13381510
no u

[Anonymous No.13381634]

>>13375103
>fake news is a conspiracy
Okay, CNN and Rachel Maddow.

[Anonymous No.13381664]

Modal realism.

[Anonymous No.13381694]

>>13381510

[Anonymous No.13382048]

The Infinite

[Anonymous No.13383158]

>>13374769
God.

[Anonymous No.13383176]

>>13383158
This guy's art is great, thank you for posting

[Anonymous No.13383346]

>>13383158
To be fair, I had an atheistic science teacher and he was seriously an intelligent guy. Awesome to talk to, and didn't rag on me whatsoever for being Christian. We even discussed Christianity before, and discussed politics on several occasions. I was likely the most right-wing person in the school.

[Anonymous No.13383504]

>>13381339
So get into details then, instead of just proferring vague knee-jerk objection. What exactly is arrogant about requiring our terms to describe the concrete as well as possible?

[Anonymous No.13383792]

>>13376318
>>13376186
isnt that literally the school of life guy? if it is, your opinion is discarded for all ever

[Anonymous No.13383798]

>>13383346
It's a shit thing to say about someone, but if you'd really have pressed him, he'd've probably turned out to be a really shallow guy.

[Anonymous No.13383821]

>>13376223
Rorty is extremely accessible and easy to understand because he puts his ideas in context and does a very good job of highlighting what he takes from Witty, Dewey, and Heidegger. Anti-representational pragmatism is honestly pretty simple and intuitive.

[Anonymous No.13383838]

>>13374895
A.'s categories are only hard to understand because they're hard to reconstruct.

[Anonymous No.13383849]

>>13383798
Define 'shallow'. I also don't know what you mean by 'it's a shit thing to say to someone'. Do you mean when I said he's an atheist? That's essentially how he describes himself, though really he hates labels overall. Even when discussing free speech, he seems to very much believe in freedom of expression save for calls to violence, but he really doesn't seem to like adopting any labels. I think he takes it to literally. I mean, I typically call myself a Conservative, though I'm different from the UK Conservatives it would seem who are constantly bungling Brexit (JUST GO NO-DEAL!) and even my local Conservative Party of Canada whom I've voted for for as long as I could vote, but they've come out as 'centrist'. Fuck that! I'm right-wing! Anyhow, just because I call myself a 'Conservative' doesn't mean I adhere to Conservative values. It's just that Conservative values, at least my understanding of them, GENERALLY describe my views. It's an easy way to get across my overall view on things even if it's not 100% accurate, it's merely convenient. He seems to think that you should not have a label unless it describes you with 100% accuracy. Someone should not call themselves 'pro-free-speech' unless they're okay with calls to violence, as it were, though he didn't say it like that. That just seems to be his view on adopting any labels.

[Anonymous No.13383888]

>>13383849
It's a shit thing to say that someone is shallow out of one sentence description.
Sounds like one of those Penn & Teller types who look really interesting on the inside, but the more you dwell on them, the more you see they're reddit tier appeasers with little to no substance of their own, which is also a shit thing to say. But yeah, in my experience, literally ever atheist is more of a husk than any moderate religious peoples.
Also it's nice that you're conservative ad don't sperg about labels. People call themselves all sorts of things they don't live up to.

[Anonymous No.13383932]

>>13383821
>Anti-representational pragmatism is honestly pretty simple and intuitive.
actual anti-representational pragmatism comes from Peirce. Rorty's anti-metaphysical cop-out of representation is not pragmatism, or helpful in any way.

[Anonymous No.13384010]

>>13383888
I don't bother with reddit and don't know the culture.

As for my science teacher, I had him for quite some time, switched to him because of the previous leftist science teacher I had. In fact I had been learning about biology and about invasive species... no joke... I made mention to the migrant crisis and all the Muslims being sent to Europe where the cultures have been in conflict. Wish I took a pic of that paper, maybe I did, who knows. Anyways, I still hold respect for that second science teacher I had. I don't think he was a 'husk', and what's more, his father was seemingly in the process of dying towards the end of my education there. Yes, he was late on occasion and some days he didn't even show up, but when he WAS there, he was 100% present, and he had enthusiasm about explaining things to students and also had a delightfully crass sense of humour (would curse during class VERY casually sometimes, but strangely it was always very comedic with good timing). He also had some funny pics as screensavers playing on the display during class.

Anyhow, I think it would be good if you distanced yourself from your 'all atheists' stance. Even if it's true, I think you should seek more conversations with atheists. Hey, I'm living with one as a room mate, and he's so unbearable that I've dreamed of beating him twice and envisioned beating him with my bare hands on several occasions. I firmly believe that the ONLY reason I am not in prison and that bastard isn't in the ground, RIGHT NOW, is because of my faith. I can even see the LOGIC behind it, of martyring my freedom for the sake of sparing the world his evils, and he IS evil. So I understand how AWFUL some atheists can be, but it does no good to paint an entire group with the same brush. Seek out more atheists and have honest conversation. Try to avoid confirmation bias. It does no good. God bless.

[Anonymous No.13384071]

Anything by Wittgenstein, after that you are free to never study philosophy since you understand how trivial surface level arguments are without atomic knowledge

[Anonymous No.13384108]

>>13374769
Tfw no gf

[Anonymous No.13384133]

>>13384071
>without atomic knowledge
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.13384169]

>>13384133
that means read Wittgenstein you cuck

[Anonymous No.13384182]

>>13384169
just give tl;dr version

[Anonymous No.13384203]

>>13384133
It's too difficult to succinctly explain in a sentence, but give Tractatus a read (its <150 pages and Investigation In Philosophy is the most influential philosophical work that defines this idea)

Essentially: "no part of the world can be known without the whole being known first"

This idea is repeated over and over again in physics and mathematics, essentially it's the main idea behind the 20th century philosophy and how we understand the world now

[Anonymous No.13384214]

>>13384203
>"no part of the world can be known without the whole being known first"
so it's essentially 3 wise guys and one elephant dilemma?

[Anonymous No.13384222]

>>13384203
Your reading of early Wittgenstein is very strange. Atomic facts are just the basic building blocks of the overall picture of reality that we come to understand. The most constituent pieces of everything which "is the case." From these atomic facts we can build molecular facts, and more complicated and detailed aspects of the picture of reality, etc. Atomic facts are just the assertion that the total number of things to know about the world is theoretically exhaustible, it is a closed system.

[Anonymous No.13384271]

>>13374769
99% of this thread is fucking pseud retards, including OP.

There's no "hardest" to understand, there's only deliberately obscure worthless trash and actual philosophical concepts and ideas. The only thing stopping anyone from comprehending a point of view is "are you ready for this yet". You can't explain existential dread to a 13 year old, they're just not experienced enough in living to get it. Philosophy is like that, you have to read certain things and do enough thinking by yourself before you can understand the really "out there" ideas.

[Anonymous No.13384377]

>>13384271
>its another psued calls others psueds episode

[Anonymous No.13384384]

>>13384377
Name one thing I said that was pseud retard

[Anonymous No.13384388]

>>13384384
>everyone is dumb but me
lmao

[Anonymous No.13384415]

>>13384388
No, everyone itt is a pseud but me.

And you're an insecure pseud to be whining about it still.

[Anonymous No.13384421]

>>13384415
#rentfree

[Anonymous No.13384595]

>>13374853
ML engineer at a top tech company here.
Afraid meltdown might be very prescient.

[Anonymous No.13384681]

>>13374769
Armada

[Anonymous No.13384713]

>>13374923
we cant get out, we must go from a blended to an unblended state.

[Anonymous No.13384723]

>>13375212
he was didn't want to get taken out by glowing niggere

[Anonymous No.13384725]

:--DDDD Body widhoud organs

[Anonymous No.13384767]

>>13384222
I do not suppose I can form an adequate enough explanation right now, the quote is from the wiki page in atomism so I figured it was apt.

[Anonymous No.13384813]

>>13384214
Perhaps the explanation wasn't what you where looking for. Don't think of it as a counter philosophy to whatever you are fond off, it's meant to express philosophically and through logical axioms what our interpretation of objects and events surrounding those objects consists of.
Again, it's pretty difficult to explain without sounding like a witchdoctor, as I don't claim BA in Philosophy or have read the books to a degree where I could understand the meaning as clear is I want to(you will notice that once you start reading - it's a hard read and a single sentence might take 10min to understand)

[Anonymous No.13384859]

>>13374776
this

[Anonymous No.13385017]

honestly, the work of wilfrid sellars and those who write about him/the same topics are pretty fucking difficult. Mainly because its written with the microscope of analytic philosophy and covers the entire history of philosophy, since Plato at least...

[Anonymous No.13385161]

>>13385017
yeah sellars is absolutely up there

[Anonymous No.13385309]

>>13375103
>Mad Gasser of Mattoon
It's so bizarre that my hometown of 17k people is featured on an /x/ bait image

[Anonymous No.13385320]

>>13374769
being.

[Anonymous No.13385433]

I'm high on lsd right now

[Anonymous No.13386213]

>>13383932
pierce is incredibly chill. rorty’s work in philosophy + mirror of nature is good but his late work, especially political work, is so soaked in universalism I don’t understand how he could reconcile it with his philosophical writing

[Anonymous No.13387365]

>>13374769

Ayer's emotivism

[Anonymous No.13387472]

>>13380935
Or the translator will just edit out icky concepts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KqkyNnm7Bc

[Anonymous No.13387479]

>>13384725
I haven't read Deleuze, but I heard second hand that the idea is (something like Heidegger's distinction between ready to hand and present at hand) that unless something fucks up, it appears to us as a unity, just as our body feels like one thing, that we don't even notice (it just blurs into our environment) when it's working.

[Anonymous No.13387495]

>>13374950
I miss him so much

[Anonymous No.13387626]

>>13374769
Pessimism (or realism).

Normies and brainlets are too caught up in the cult of positivity, the just world fallacy, and the rat race of pleasures of the flesh, to be able to consider the idea that conscious existence might be not-okay.

And that it's okay to say that conscious existence is not-okay, and it doesn't imply that you must necessarily kill yourself if you think that.

Once you realize your ego, down to your sex drive, down to your desire for social acceptance, etc... are all just tools that evolution uses to satisfy it's own anti-anthropocentric intentions, then funnily enough they hold less power over you. You're less likely to be swayed by some insane thot, you're less likely to feel personally slighted by misfortunes, and you're less likely to give in to social pressure.

But normies and brainlets are by definition status-seeking, and enslaved to their hijacked evolutionary reward mechanisms. To even admit for a second that life is not simply nihilistic, but morally wrong or evil, probably would drive them to suicide, as it attacks the core of their being.

They will never know what it is like to watch their immediate impulses pass by, and to recognize them as not serving your best interests, and realizing your best interests are themselves a tool of evolution to puppet us.

There is no escaping the cosmic woodchipper, but you can choose higher orders of contemplation and being within the understanding of this cosmic woodchipper; thus robbing the universe of some of it's totalitarian power over you.

Your mind is a self-torturing-suffering-machine(TM), a parasite on the serenity of the pure void. However, not all suffering is equal.

Don't waste your suffering on low orders of contemplation. Be a puppet with loose strings.

[Anonymous No.13387630]

>>13385433
based drugposter

[Anonymous No.13387638]

>>13384415
>everyone itt is a pseud but me
>111 posters

Statistically speaking, it's rather very unlikely. Therefore changes are you're indeed the pseud.

[Anonymous No.13387747]

Christian anihilationism

[Anonymous No.13389102]

>>13384271
My existential dread started when I was around 13 :(