Last thread: >>>45698
Relevant areas such as political/critical theory, marxism, phenomenology, ethics, ontology, German Idealism, psycho-analysis, art theory, etc. are welcomed.
If you'd like to discuss things such as modal logic and mathematics, that sort of thing is more welcome on >>>/sci/, unless it's grounded in some discussion more relevant to the topic of this thread.
More poetic/literary/linguistic philosophers may be more relevant at >>>/lit/, though their discussion on a more theoretical level is welcome.
Some grounding experience in the subjects outlined is expected, though novices are welcome.
Feel free to ask if you're unsure on some area and you'd like someone to help, or need advice on resources etc.
Self-bump, I know the thread subject is broad, but it's necessary to facilitate discussion. If enough of a user-base gathers to split away into different threads in the future that would be helpful, but this board is a pretty chaotic right now.
Traditionalist school authors are the only ones that actually look like ancient philosophers even in modern times.
So no analytic philosophy allowed?
Typical, you idiots would still rather discuss things that should be seen as socioeconomic disciplines under the august name of 'philosophy.' Go fuck yourselves. If you don't think analytic topics warrant discussion on this board then you're a fool.
I don't particularly feel like discussing it (partly because I have to write a paper on AJ Ayer's criterion of verifiability later) and I think most analytic philosophers other than Wittgenstein aren't even worth discussing, but it really seems unfair to make a philosophy general that only excludes analytic philosophy. I don't understand why someone would put something like that in the OP and not expect someone to call him out on his bullshit. It's the 21st century, analytics all admit that the divide is an effective myth. /sci/ doesn't discuss logic, anyway.
Yeah, maybe it was wrong for me to exclude it like that. Last thread was bombarded by analytic shitposters throwing accusations of obscurantism around everywhere...
When did you finally grow in the german idealists and accepted dialectics and phenomenology as the only ways to archieve absolute truth ?
>but then I realised I was just following the heretic named Lacan and thinking it's Hegel.
I've read the Science of Logic a couple of months ago and I literally can't remember a single concept from it. The PoS is so fucking easier to grasp, I can't believe people complain of it being 'impenetrable'.
I'm researching depression (as a starting point) from a phenomenological perspective with Husserl, but proceed to use Heidegger instead. I actually agree on that - I like Heidegger better too, but don't discount Husserl. His CArtesian Meditations are not bad. What's annoying about Husserl is that he is so extremely technical in his language. I guess that can be off-putting..
>depression from a phenomenological perspective
Interesting, what was your starting point ? How do you apply rigorously the phenomenological method ?
To me it's still a bit obscure by moments and I see thi method sometimes used to back unargumented point of views.
My real struggle is to understand how one discover the phenomenon.
Please refer to the phrenology chapter of the Phenomenology.
We're talking about it through the frame of philosophy. Marxism is barely political anyway desu.
My 'problem', if you want to call it that, that I start with is the relation or connectio between time and 'meaning'. Of course the word 'meaning' can refer to several things, but I understand it principally on three levels: i) semantic, ii) transcendental and iii) existential. What I'm principally researching is the connection between existential meaning and time. In order to be able to speak about it, I have to show that such a connection is given, and I argue that that can be seen in the phenomenology of depression through Ratcliffe and Husserl. I then proceed to interpret that connection through Heidegger.
You don't know shit about me senpai. Modernists are all equally shit tier anyway.
Abstract objects exist purely as a linguistic phenomena.
There is no abstract ideal table because a table is only a table if we agree it is one. The standard for tableness has been agreed upon, it is not a natural fact.
And the word table itself merely conjures up our culturally defined meaning.
they are not real, they are phenomena found in the human mind
It is. Marxism was a materialist historical conception approach of focusing on class and class conflict as a 'driving force' with a dialectical view of history. It was basically a bunch of socialist philosophers fucking about and saying that we should construct different historical narratives because muh classes.
What makes it political is when that is then taken and extrapolated to mean "because things have been working in this narrative up to this point, we should also look to the future along the same sort of framework" (ie, bullshit).
Marxism (and it's not even difficult to keep it apolotical because people such as the British School in history managed to quite well for decades) is firstly a historiographical approach and secondly a political idea - and if you think the two are inseperable you need to read about it philosophically.
NatSoc and Communism=/pol/
These are the political manifestations of philosophies and ideologies.
Marxism, Lebensraum, Social Darwinism etc are philosophies so can be discussed on /his/
So for example, while I don't think discussion on Israel is appropriate here, I think discussion on Zionist thinking should be allowed as it is a type of Jewish philosophy.
ITT: We poorly describe a historical event or person and others guess what it is
>taking a bath
>die because of circles
That's because a lot of what /lit/ treats as philosophy isn't actually philosophy. Critical theory isn't even obscurantist philosophy, it's sociology, and not very good sociology. The same is true of all vulgar forms of Marxism, which are the only forms of Marxism you'll find /lit/izens discussing, unless somebody actually understands Zizek, which rarely happens because 1) he's actually kind of an obscurantist and 2) most people who discuss these topics have no idea what they're talking about. Tbqh there should be critical theory and Marxism threads separate from philosophy threads; both topics are supraphilosiphical.
Philosophy any just a bunch of names, its also the ideas the people who held those names had. Saying 'Since X BTFO Y we don't need to think about Y ever again,' which is a kind of proposition that we unfortunately see all the time in philosophy discussions on 4chan, is really not at all a proper way to discuss philosophy, and it seems like many of the self-identified continental philosophers on this site don't seem to understand this, despite their expressed love for such thinkers like Hegel, who is surely turning in his grave because of the various abuses of dialectic that have occurred since the Battle of Jena.
There's no meaningful basis between this distinction of political and philosophical aside from an analytic's instantiation of their divide.
Justifying the division is as much a fault as it is a success in disproving what it isn't.
Prove me wrong.
Yeah, trying to have philosophy discussions on /lit/ was ~awful~. I think it would be a shame to separate what you distinguish as sociology into a different thread would be crude and counter-intuitive though.
Is there a flowchart kind of thing that can help me with philosophy reading? Something like "start with A and follow down the path to B or C". Something encompassing all major philosophers and their theories.
Because if there isn't such a thing, someone who has the knowledge should create one.
>What do you guys think about nature vs nurture do you think someone can be born inherently evil or is it something that is taught or nurtured into the mind of while in childhood?
Define political and philosophical, then we'll talk about your unfalsifiable and not even verifiable belief that every piece of dust in the universe is either already politicized or destined to be politicized by you and your buddies.
The fact of the matter is that, unless the issue at hand is expressly political, bringing politics into the discussion is often unhelpful, as far as gaining a better understanding of the thing itself goes. If I want to learn about the biology of bananas and you start lecturing me about the time the United Fruit Company used the CIA to overthrow the Guatemalan government because it was nationalizing banana plantations, I'm going to walk away from the tablw and find a biologist. This is effectively what discussing things with internet Marxists is like. You aren't wrong, everyone else just wants a more interesting perspective than the boring class conflict narrative that's been so popular for so long.
But we still can and should discuss Marxism philosophically and historiographically without any politics involved. As I said, it's easy to seperate them since it's essentially a 'base' of ideas and historical theories and then a load of extrapolated shit that comes from that. Their structuralist and narrative-based historiographical ideas meant that they were particularly able to then justify and essentially manufacture a load of political ideas from them (unfounded obviously, since they made the structure and framework that they themselves manufactured as fact).
>Prove me wrong.
Critical theory isn't philosophy, though. It seriously isn't. Every claim the school's members make boils down to a sociological, economic, or historical claim. There's no reason to discuss it in philosophy threads.
>Distinguish between the political and philosophical
>Else the impssible
No wonder everyone hates arging with rationalist retards.
Your arbitrarily historical divisions in social systems of knowledge are an expression of their own redundancy in regarding the political and the philosophical distinct.
Define political and philosophical, please, I'm really not sure why anyone objects when they're asked to define a word. If you're so confident in your worldview you should at least be able to argue in favor of these claims. And remember: I'm not saying that philosophy isn't all political, I'm saying that bringing the Marxist metanarrative into every discussion of philosophy can be tremendously unhelpful and misleading.
I don't see it as political philosophy. Is it political? Sure. Does that make it philosophical? No.
Maybe a philosophy general wasn't such a great idea...
>bringing the Marxist metanarrative into every discussion of philosophy can be tremendously unhelpful and misleading.
Why? It's not even the first philosophical or historiographical approach that uses metanarrative.
Actually answering your question:
Ontology is the study of the nature of "being", for example:
When you think "apple" what exactly are you referring to? the object "apple" or the idea of "apple"? whatever the answer you might give to this, the question is about the ontological nature of a physical objects in relation to language. It is about the "being" of the apple, what is exactly the apple? that´s what ontology is concerned about.
I'm not complaining about the Marxist metanarrative or the use of metanarratives in general. I'm talking about the way Marxists on the Internet are almost incapable of discussing something without turning it into an opportunity to defend Marxist dogmas. And I mean the dogmas specifically, not the nuances of the perfectly valid and often insightful Marxist tradition.
-Can't prove everything isn't a dream, simulation, hallucination, deception, misconception, so any perspective on reality is equally possible
-If any perspective on reality is equally possible, then no one idea/perspective can ever be proven as right/wrong/correct/incorrect/true false (including the above)
Counter: The true skeptic dies being unable to decide whether or not he needs to breathe (or rather, it's inhumanly difficult to maintain total skepticism practically)
-Because of the above, we need to find some beliefs/perspectives to stick to
-However, because skepticism is still the logical ideal (that is, it cannot be logically beaten; have fun trying), this would mean any belief chosen isn't chosen out of being most rational, but out of ultimately arbitrary personal reasons/preferences
-Thus, because we cannot turn to logic to objectively determine which beliefs/ideas are most rational or true, we will believe that our perspective is best/true and others less so (i.e., Nietzsche's perspectivism)
-Further observing human nature, we appear to be structured to seek out what brings us pleasure and avoid what causes pain (via evolutionary imperative for survival), so it can be said that the human ideal is to maximize pleasure/happiness and minimize pain/suffering over a long life (i.e., hedonism)
-Thus, since beliefs are adopted based on arbitrary personal preference rooted in hedonistic desire, the ideal human beliefs are those which maximize one's own pleasure/happiness and reduce the risk of pain or death.
-If all beliefs/attitudes are on some level arbitrarily chosen by our mind's preference, then it should be more easily possible to change what makes us happy/hurt rather than change the world around us to suit our interests
-Thus, the ideal way of being is to adopt beliefs which make it easier to get along with others, easier to achieve our goals competently, and contain more opportunities for happiness/pleasure over time than pain
There's shit all to "debate" about philosophy on an anonymous board.
If someone maybe posted a study or a work that isn't part part of the dated canon, then I guess maybe "we" have something to talk about.
Ideology and Utopia - a critical work in the field of the Sociology of Knowledge, and an all around interesting an accessible read.
Now go read it and explain something wrong with it.
Protip: you won't
I know this isn't relevant to the thread, but for anyone else out there who's had to do proper academic discussion or work, can you imagine how much more fun and simple it would be if you could greentext or write 'muh x' when summing things up as responses?
I think I'm going to love this board.
Forgive my ignorance - I am still a bit confused on what Malcom's stance on violent revolution was. Was it more about self defense, or being violent if necessary to get a point across and a discussion started?
So, I am searching for a book which can give a broad view on philosophy. I consider picrelated, but I am worried by the fact that it was written by positivist. Besides, I want to have some insight in eastern philosophy as well. Any advice?
He has to be remembered in the context of the civil rights movement era.
He rose as an alternative to the nonviolent and integrationist ideas of King, and particularly following the failures of the Chicago Freedom Movement and the rise in race riots and violence occuring in urban areas, many blacks simply stopped believing in King's message of hope that the federal government and arguments of the SCLC and NAACP will slowly create meaningful change and progress for civil rights. Many urban populations were facing increasing amounts of violence and chose instead to choose a message that was developed from segregationist/black nationalist ideas by Marcus Garvey etc., where black populations should stand in solidarity and face the violence against them by both white populations and the police instead of continue nonviolence.
X's ideas in the civil rights movement weren't (at least originally, I don't know much about his later life and all that clusterfuck) violent in the aggressive sense and you can't really say that they advocated change through violence. His main message was, especially to urban populations in places like California, that blacks should stand together and arm themselves to prevent the state governments/police from being able to harass them and to prevent white violence from further hurting their communities. Though obviously this is and was misconstrued by blacks and whites at the time and now, X essentially just wanted blacks to empower themselves through arming themselves with guns and other means of self-defence - not so much to force change in the sense of the civil rights movement, but simply to improve conditions at the time for many blacks.
One key thing that they did was in California, where black youths would deliberately follow police patrols around with weapons (all legally) to 'discourage' the police from any discrimination against blacks. There's a few documents that X and co. published regarding this, I'll try to find them.
Fuck, I confused Malcolm X with the Black Panther Party, I forgot they weren't the same thing.
X's ideas were among the foundations for the BPP, though, and as you can see in their Ten-Point Program (https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/workers/black-panthers/1966/10/15.htm) and their actions, they follow on from the ideas he had. X basically led a new movement in the civil rights era away from integrationism based on blacks defending themselves.
The Panthers were the ones who'd patrol around in California following police patrols to make sure everything they did was legal, and they'd patrol around themselves with guns (again, this was legal). You could say they were baiting, but you can also say the same thing about the Freedom Riders and I don't see how anyone can't just defer to the federal law and constitution as the ultimate arbiter.
>tells people to fuck off to /pol/
I can't help you with philosophy alone, but if you want to look at the East with history in mind then Said's Orientalism is pretty much an essential read nowadays.
Also, other than postmodern writings, everything you read will be written and influenced by a certain ideology and worldview, so the best thing you can do is read as much as possible and just be aware of each of their ideas and flaws.
Thanks for the response. Since King's ideas ultimately incited change established in law, were X's ideas less effective? Or were his ideas good and relevant to the group of people he was speaking to?
I've always had this notion that X and King had conflicting ideas and goals but with further elucidation it seems as though they were not entirely in conflict.
So someone give me the low down on why I should read metaphysical, ontology type philosophy. I can dig the political and ethical stuff, aesthetics etc, but have a blind spot when it comes to the nature of being or phenomenology.
It always seems to me to be basically like theology, different people arguing over stuff that is ultimately unknowable, how many angels on the head of a pin etc.
>Since King's ideas ultimately incited change established in law, were X's ideas less effective? Or were his ideas good and relevant to the group of people he was speaking to?
It depends how you want to measure their success, to be honest.
On the one hand, the nonviolence and integrationist ideas of the civil rights movement have ultimately won out in terms of integrating blacks into American society and protecting them properly in federal law.
On the other, King's and the SCLC's efforts (many of them resulting in miserable failures) in places like Chicago and other urban areas where they tried to create change did very little if anything to improve the quality of life for black Americans at the time.
When black communities started rejecting nonviolence and instead started looking for ideas of self-defence and autonomy to protect themselves, they probably did improve their quality of life and safety in their society. Obviously there was still violence, but the fact that many blacks owned guns and stopped trying to peacefully protest and instead tried to live their lives not avoiding conflict (and instead trying to prevent it by being armed), that kind of thing is more measurable of the time. In fact, King was becoming distraught in the years prior to his death because he and his fellow intellectuals thought they were failing because people were rejecting the civil rights movement as he led it.
If I remember rightly, X and King were courteous to each-other, but King loathed people (intellectually) who were undermining, damaging and opposing his integrationist movement. And likewise, organisations of black intellectuals such as the NAACP went through many periods of deseperately low popularity, and had multiple crises where they were running out of money and people to listen to them because there was just no visible progress.
My experience as a person with a major degree in Philosophy with the best votes is: Use philosophy for your own thinking, and to talk with intelligent people.
Philosophy is not good for 4chan, self entitled bitches using buzzwords are who made empty the philosophy, universities are full ot these people yet, no need of other that.
I have only good things to say about Bert Russell, from what I've heard. In uni my professor was actually taught under him for the majority of his degree and from what i hear he's one of the most pragmatic people anyone could ever meet. Either way there's my anecdote, take it for what it is.
Because it's first philosophy. The basis from which all other philosophy springs. Every individual philosophy has some kind of metaphysics, ontological commitment, etc. The mere fact that centuries worth of physicists, philosophers, and logicians have failed to eliminate metaphysics should clue you in to the fact that it's important. It's certainly not theology, there are answers to these questions and they continue to have relevance today, whether that be in interpreting quantum mechanics or inquiring into traditional metaphysical questions
Not really. Most people who say metaphysics has been superseded by developments in the hard sciences are unaware of the historical attitudes of major physicists, logicians, and cognitive scientists towards metaphysics. Advances in fundamental physics can certainly inform our understanding of metaphysical problems, like the impact Bell's Theorem has had on our understanding of nature itself. Kurt Godel himself was a mathematical platonist and wrote frequently on metaphysics, Niels Bohr believed that the aim of physics was to uncover what can be said about nature, not how nature is. The sciences have their formalism and signs, and they're extremely useful in terms of predicting phenomena and achieving experimental results. But if you want to understand the true essences underlying reality, you still need metaphysics.
>But if you want to understand the true essences underlying reality, you still need metaphysics.
Ok, bear with me. So the idea is, there is the observable measurable universe which we can understand through science, but there is also more to reality than this, and we need metaphysics to understand?
It's not so much that there's 'more' than it is that science doesn't give us the full picture. Observation without interpretation is fine if you're simply trying to repeat the results of an experiment, or explain the mechanism behind some process, but the actual essences behind that cause such physical processes remain unexplained by science. Newton devised his laws of gravitation, but was at a loss to explain what gravity itself is. Einstein devised his theory of relativity, but the whether spacetime is substantial or relational remains an open question. The founding fathers of quantum theory created a remarkably precise theory that remains unchallenged today, but it raised such interpretative problems that the scientific community remains philosophically divided today over what it actually says about the world. And so on.
What do you mean by 'essences'?
This is sort of the thing that turned me off. To me it seems metaphysics is kind of 'god of the gaps'
Maybe that's too loaded of a word. What I mean by 'essences' is just the the ontological status of the entities in question. Mathematical objects, the wave function, probability, space, time, and all the concepts metaphysics has traditionally dealt with. Science makes use of these concepts in order to categorize and make sense of our experiences in the world, but the purpose of metaphysics is to clarify these notions and what is meant when they're being used. It's the investigation of the meaning behind the signs
>talking about metaphysics in the 21st Century
You're asking for trouble.
Bear in mind this is just based on the books I personally read and used for studies.
>Coretta Scott King's 'My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr.'
her accounts of the time with him, which include various important periods of the movement. Obviously it's flawed and personal and not intended to be a history of the movement, but it has good anecdotes and accounts of what he was like during certain events and how he felt about things.
>Stephen B. Oate's 'Let the Trumpet Sound'
a good overall history of his life, and
>'Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement' ed. by John A. Kirk
is a pretty good reader for this too (it's a collection of organised essays/chapters from other books or journals).
>Mark Newman's 'The Civil Rights Movement' is another good reader which was written recently, takes account of revisionist historiography (especially relating to the White House and civil rights) and serves as a pretty adequate secondary source for the history in its own right.
>Steven F. Lawson and Charles Payne's 'Debating the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1968'
is also a pretty good broad reader for the movement and includes a number of important issues of the time, and is based on a number of the primary documents available - which themselves are pretty valuable.
>Robert P. Green, Jr. and Harold E. Cheatham's 'The American Civil Rights Movement: A Documentary History'
is also good for this. Generally, even if it's a reader, if it's a documentary history or primarily centred around the documents it's valuable.
>Thomas L. Blair 's 'Retreat to the Ghetto: The End of a Dream?'
is a good book for the subject, but you have to bear in mind the historiography since it was written in the '70s.
>Malcolm X's 'The Autobiography of Malcolm X'
is obviously something worth reading if you want to learn about his ideas and work.
And finally two decent readers for a more broad history but are still pretty comprehensive are:
>August Meier's 'Negro Thought in America, 1880-1915: Racial Ideologies in the Age of Booker T. Washington'
>'The Negro in Twentieth Century America: A Reader on the Struggle For Civil Rights', ed. by John Hope Franklin and Isidore Starr
If you Google any of them you'll probably be able to find .pdfs for most fairly easy, some will have to be library (likely for the old ones) or downloaded from any number of websites that have loads (>imgur, but http://imgur.com/gallery/R1XDNLo).
>Mathematical objects, the wave function, probability, space, time
Defining and understanding things is of course fiendishly difficult, but what does metaphysics bring to the table than normal physics doesn't?
What help is it when it can't be tested or verified? Or can it be tested?
I am a confused bear
Isn't presupposing the nonexistence of God an equally large presupposition? Why do you think every argument for the existence of God presupposes His existence? Why do you think atheism is more likely to be correct than theism?
There's no evidence for God. Presupposing he exists is like presupposing that Santa exists and we should draw our ethics from his naughty /nice list
It depends on what you view the aim of science to be. Metaphysics at the very least acknowledges these are problems, while the current prevailing attitude in the physics community is the result of decades of ingrained hostility towards foundational issues in their own discipline. Positivists attempted to cap a lid on any metaphysical speculation regarding these issues in early 20th century and this is frankly a very anti-intellectual attitude to take. John Bell had to publish his seminal papers in the underground 'Epistemological Letters' because to inquire into these problems was to commit career suicide. Not because they weren't worthwhile issues to explore, but because the attitude towards them has immensely negative. Physics, and to an extent the rest of the hard sciences, have drifted away from their initial aim of probing deep questions about the nature of the world. The very fact that the scientific realism/instrumentalism divide still exists attests to this.
Well, I was born in the 1990s, so I'm neither continental nor analytic because that divide is largely over. The worst of continental went to Sociology and the worst of analytic is new atheism and sloppy empiricism and all that.
>Why do you think atheism is more likely to be correct than theism?
I never said that. Agnosticism seems the more appropriate route (be it theistic or atheistic). I think that a better system is one that allows for God to exist, and allows for God to not exist. A system that is not compatible with both conclusions makes too large of a presupposition.
That's not to say that a system that makes a huge presupposition like that is absolutely unworthy of discussion or consideration.
But the image I was replying to seemed to be attempting to claim this board in general as having a unanimous agreement on making one of those presupposition (that being that God exists).
I mean I know it was shitposting, but it got me anyway. Oh well, it stimulated some discussion.
>There's no evidence for God.
That's debatable, really. It also presupposes that evidence for the existence of something is proof that that something is likely to exist, which doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
>Presupposing he exists is like presupposing that Santa exists and we should draw our ethics from his naughty /nice list
1. You're using the word presuppose again.
2. Why shouldn't we do that?
You presume zero value in logic and experience and infinite value in the scientific method and accreditation. This is the historical Analytic/Continental divide. While it's outdated at this point because people take inspiration from many sources now, it was a deep conflict of which you belong to one side.
Reminder than Schoppy was BTFOed
A young philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, requested
the right to do his habilitation in Berlin and to be allowed to give
lectures there; he also requested, strangely enough, that if it were
possible, his lectures should be scheduled at exactly the same time as
Hegel's lectures. The dean of the faculty, August Boeckh, passed along
Schopenhauer's petition to the rest of the faculty, noting with displeasure
the "no small arrogance and extraordinary vanity" contained in
Schopenhauer's request. The rest of the faculty also took umbrage with
Schopenhauer's "arrogance," but Hegel apparently had nothing against
it, and he agreed to set a date for Schopenhauer's defense (March 23,
r 82o) . Schopenhauer read a test-lecture on the traditional notions of the
four causes, and in the ensuing discussion, Hegel asked him to clarify
what he meant when he said that "animal functions" account for an
animal's behavior; Hegel thought that in one of the examples Schopenhauer
had given, he was confusing motives (reasons for action) with
causal factors such as pulse, blood circulation, and the like. There
ensued a bit of a to-do between Hegel and Schopenhauer on the point,
with the zoologist Martin H. K. Lichtenstein cutting in to defend
Schopenhauer's use of the term "animal function";
Schopenhauer was a conscientious realist among his age; his thought appropriated the most radical spokes in the general wheel of world knowledge and has thus as many objections made to him as arguments for.