/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1364

Did he actually say that? Because that's the dumbest fucking shit I have ever read.

>>1438 He did. It's a pretty ignorant statement.

>>1370

It would be neither serving nor being served.

>>1362

I believe that there is no afterlife and that free will doesn't exist, which makes me kinda sad.

>the purpose of life is happiness

citations needed

>happiness is achieved by virtue

citation needed

>>1429

The man in the barrel is a Cynic, not a Stoic.

>>1457

>substituting ebin maymays for actual argumentation.

Due to the subjective nature of the content it isn't even possible to respond to you seriously.

>>1438

>>1364

Yeah I love Camus, but I actually see his portrayal of the "absurd hero" completely compatible with someone with the lifestyle of say, Diogenes. Not to mention his glorification of rebellion.

>>1466

>my subjective opinions are 100% objective facts.

>>1479

>assuming what I think.

Where did I say that?

>>1461

Yeah but to be fair, Cynicism is the logical precursor to Stoicism. And sometimes the lines between the two are so blurred it's hard to tell one from the other.

Granted I love Diogenes.

>>1364

>>1372

>>1438

>>1439

>>1469

There is merit in Camus' statement, especially when accepting that money has become the essence of what we call "life". Without it, you are forced into a state of permanent rebellion against it, and completely reliant on luck (be it in the guise of material posessions, charity/help from others, or even physical fortitude). Just think about what it requires in order to be self-sufficient. Granted, it is possible to be "happy" in spite of money, be it in spite of its lack or its abundance, but the prior is by far the more problematic sentiment, since it also requires you to be humble and accepting, and, ideally, both out of choice.

Being happy in a world ruled by money (not just in terms of governance but in terms of existence) must, in one way or another, account for it. This doesn't mean that money is needed in order to be happy - that is indeed a very simplifying statement - but it does mean that happiness is derived in some way or another in relation to money. And from there it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that more = better.

I can only be happy when I'm deeply asleep.

It's like I'm Home.

Generally yes. I think what sets me apart is that I can live with being unhappy, knowing that I will return to happiness in a few weeks, if not a few days.

I dont think I'm very happy, but I'm ok with that.

>>1362

Well an honest man knows nothing, and ignorance is bliss. I myself always take refuge in my ignorance of what ever really is.

>>2068

And that is proof that we're advanced enough. Many times, questions upset us. But their answers upset us even more. That meaning isn't an inherent quality of the world we live in, but mere observer bias, a concept that only exists in our brain in the form of electro-chemical reactions. Happiness, love, any emotion and thought, really, is the same. It seems as if many people still haven't realised this.

>>2076

It seems many people haven't realized Hegel's philosophy ever occurred. The social nature of humans and their entering a culture of ideas that exists and influences them prior to any reflection they could have on the matter is pretty hard to deny, yet people like you deny the reality of the very ideas that we share in society simply because, kek, you're a genius who just figured out there are no ideas in the world, just in our heads. Unluckily for you the denial of morality won't get you off of committing a crime in a society that does believe in its morality.

>>2080

The real question is: how do you sculpt a veiled face? Is the face just sculpted normally in the zones where the veil isn't bunched?

Art man. Fricking art.

>>2081

I think it might have been a veil dipped into some kind of material that hardened it. But if it isn't the sculptor was a genius.

>>1362

I will not be happy until mankind overthrows the oppressive class, unites together as one, rises to the highest level and masters the stars as his own, claiming it's destiny.

>>2133

i would rather discuss things on a chan than reddit though, for reasons that should be obvious.

>>3301

The reason being that you don't ever want to own up to being wrong and ignorant of what you argue?

There is nothing wrong with forums with account names, especially for actual discussion. The only people that don't want a name attached to them, and this is from my experience of chans since '07, are people who already know that they like to talk shit without having to know shit.

>>2133

oh and that sub fucking reeks of reddit.

>>3302

>The reason being that you don't ever want to own up to being wrong and ignorant of what you argue?

rather presumptuous, arent you? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

i have no problem admitting that i am wrong when i am wrong, nor do i pretend to know anything.

>There is nothing wrong with forums with account names, especially for actual discussion

they add nothing positive to the conversation, and they absolutely add a negative by giving sophists the tools needed to bring up things you said in the past, usually things that have little bearing on the conversation at hand, to play the ad homenim card or the fallacy fallacy, or any other number of dirty tricks to distract form the current discussion, namely doxing or what have you.

> The only people that don't want a name attached to them

>kafkatrapping

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

> and this is from my experience of chans since '07

bullshit, i helped moot steal the software to make 4chan, and your ip doesnt show up in my logs

>>3304

usernames also promote cliquishness and metadrama (i mean look at /v/ and all the drama surrounding mark for an excellent example of these two things, granted, theres more to it than that, but mark putting his name and information out there only exacerbated things) that is entirely avoided simply by removing usernames.

>>3312

>I don't care.The discussions here aren't discussions

agreed, you are too cool for this place. this does beg the question though; why are you posting here? and are you an expert on what is and is not a discussion?

> That's where actual legitimate discussion up to academic level happen these days not on forums nor on boards like this

okay im like 90% certain you are an r/philosophy mod/admin who followed my hyperlink, because i cant see why anyone else would think this way and yet be here.

>If you were actually honest about discussions in philosophy you'd engage that

so im only a philosopher if i post on r/philosophy™? i find this notion funny coming from the guy arguing 'for sophistry and why sophistry is great. besides, where did i say that this is what i want to do? remember, you cant look at my posting history and argue with things i have said in the past. curse this pesky anoonymoose posting!

>(there are enthusiast as well as academic circles for whatever topic you'd like)'

truly r/philosophy™ is the best place on the internet. i should absolutely cease all delinquent posting activities and post only intelligent discussions™ (as determined by an r/philosophy™ moderator) on r/philosophy™, the only place on the net for serious discussions™ about philosophy .

this place suits me just fine, i dont know why you are so intent on driving me away from here.

>If you actually believe your own clout and that this board offers something worth saving

again with the presumptions. where did i say i have any clout? also this sentence doesnt make any sense, i would appreciate it if you would at least attempt having a serious discussion.

>yfw normalfags use phrases like yfw

so please, tell me more about how great r/philosophy is

im going to go out on a limb and guess you are irontide

>>3308

>Every thread here is shit talking and talking past each other willfully without any consequence

You are right that this makes up a majority of the 'exchanges'. Most of the time it's just a single response or statement regarding the topic that doesn't even attempt to engage with other responses. But interesting posts are made and retorts given. I've seen it several times. Aside from the inconvenience of never being 100% sure if the person replying is the same - something I deem to be hardly an issue considering the size of this board - the discussions this enables is comparable to those on a forum.

The only real difference is that you can't link people to ideas they may have expressed in other threads. Is that where, perhaps, the crux lies? Is this what you mean by

>the person making an argument actually matters to the argument in certain situations

?

>>3308

>It's also why actual philosophy forums have, you know, actual discussions instead of this site's shit talking since there is some semblance of shame and respect to keep idiots from posting their shit

Look, you have a point that anonymity enables shitposting. That's no revelation. But that does not mean it disables actual discourse. Unless you are saying that shitposting generates an atmosphere that hinders a parallel fruitful exchange - or that people who would normally engage in such exchanges suddenly become shitposters in an anonymous environment.

This board is not for academic-level discussion of philosophy, but it doesn't have to be. It still is perfectly capable of providing a platform for honest exchange for those who are willing to engage in them. Personally, I enjoy that quite a bit, in addition to the serious discussions I have irl (blog communities seem rather insular to me but I might get the hang of it someday).

>>3343

>This board is not for academic-level discussion of philosophy, but it doesn't have to be.

And yet it really isn't. And that's fine. Look, the only gripe i had with what you said was the just empirically false extolling of the virtues of anonymity for discussion. The problem with this board is not just anonymity, it's also lax moderation, and no real community. I like this place too, I shitpost a lot and don't care to engage anyone seriously. Whenever I've tried to make serious posts and topics they're ignored, so I don't bother anymore. People here are not interested in philosophical discourse >as< philosophical discourse of any kind, let alone academic. We could have fine philosophy on this board of the likes of Socrates or Descarte, etc. Stuff that is presuppositionless or merely asking for the real meaning of something, but we don't have those discussions. I enjoy that kind of honest discussion of discovery, guided or haphazard, but it just doesn't happen here and part of it is the nature of these sites and the reputations they carry, hence the people that come here are not the most fit for this type of discussion, and things just go downhill.

>>3345

Firstly, I'm new to this discussion. The two posts above mine (which is the one you responded to just now) are probably by the person who initially advocated anonymity.

Secondly, my point was that neither shitposting nor anonymity pose inherent hindrances to actual philosophical discourse - and I've had some exchanges here that I felt were of about the honesty and systematic engagement I would expect from any internet discussion platform, including -chans. I've been here a while, too. You say that serious posts and topics are ignored, but I find it hard to believe that the reason for that is anything other than the mere quantity of people here. Personally, I engage with all posts I find interesting and sometimes even get replies. It's a platform that, in this minimalistic sense, works. And honestly one shouldn't expect all-too much more.

(I also don't - knowingly - shitpost. But maybe I'm just a minority.)

>>3346

>You say that serious posts and topics are ignored, but I find it hard to believe that the reason for that is anything other than the mere quantity of people here.

It's not just quantity, it's quality. Something like reddit isn't a better platform just because there are more people. Most people who are competent in philosophy, as someone else mentioned, don't post on the big reddits. You'll find most of the best stuff through searches rather than specific subs. You have to also engage and be willing to be boldly wrong sometimes to bait out those knowledgeable in a topic. A lot of posts are mere quips, yet a claim that's wrong will receive a minor essay response with great details. The chans are not places where those who are knowledgeable will take seriously enough to waste time.

When I feel like actually engaging philosophy i go read articles, look up books, and hit blogs. There are a LOT of amazing blogs from philosophers at the undergrad and graduate level which have fantastic discussions outside of academic emailing lists where a lot of material that later makes it into published articles and books starts off. You don't have to be an academic to join those, but you have an immense pressure to not go in spouting ignorant shit if you can help it.

I myself benefit a lot from trying to explain to others ideas I have learned. It really forces you to translate things into your own language and cement your understanding. I've been doing that lately by writing articles for a no name web rag. Most people have criticisms that just miss my points, but some people ask things that make me rethink and further qualify explanations.

If this place suits your tastes, well, enjoy it. I think a place dominated by idiots is about as good as going to a bar on sports night and trying to have a serious discussion over the hooting, hollering, and the bustle of people. You can do it, but why?

>>3347

>The chans are not places where those who are knowledgeable will take seriously enough to waste time

This, I grant you, is probably true depending on which part of the sentence you messed up (they can be TAKEN seriously on these sites, mind you, but chances are they won't TAKE the sites seriously because they have little to gain from them). It's also why I don't feel compelled to defend the notion of a philosophy board like this more emphatically. I would merely contend that this format actively disallows honest and interesting (though not necessarily top-tier) engagement, which is something you came across as claiming in your initial post I responded to.

As for quality, I can only speak for myself. The way I write and engage here is no different than the way I would write and engage elsewhere. But, naturally, I only come here in addition to other sources. It's not my first resort when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of philosophical discourse. And, again, that's not what one should expect - and not, as far as I can see, what anyone here is claiming.

Like I said, I'm not at all familiar with blog-spots. If you know some really good ones (including your own, if you'd like) feel free to recommend them. Perhaps you don't want to post them here for fear of spam which would be fine too, but I'm all ears if you do.

>>3347

>>3349

By the way, since this thread is in part about reddit (which I am not actually addressing) let me just say that I find the interface they use to be utterly inconvenient, which is the primary reason why I don't browse reddit but do come here.

>>3350

>>3350

I don't know about inconvenience, i fucking loath white backgrounds. Finding a reddit and replying to things isn't hard, posting things is a bit obnoxious, and I just stay away from every other feature because i have no use for them.

I'm interested in continental stuff, mainly Hegelianism and Marxism along with some other smatterings of the post Hegelian movements and philosophers.

http://philipstanfield.com/category/mysticism/

==Materialism and mysticism. There are a few posts that regard the indebtedness that modern scientific thinking has to mysticism.

http://thecharnelhouse.org/

==Some Marxist theory ranging over many topics and thought from many marxist thinkers.

https://deontologistics.wordpress.com/

==This is a heavy academic blog ranging over many topics mixing analytic and continental views

https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/

==Object Oriented Ontology blog. If you're not familiar with such philosophical movement, that's ok. There are a lot of posts which are understandable if you put the effort into it.

[https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/existents-hegels-critique-of-the-in-itself/]

my favorite post from there

https://philossophy.wordpress.com/

==Continental, mostly existential from the articles i've read

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-absolute-truth-about-relativism.html

==I don't like this blog, not my style of philosophy. But this was well argued.

I won't link my stuff, it's mainly very low level fundamental analysis from an internal-reflexivity standpoint. Basically what Socrates did, just showing how certain assumptions don't actually make sense and are contradictory when analyzed.

>>3350

https://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/what-on-earth-is-utility-anyway/

If you ever wondered what economics is really fundamentally about, this blog is from a former economics grad student who seriously broke down a lot of the philosophical underpinnings of modern theories.

I suppose i'll post something of mine in the works in the last two days.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0FgDN9StRPnS1RoUGFIc2o4bXc/view?usp=sharing

An article about why people should study philosophy. The tl;dr is "If you already aren't doing philosophy in some way, it's because you likely can't".

>>3351

>>3354

Thanks. I'll be sure to go through this carefully and maybe I'll even have something to say/add/ask. I'm quite analytically-minded (which I think meshes well with non-analytical approaches) and not too fond of mysticism, but it's always good to delve into topics alien to oneself.

>>3354

>economy

Nice. I know all-too much about it, but it can't harm reading up on what a more knowledgable and - perhaps - less critical person has to say.

By the way

>just showing how certain assumptions don't actually make sense and are contradictory when analyzed

If nothing else, it might be interesting to post one of these analyses as a thread on here, provided you haven't already.

>>3345

>I shitpost a lot and don't care to engage anyone seriously.

>merely pretending to be retarded.

>>3345

>the only gripe i had with what you said was the just empirically false extolling of the virtues of anonymity for discussion

literally your only critque of non-anonymus discussion is that you cant look at someone's post history to derail the conversation with.

> Whenever I've tried to make serious posts and topics they're ignored, so I don't bother anymore

i literally just gave you a serious response (well as serious as you were, anyway). another thing to consider is that this board is quite literally band spanking new, and its no secret that any board outside of the top 5 here has a ludicrously small number of posters. most are probably unaware of this place's existence (i found it by chance) here on this website.

> You'll find most of the best stuff through searches rather than specific subs.

and why would you think it any different here? look at

>>>/32/

and

>>>/svidya/

both of these are able to consistently have serious discussions.

your contention that being anonymous makes it impossible to have serious discussions is verifyable false

>>1362

Any recommended reading on stoicism?

>weeks out

>still no reply from the r/philosophy mod

kek

>>3425

theres only like 3 total ancient stoic works, you should read all of them, and i will link them all to you, but you should start with epictetus, and the enchiridion in particular http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html because its short and a good guide to being a stoic. next you should read the discourses http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html ( although if you have the money, you should buy this translation instead, as it has excellent annotation http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Fragments-Handbook-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199595186/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 ) to acquire a more in depth insight into all things stoic. just know that the discourses were notes taken by a student of Epictetus, and the discourses are notes that he took of Epictetus casually conversing with students, and not even necessarily intended to be a book.

Marcus aurelius is next (http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.1.one.html but this is a rather antiquated translation, if you have the money i would reccommend this translation http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Aurelius-Transformation-Paganism-Christianity/dp/B004AXL5NE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453532814&sr=1-1&keywords=marcus+aurelius+classics+club as it is modernized in terms of speech and has excellent annotation,) and both gives further insight into leading a virtuous life, and is an excellent example for how to write your own meditations

the last is seneca, and he didnt write any actual treatise on the subject either, but people like to read his mail and they get something out of it. i havent read them myself so i cant say one way or the other if theyre worth reading or not. apologies for not replying sooner, i just dont browse 8chan very much any more because endhan is so superior.

>>2060

And if you don't know that you don't know? What if I think maybe I do know.

>>3308

back to reddit you go, you can enjoy your egotism, sense of worth, and censorship there.

Why be happy when I could be interesting?

>>3733

Why live a life worrying about what other people think about you when you could be happy?