/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Oh, Goddamnit.

yee

>>3440

Context? What is this? Should I check it out?

>>3440

>10 seconds in

>nietzche

and its already garbage.

>tfw senior in HS.

>>3449

explains why youre a flagfag.

>>3450

Ravishing rectangles.

>>3444

Just watch an episode of Crash Course: History and youll see why its such a great thing for this guy to do the same thing with philosophy.

>>3456

ahh fucked that up, meant to italicize there. besides, i bet hes a meme spouter.

on the bright side he said he's not going to focus on facts; something cc is not very good at anyway.

test

test

test

I'm not going to watch it anyway so what do i care of its existence. The guy's mannerisms are very off putting, it's clearly intended for children.

>>3440

Its a casual users, beginners course.

Yes it will probably produce a shitload of retards who'll think they are the be all and end all of philosophical knowledge because of it. But its bright colors and flashy images are probably much better for getting people interested then slapping Kant or Aristotle on the desk in front of them.

>>3446

>>3491

It's this type of commentary that kills the board for me. So far the only value I've extracted was from the sticky.

God forbid we share educational resources to new comers.

>>3513

I haven't read Russell's book, I read Magee's because I happened to come across it in my library. I've heard that Russell gets Nietzsche and Dewey wrong.

>>3513

I would prefer to take it upon myself to navigate through the past works that are most relevant to my search on existence as well as truth. If all my interactions are going to be met with elitists that feel or perhaps more appropriately think they need to belittle others that to them are "of lower intelligence" then it's quite obvious what course of action I should take.

I would have acknowledge your efforts to share knowledge with others but your notion of respect is lost upon me. I guess this is just a consequence of the Chan culture we've been put under and I should have known better but despite that I held out hope that a community of gentleman would congregate on this board.

If you even bothered to read this far (assuming on my part that you hold the idea I'm below you) I'm quite shocked. There could be a sliver of hope yet. That being said however if you proclaim to be a philosopher I've been met with saddening disappointment.

Also as far as the topic at hand goes I would only use philosophical YouTube channels as a reference to search out the works they discuss.

There's just too many specific issues to address so I'll go back to searching/lurking.

>>3517

There is being curious and intelligently going about it, and there is being curious and willingly stupid.

If you think garbage like this or school of life are good sources to start looking into philosophy you're just wrong. These people don't just butcher the topics, they never even saw it alive to know what they present even was.

If I could I would have these types of channels banned by state law for false information, because that is all they are. There is no summary to philosophies. Ever read commentaries of academic level? They're often about as long as the book they comment on if not longer. There is a reason for that, and it is precisely because it's not material for kids or fools.

If you're interested in philosophy you can only engage it on the level of philosophy, not infomercial tier garbage. You want some new dogma to believe in? Go get it elsewhere and leave people who would have hated you using their names and philosophies as your new comfort pillow.

>>3517

>There is being curious and intelligently going about it, and there is being curious and willingly stupid.

So much for the sliver of hope.

>These people don't just butcher the topics, they never even saw it alive to know what they present even was.

You may want to rephrase this sentence. Of course you don't know everything about the philosopher or their work by watching a 10 minute video someone made for entertainment. To do so is pure negligence.

Well thanks for engaging I guess. Though it's proven to waste both of our times.

>>3517

>I would prefer to take it upon myself to navigate through the past works that are most relevant to my search on existence as well as truth

do you begin learning math with calculus?

>but your notion of respect is lost upon me

what respect? i have none for you, nor should you have any for me. we are anonymous after all; the entire purpose for this moniker is to do away with such affectation.

>community of gentleman

again, if you want a community of fedora tipping gentlemen, r/askphilosophy would probably be more your speed.

> you proclaim to be a philosopher

i do not consider myself a philosopher, and i only place myself above you because i have the good sense to drink from the clear river, and to not bother with one of it's half dry, muddy runoff creek.

>>3524

> So much for the sliver of hope.

i hope you realize that is a different person than the one you were originally speaking to.

>>3520

>it's not for those types of people!

Somehow you don't strike as anyone who is capable of being anything more than an unimaginative container.

>>3517

It seems you personally chose to take my comment as "belittling" the intelligence of others. All i said is that I find their mannerisms off putting and I won't be watching it.

How you make the leap of mental gymnastics to "this madness them elitist" is beyond me. If people enjoy watching then go watch it; I won't.

something being for children does not automatically preclude it from being intelligent, it merely puts a cap on the depth of the topic explored

>>3542

"it's clearly intended for children."

"if the opinions of your betters..."

I wonder where I drew those implications. It's fine if you don't want to watch introductory content. Just don't try to argue to me that the comments wouldn't be taken by other anons as insulting. As for the suggestion of r/philosophy I don't wish to register (if that even is a requirement cause I've never posted there) for I find it simpler to post on Chans. That and I've been lurking on Chan boards since 08.

Also If you say so then it must be true. I don't really care how you justify your posts.

>>3546

>Just don't try to argue to me that the comments wouldn't be taken by other anons as insulting.

how would you know? are you a mind reader now? ultimately you made a choice to interpret these things as insulting, and in turn to be insulted by them. these are things that you chose to do, and i will not walk on eggshells because you, or some imaginary hypothetical person, wish to behave like children by pretending they have no control over themselves.

are you a woman?

also i hope you realize the person you are replying to is only talking about his post specifically. you do know we have IDs here, right?

>>3548

>are you a woman?

Are you a retard?

>>3546

What are you talking about?

"If the opinions of your betters..." What does this have to do with me exactly?

Very perplexing.

It's your choice to take the comments as insulting. I'm sorry your feefees are so fragile that someone thinking something you enjoy is for kids damages you so.

How I justify my posts? Are you mentally damaged?

>>3550

are you a shitposter?

>>3552

>(1)

WOO

FIRST EP HAS ARRIVED