what I expected
coping with loneliness and not fitting in with the world
what I got
dude just be a hedonist lmao
Coping with loneliness and not fitting in with the world
what I expected
get over it normie
What I expected
Poignant narrative dealing with ascetic loneliness from one of Germany's best
What I got
Tediously juvenile insight from the guy who wrote Siddhartha
This probably sums up a lot of my feelings here. The writing was nice, but the "message" seemed pretty pedestrian and not very creative. It was basically "live life for pleasure" but dressed up in literary devices.
Okay, so I very seldom post on Veeky Forums and I'll cop to being a brainlet. I'm going to ask a question and you're all going to immediately dismiss me as a troll, but I assure you I just want my (probably stupid) question answered.
Will reading Steppenwolf give me a better appreciation for the villain of 'Justice League'? The character was pretty lame and underdeveloped. I assume he must have some connection to the novel.
Thank you for honest answers.
Prelude to Steppenwolf is actually better than the entire book
It's not good for coping, it's more like every incels dream. His whole "coping" is built upon luck, that some beautiful girl showed extreme interest in him.
Not very likely and not any real help.
You guys are either pretty dense or the English translation sucks in some way.
The book does not say, become a hedonist, endd of story.
Have you actually read all the parts about the diversity of a human being and the importance of not letting some parts of it go to waste? Have you understood that it is important that Haller felt out of place beforehand?
This book is a lot more complex and a lot better than you think or say it is.
God Veeky Forums is terrible now
In other words, you projected your own situation onto the novel, and were somehow surprised that it wasn't about that.
His whole "coping" is built upon luck, that some beautiful girl showed extreme interest in him.
She isn't real FFS. She's his feminine complement, or Anima. Even her name is a clue (what's the author called again?)
You're not wrong.
Forced Jungian bullshit is embarrassing and just further devalues the novel
dude wtf are you on about
This boy is right. Steppenwolf is great.
you're a mongoloid
No wonder Germany is in such a shit state today
Animas and leprechauns don't exist son
You really are a mongoloid.
Neither do half of the events in the novel, you bell-end.
i lik the part where he dresses up and acts like a fake intellectual at his old professor's dinner party but then storms out because of fake Goethe icon
Will reading Steppenwolf give me a better appreciation for the villain of 'Justice League'?
Certainly not lol.
He enjoyed poetry and the classics, although he was lonely.
She liked him and wanted him to go dancing. They danced and I presume his life was much more fulfilling.
That's about all I remember from this one.
novel specifically deals with a "tfw to smart for plebs everything is black-or-white" teenager and his emergence from the cocoon of pseudointellectual edginess and autism
Is it even possible to be more of mouth breathing retard without any self-awareness whatsoever?
animas don't exist
Really? Have you never projected an idea of perfection onto someone or fallen in love with the idea of someone?
Whatever you want to call it that shit is real.
read the book a long time ago, didn't he leave because of some alt-right pepe meme his professor posted on twitter which made him ragequit?
it was some meme about accepting different incompatible parts of yourself and expressing them all or something like that maybe
This is why Hesse says Steppenwolf is the most misunderstood of his books.
Its a book for adolescents.
This, the novel in no way shape or form is calling for a hedonist life style, rather an he is made to accept things he once scoffed at as being useless, such as dance and jazz. The realm of the intellectual makes room for the realm of the physical and emotional.
siddharta and damien are for adolescents, steppenwolf is for plebish 50 year olds
why all the murdering and gore though?
What the fuck are you on about. How is Hermione "perfect", stop listening to horoscope tier gobbledygook and think critically for a minute
Veeky Forums: Wtf I hate Steppenwolf now!
It's always fun to spot brainlets who first started "serious" reading in their twenties and complain about Bildungsromane for teenagers not being sophisticated philosophical treatises.
guy who wrote Siddhartha
Literally the absolute worst from Hesse by every metric. Stop being a turbopseud.
Bildungsromane for teenagers
Hesse specifically says in the preface its not intended for young men you fucking retard
He most certainly doesn't. You're welcome to prove me wrong, though.
You just fucked up son
salty author's note thirty years after publication complaining about children failing to comprehend
hur he said it's not for teenagers in preface
Alright you got me there. The point is Hesse explicitly thought it was 2deep4u
And Moliere thought himself a much better tragedist than comedist. And Rupi Kaur no doubt thinks herself modern day Yeats. Point being: it is in fact an exemplary coming-of-age novel and it's no more sensible to look for some deep enlightenment in this work than it is to criticize Winnie-the-Pooh for not dealing with deterritorialization or struggles of the working class.
thats what the anima is
In the end I capitulate and I'm sorry. I stuck you for authors dumb intent but you're totally right
Read some Jung and STFU. Because your ignorance of him is the reason you don't get Steppenwolf.
Oh no I get it, I just think its really dumb
I find the notion of anima a useless and deluding concept. What it registers as "perfection" of an "ideal" is so broad and ambiguous that it serves only to undermine an imminent reading of characters with all their potential imaginative dimensions with a schematism that only a priori suggests the significance of associations that are ultimately merely contingent to the schema itself with all the loaded biases that went into its construction.
Essentially its worst type of literary theory where you stop reading the work itself and get distracted into a self referential symbolic system which serves only to narrow your experience rather than expand it. The fact Hesse himself shoehorned in such symbolism only serves to highlight its circular-logic
ok, all of you animist jungian fucks, what was the point of the murder?
The confirmation bias is strong with this one.
I bet you can see a jewish complot in a jar of peanut butter.
There was no 'point'. Read the dialogue that follows.
Hellfire, have you guys actually read the fucking thing?
bro...what is your angle
the point is there was no point
It's not a fucking literary theory
I'm being generous, you're right its pseudo-mysticism
don't remember much, was a couple of years ago, not much interest in reading it again
Okay. You read it, you apparently didn't like it, you don't remember it and you don't intend to reread it.
Why the fuck are you here?
i liked it though, i just don't remember much from it
Whatever dude its obvious you have no idea what you're talking about
Bildungsromane for teenagers
Why the fuck is there a YA book on the lit 100?
Where did you derive hedonism from this at all?
The true nature of the ending is based on a world of intellectual ideals, perspectives, opinions, and assumptions crashing down hard on the ego.
This is about the proud lonely individual aka "The Special Snowflake" getting absolutely btfo'd by the sheer awe and overwhelming multiplicity of the universe crashing down on him. It's message is based on stop making assumptions about who you are, who other people are, what the world is like, what you think you know.
So you're saying you should try sucking black cock just once instead of assuming you wouldn't like it
I'm already gay, but I think you should not assume that I wouldn't fuck your mother until I gave you 5 more brothers.
I'm already gay
Then you have zero credibility talking about whether something is hedonistic you self consumed loser
M-MUH HEDONISM, STOP HEDONISM.
Does your simple bird brain always entice you shout words you think have true meaning and wit without context? You are the kind of person that takes words and rapes them into uselessness because you think you are actually making some sort of point. You have no point. There is not one excerpt in the book that implies hedonism is the true answer. There are passages in the book that imply The Steppenwolf is being enticed and torn between two contrasting ideals, but he is thrown into disarray. You truly think an author so inspired by eastern philosophy and spiritualism would be that stupid to take one side and stick with it? He's implying even dualism is incomplete and missing the point.
Your life has zero meaning
Because it's a great YA book.
the power of /pol/yp intellectuals
I like this post
Its all thats needs be said. Pleasure and "experience" on their own terms are ultimately nothing but an a priori defined void. With nothing inside them but the pre-determined writhings fit only for a sub-sapien horrorshow.
Homosexuality being the most purest example of its logic played to fruition, as you bump your way from one languid pseudo-relation to the next from cradle to grave.
You want to promote self sacrificing to the ambiguity the novel promotes but its a dialectical dead end, and the exact one the people of Germany knew when he was writing this shit before they flung faggots like you into the furnace
stop taking all your assumptions for truisms
immediately responds with a prepackaged cookie-cutter edgy /pol/ straw man
vacate the board, underage
The presentation was moreso stop trying to construct anything. Stop trying to define a meaning in yourself that you actually stand to live by. The time of narratives and identity is over. Accept the semiotic void of modern life
Suck nigger cocks is the perfect summary of it
I'm not the gay user, friendo. Merely laughing at you getting rekt and resorting to pure unadulterated ad hominem. Also putting your basic bitch "muh degeneracy muh ebil relativism" pol-shittery in quasi-intellectual flowery verbiage doesn't in fact make it any less stupid or pathetic. Just exposes your brainletism even more. Now run play in the meme thread and "win" arguments by regurgitating pseud non-sense on your dedicated brainlet board.
Doing exactly what you're currently trying to criticize someone for
And not an argument was found that day
The presentation was moreso
Feels like that episode of Friends where the dumb one found automatic thesaurus replacement on a laptop.
Stop trying to define a meaning
That's your retarded leap of logic strawman. The point of Steppenwolf is not to abandon all narratives, but not to exclude the ones you currently hold from critical assessment and reevaluation.
not an argument
There's no need for a counterargument when there hasn't been any argument in the first place, brainlet.
The two propositions are one and the same. Meaningful conceptions of ones life and self are not free to be combined and swirled about without like so many colors of paint turning into a garish grey-brown pulp. Just as you can't be someone worthy of dignity and respect from God while being a literal human shit eating homo. The discovered pamphlet that Harry finds makes this situation clear, Hesse sees a project of meaning as a useless and nauseating wreckage. All well and good but I wont be told by some genderqueer munter that its not then a clear giveway to hedonism as Harry was in the end nothing but a cucked and drugged gimp and told it was good for him
You are completely missing the point. Steppenwolf is the deconstruction of the ego, not necessarily the deconstruction of political and cultural narrative, but the political and cultural narrative oneself begins to hold sacred and true as a justification of false individuation and self-righteous alienation from the rest of the world.
And these comes from a means not of "void" or bleakness, but of the beauty, the incomprehensibility of the universe, Hesse is trying to bring eastern spirituality in the context of western psychology and philosophy.
Steppenwolf is the deconstruction of the ego, not necessarily the deconstruction of political and cultural narrative
In what fucking universe are these not one and the same. The Ego is the core of all Western Civilization. The Ego is absolutely everything.
Deconstruct it all you like but don't act as if it isn't a flagrent disavowel of all that was once held as significant and worth living for in Western thought
Your life has zero meaning
the exact one the people of Germany knew when he was writing this shit before they flung faggots like you into the furnace
muh life has no meaning
having actually read Mans search for meaning I can tell you you've fallen for a meme, you're mimicking the same whinge made by plebs who don't know who they are and you don't actually believe a word you say but you are unable to articulate anything else having never had an encounter with God and discovered who you are
you bump your way from one languid pseudo-relation to the next from cradle to grave.
if you can't find meaning in this then I'm sorry you were born wired wrongly, maybe in the next life you will find out who you are
you self consumed loser
who else is there to consume? still don't know who you are?
having actually read Mans search for meaning
My friend you know absolutely nothing
The two propositions are one and the same.
They're not. Being self-aware and able to reflect upon your own worldview is not in any way equal to "abandon all narratives". Stop trying to shoehorn everything into your meme knowledge and drag it down to poltardian shitflinging.
Meaningful conceptions of ones life and self are not free to be combined and swirled about
They most certainly are. Everyone's weltanschauung is necessary a composition of views from different ontological paradigms. People aren't just sole ideology fueled robots despite what your years on /the_pol/ have taught you.
The discovered pamphlet that Harry finds makes this situation clear, Hesse sees a project of meaning as a useless and nauseating wreckage.
This only makes clear that you haven't read the book.
further impotent poltardian rage
I'm not reading that shit. Compose a coherent paragraph like an adult
I've tolerated your clumsy attempts at larping as an intellectual with needless purple prose so far, so do oblige.
No fuck off with your reddit vivisection
appeal to 'capital W' Western Something
Why do you keep shitting up my board, based pede?
I am unable to substantiate my autism or debate rationally
let's criticize form/grammar/semantics and call him reddit
Next time just post a frog and something about degeneracy, pointless shitstain.
a board de facto dedicated since creation to upholding and investigating the Western Canon
Why won't /pol/ go away with their problematic words like selfhood and Western thought!
Don't mind if I do
What did he mean by this?
"b-but X is le core of Western Civiliaztion!!1"
I know public schooling might not have taught you this, but that doesn't in fact constitute an argument. Also surmising that extraneous societal phenomena in realms of politics and culture are innate part of individuum's ego just screams maximum retardation.
What else but commitment towards the ego seperates Western thought from other civilizations?
Its rooted right down to the quest of Odysseus, right through to the Cartesian mind to the origins of the novel itself with Robinson Crusoe. The might and scorn of Ahab. The human-God Christ with his feet walking upon Englands mountains green. The ego is absolutely everything without a stern commitment to it we are absolutely nothing. Brought back down to our simean foundations in a swarming pile of niggers.
repeating what I already said with vaguely related imagery will surely make my non-argument logically coherent
Not your board of impressionable teens, friendo. Funny you would go on to play retarded word games about commitment to self and bring up Greeks and Cartesians when Aristotle and Descartes had rather different metaphysical concepts of selfhood and as such that would already constitute historical "non-commitment" in your pseud tirade where you conflate individualism and immutability of beliefs. Also great job not addressing your retardation about political and cultural realities being innate to individuals. Maybe read some more and come back when you have any actual arguments instead of exuding pointless sophistic.
I took it as the realization of an individual that everyone is alone, that these issue we think are our own aren't and that one man's method isn't exactly the other.
Lets look at the characters here. First we have the Steppenwolf, a man obsessed with the past and lost in nostalgia. He's a man who can't understand hedonism and in fact goes against. He goes against social interaction and is, almost to a t, an individualist.
Next we have Hermine. She is the definition of social. She knows everyone, she loves to dance, she loves to be lost in crowds. She only cares about the present, only about the moment. I suppose in a way you could call her a hedonist, but in reality in was different.
We have these two opposite people, these people who love completely different things, and yet we see them connect unlike any other. We see them even start to love one another with the Steppenwolf bring Hermine introspection, and Hermine bringing him social interaction. It's individualism vs communalism, two opposite ideals. And yet, even with all this clash, they are nearly the same character. I mean look at them, they have the exact same worries, the exact same fears, the exact same opinions. Both are suicidal, both are looking for comfort and true connection, and neither can find it.
I took the message to mean we are all the same, no matter how hard we try to hide it under 'intellect' or 'art' or 'fashion' or any number of labels that make us feel better about ourselves. I feel like the ending sequence only doubled this down with the war between nature and machines pushing the same point. Nobody cared what side they were on, they just wanted to fight. And the sequence with all the woman? It was a statement on what humanity gives to each other, how different and yet how similar and necessary we all are.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the imagery was wonderful, and I took the book to mean more than just 'lol hedonism'. I guess we all see it differently though.
Y-yeah well you're wrong because I say so and your views are problematic
Back to reddiit Schlomo. Your game is up
You can just admit you don't know what he's talking about. Everyone here sees through you.
Leprechaun s don't exist
The An Sí live in mounds and trees, they most certainly do exist
'Justice League' guy here again.
I'm stuck (unsurprisingly). According to /co/ the 'Steppenwolf' character is indeed inspired by the work of Herman Hesse, but has vary little to do with the novel 'Steppenwolf'. It was suggested to me that the character was actually inspired by 'Siddhartha', Hesse's fictional account of the life of Jesus. Hesse apparently portrays Jesus as a jewish militant, prone to violence. I have some serious doubts about Christianity, but at the same time I'd rather not read anything that's deliberately offensive or sacrilegious. I figured that most of you posting in this thread have read enough Hesse to tell me whether or not the book's any good.
So, Is 'Siddhartha' worth reading? Thanks in advance.
It's good but Jesus definitely wasn't portayed as a militant in the novel
is Siddhartha supposed to have anything to do with jesus? he seems a simple modern enlightened hedonist not interested in saving anyone or preaching anything
the book is breddy gud though, so yeah read it
aside from that, my favorite "fan-fiction" of jesus was on Master and Margarita
is Siddhartha supposed to have anything to do with jesus?
It was actually inspired by the accounts of his early days on his path to enlightenment, you can find it in them in the bible
Sounds incredibly gay and pathetic.
Fuck that you heathens need to read Kierkegaard and havea backbone. /pol/ man is right
what i expected
cool story about werewolves in a tundra
what i got
some gay shit
dude Steppenwolf is bad lol
hey will reading this book make make me like this superhero movie
wtf is w/ diversity and open borders lol fuck Germany
More than half the people posting in this thread should be gassed.
Not an argument
The message of Steppenwolf is quite fittingly baser than "just be a hedonist"
It's more like "just stop thinking so much and experience life"
Exactly, it’s not even being condescending towards the intellectual side of life, just saying to embrace both the mind and the body. It’s pretty much the theme in like over half of fucking Hesse’s bibliography
Thats the same thing. Basically just dumb hedonism
Left without rational motivation a being is naturally directed solely by its most base pleasure principle
It's funny because Steppenwolf is literally a critique of people like you.
Hedonism is a dedicated philosophy
It's a way of life, a part of one's identity
Steppenwolf is essentially saying to just forget about identity
The reason Harry is miserable is because he focuses so much on his identity and his place in the world
I can see poor Hesse revolving in his grave at 10000 RPM. The book does not say 'forget about your identity. If anything, it says, build up your identity.
You're right with your last statement though.
Obviously and it falls flat on its face. You talk as if what you're proposing isn't such a nihilistic pit.
But no you don't care once you get to pat yourself on the back for your self rightious platitudes. Like Hesse watching Germany go up in flames with the sooth of Jews landing like snowflakes on the grass.
And what was his conclusion?
Not that he failed as a thinker but that if they just learned how to dance to jazz and sniff cocaine all would be well. Horseshit.
i decide if something is true or not based on the implications of it being true
That's not intellectually honest.
If the truth means that we should all shoot ourselves in the head you can't just deny it because you don't want to do that.
Suck it up fuccboi. The world isn't arranged for your convenience.
Except thats just the point, Harry was meant to kill himself at 50. All logic led him to that and better he did it
Logic =/= truth.
The truth is that there is no basis to assume there is a correct way to live that is superior in any way to any other way to live, and this necessarily leads to nihilism.
but i don't like nihilism
The truth is Christ
That may be so but its only your logic that suggests it. We have no truth
I can just as well tell you that the truth is our Lord Jesus Christ
There is nothing wrong with being miserable.
Its right to be Miserable when you have rightful reasons to be
I can just as well tell you that the truth is our Lord Jesus Christ
To understand the world we do the follow things:
1. assume nothing
Well, we can't experiment in this context. If we assume nothing and observe we observe... nothing. A bunch of biological processes that only exist because they self-perpetuate and nothing more. There is nothing else to observe, and so there is no basis to claim that we observed anything more than that.
And if you didn't observe it, you can't claim that it exists.
but this scientific process is a social construct :) what if our senses deceive us? what if X, Y, or Z.
All valid points.
The real truth is that our brains evolved to identify which berries were poisonous and which were good to eat and any musing on deeper mysteries is a waste of time.
So either we live on Faith or we construct truth through rational process. You clearly abandon the latter so why not take faith in Jesus Christ
Then why are you still an ape?
could all the philosophers BE more btfo?
To this point you have absolutely contradicted your original point which is that the consequences of belief should never be considered. If you view truth as arbitrary and totally undeterminable then what else is there than exactly that
If it has to be constructed, it's not truth.
I unironically think that the only philosophers who aren't a massive waste of time are the positivists. And they're more scientists than philosophers.
If you keep asking a philosopher "why" you eventually get to the core of all of their arguments: "because I said so," "because I assumed X," or "because I am a moral coward who cannot handle the implications of what I know to be the truth so I have sidestepped it by Y."
Not sure what point you're trying to make here.
My point is that there is (at present) no way to demonstrate one way of life as superior to another without making assumptions not supported by observation. This truth inevitably leads to nihilism.
The consequences of this are absolutely immaterial. It is correct - or incorrect - regardless of how many people die as a result of either case.
but there could be a way to perform such a demonstration and we just don't know it yet, so nihilism may actually be incorrect even if we don't understand enough to realise this - see: ignaz semmelweis - so it doesn't lead inevitably to nihilism unless you want to make a case about how "rational actors" "should act" in response to that truth.
That's a very compelling argument to which I don't really have a response. But it is an argument which stems from accepting the initial point to be correct, and so I don't really need a response right now.
But it is an argument which stems from accepting the initial point to be correct,
Accepting it as correct as a potentiality. Which is a given unless you believe you have categorical proof of it not being a potentiality
Accepting it as correct as a potentiality.
I mangled my explanation because it's 5AM and I've been awake all night, but what I meant is that you're right, it doesn't inevitably lead to nihilism, but anyone faced with the fact that there is (at present) no way to demonstrate one way of life as superior to another without making assumptions not supported by observation who DOESN'T end up a nihilist is operating on a plane of thought I don't understand.
You can't believe that there IS a correct way to live out there, because this is not supported by observation.
You equally can't believe that there isn't for the same reason.
You end up believing that there may be a correct way to live but that it hasn't presented itself so far and probably never will so long as we use these brains to think - after all, people have been using them for 5,000 years and haven't come up with the answer.
Then you either are a nihilist (even if an agnostic one) or embark on the impossible quest to find whatever may be out there. But even that latter option is not philosophy. You can only uncover what truth there may be through observation - not through logic or axioms and assumptions.
"you cannot demonstrate that relying on observation to the exclusion of all other forms of knowledge is right"
No, but I'm going to do it because it's the only method that has produced utility for me.
If philosophers have got a better method I'll rely on that instead,
but they don't.
Philosophy is wank. Proving it empirically is my own impossible quest.
You can only uncover what truth there may be through observation - not through logic or axioms and assumptions.
Ridiculous proposition. The act of registering empirical observation as significant towards truth is itself the work of Logic. You need to read Kant
Imagine compound B has X effect in substance 1. What effect will compound B have in substance 2?
You can't answer that question without observation. Even if you know the answer because you know the chemical composition of B and 2 and thus can predict effect Y, that's only possible because you have observed those things.
Observation forms the EXCLUSIVE basis of ALL knowledge.
Go ahead and try and identify any knowledge, at all, which is not derived from observation.
he doesn't like strawberries so logically he probably doesn't like strawberry icecream
Knowledge of the probability of him liking strawberry icecream results from making inferences about prior observations. Logic is literally just a word we use to describe this process of making inferences about observations.
Only philosophers mistakenly believe that logic is apart from observation. There is no source of knowledge but observation. Any knowledge that you think you have which is not, at its core, based on an observation which supports the conclusion you have drawn, is not knowledge. It's just delusion.
And that's philosophy.
"Base pleasures", whatever you take them to be and assuming some are more enriching than others, optimize and inspire "rational motivation", which is just a developed form of pleasure. All "rational motivations", properly called developed expressions of love for something, are based on simple pleasures, therefore "base pleasures" are noble and edifying for great individuals. I swear the chimps in this thread with their misleading categories and mind/body dualisms
'Siddhartha', Hesse's fictional account of the life of Jesus
What the fuck are you talking about?
Read the books yourself, instead of trusting autists on /co/.
Siddartha is amazing, probably my favourite book.
Steppenwolf is also very good.
READ THE BOOKS YOURSELF
As has been pointed out in this thread, 'Steppenwolf' is for babbies.
Read 'The Glass Bead Game'. If you find it too challenging then pick up 'Steppenwolf'.
Nothing in Hesse should really offend your religious sensibilities. His own (kinda, sorta) Christian impulses inform much of his work. 'Steppenwolf' is a novel about spiritual fulfillment more than anything.
/co/ is having fun at your expense. Don't ask them about literature, come to us first babby.
Incorrect. Logic is actually a precurser to the possibility of observation itself. Otherwise everything would just float past us as contentless sensation.
A very basic rational assumption such as "This sensation is different from the one it followed" is needed before anything you speak about, indeed even the chemical reaction
Now we get into the really retarded parts of philosophy.
"This sensation is different from the one it followed"
This is not an assumption.
That only assumes that in rational deliberation the synthethic consideration of these base pleasures does not reveal emergently significant realms of consideration outside of their singular inherent value.
This is not an assumption.
Of course it is. Even if its just as simple as noticing a thing being red that was blue it requires logically contrasting the memory of a sensation with the sensation given as present and registering such a difference as significant.
Elsewise it would be again, mere contentless sensation
Of course it is.
No it is not.
I can literally observe the parts of the brain that change from one sensation to the next. I can show you exactly how two different sensations are experienced differently. I can observe that when one sensation ends the corresponding brain activity also ends, and when the next sensation begins the different corresponding brain activity also begins.
but this requires assuming that the brain and consciousness are linked
Nope. I can, again, through observation, show the link between the brain and consciousness. I can't show all of it, but I can certainly show enough of it to establish its existence.
aha! but this requires assuming that you exist!
Completely missing the point. No reason to be going off on a tangent about neurology.
It requires an act of logic to compare the two sensations, there's nothing inherent in either sensation itself to suggest that anything has changed from a previous one. A red beaker will look like a red beaker regardless if it was blue a moment ago or red a moment ago and vice versa.
Only an act of logic can reveal that fact.
It requires an act of logic to compare the two sensations
Yes, but that can only come about following observation.
You cannot even know about the sensations without observing them.
observe beaker is blue
observe the addition of compound
observe a second pass
observe beaker is red
Inference: the beaker that was blue is now red following the addition of the compound.
Inference: the compound caused the change
You could also break it down in other ways but that's not relevant here.
The point is that you are claiming that you have to make the inference that there was a change before you can even observe the change occurring and that's nonsensical. A red beaker doesn't look like anything to you if you don't observe it.
Observation forms the exclusive basis of all knowledge.
Only it doesn't because there isn't an inherent anything and they certainly don't have a singular value, that would be the same as saying that impressions don't mutually effect and influence each other which is obviously not the case.
Of course but this is the entire point of Transcendentalism, its not that observation is the basis of knowledge its that observation is a necessary context for logic to establish all knowledge.
Its an important dialectical distinction because on its own observation doesn't do very much at all, you can observe for all eternity and not have a single thought. But Kant proved with just a single blink of observation there is an astounding wealth of truth of the world that can be derived through reason alone.
that would be the same as saying that impressions don't mutually effect and influence each other which is obviously not the case.
In which case you're already leaving the domains of base pleasures
I'm not talking about the particular sensations of base pleasures, I'm talking about how they influence each other and more developed pleasures
you can observe for all eternity and not have a single thought
And you will still produce more utility than if you thought for eternity and never observed anything.
Simple observation with zero application of inference or logic could eventually cure cancer through sheer random trial and error. Logic without observation accomplishes nothing at all. Observation is the exclusive source of all knowledge because although logic is a station on the conveyor belt of producing utility it requires an input.
truth of the world that can be derived through reason alone.
But it's not "reason alone" when all it is is the application of lessons learned from observations. Observing that friction brakes work on wagons and inferring that they'll work on cars too isn't reason alone, though it is reasonable. Reason and logic are not distinct from observation - they do not exist without observation. Observation is how we gather knowledge. Reason/logic is how we apply that knowledge in new ways. Even so, this application is not new knowledge. No dictate of reason or logic is true until it has been confirmed experimentally - experiments are exactly this opportunity to observe whether our reason actually holds up - because we know that reason is not a substitute for observation.
That's why we have medical trials instead of "according to our current understanding of chemistry and biology this should logically work, so let's put it straight into mass production." We know not to rely on reason and logic, because they are flawed - but a proper experiment or a proper observation will never fail us. Reason is how we theorise the world works based on our present understanding of it. Observation is how it actually works.
And you will still produce more utility than if you thought for eternity and never observed anything.
Categorically untrue. Again you have an extremely naive sense of what "observation" on its own terms actually is and by the fact my anallogies and descriptions so far seem lost on you I'm going to have to leave it at that and again recommend you read Kant and understand why he's widely regarded as the preeminent thinker since Plato.
You sound like a cultist.
I think it's pretty clear that if you can't explain it, you don't understand it. You think reading Kant makes you smart but when push comes to shove you can't even half-ass a recital, let alone interpret it.
If Kant thinks that there is any source of knowledge other than observation he's wrong, and I don't give a fuck how many cloistered ivory-tower dicksuckers he's got to buff up his bruised ego.
Positivism is the only discipline that has produced utility for man. Little wonder we call it science and not philosophy.
reading from a clueless suicidal hedonist
I think it's pretty clear that if you can't explain it
I have explained it. You haven't comprehended.
Or are you going to tell me if I can't explain an idea to a chicken its my lack
Or are you going to tell me if I can't explain an idea to a chicken its my lack
I think it's pretty clear that I'm not a chicken.
I'm more than willing to engage with you honestly and I'm not medically retarded. That should be all that you need.
But you had your chance. I'm going to sleep now.
my shitpost produced one of the most lengthy and thoughtful discussions i've seen on lit in weeks
Did not expect this
Strength through shitposting.
It sounds like Hesse isn't for me. I'm not fond of introspection heavy novels. I tend more towards action/adventure and I am unashamed of the fact that most of what I read could probably be considered genre fiction. Thanks to all who took the time to respond, even if it was just to make fun of me. I suspect that your lives would be happier if you would just quit being so elitist, or maybe your elitism is a consequence, not the cause, of your unhappiness.
fuck off faggot
We couldn't save him, lads ;_;