I don't get philosophy at all

Am I just too much of a brainlet to understand it, or is there something just dumb about it? Here is my impression of every philosophy text I've read:

>author makes up their own definitions
>proceeds to make an argument with those definitions
>act like they've proven something with their argument, but in reality they haven't, because they were just arguing with definitions they themselves came up with

It all feels so circular to me. I have never really read a philosophy text and felt like I have actually learned anything new, because so much of it is just the author defining their own terms. The only times I feel like I learn something are when it's combined with science, say, how our sense of disgust influences our political leanings. But most of the time I get absolutely nothing out of it.

>It all feels so circular to me.
I used to think the same, but if you look closely every author has different methods in order to reach their concusions, for example compare Plato's dialectic with Hegel's synthesis.
Philosophy is better read as "learning to think" rather than "proof about stuff", me thinks.

>A term is not a word— at least, not just a word without further qualifications. If a term and a word were exactly the same, you would only have to find the important words in a book in order to come to terms with it. But a word can have many meanings, especially an important word. If the author uses a word in one meaning, and the reader reads it in another, words have passed between them, but they have not come to terms. Where there is unresolved ambiguity in communication, there is no communication, or at best communication must be incomplete.

Not all philosohphy is so insular. You would probably (unironically) appreciate the analytic tradition, and contemporary philosophy in general. But the best stuff is insular. I don't see how defining terms lessens the work. All terms in a philosophical work should be defined, and if your usage of a term is specific, even better. If you try and read Hegel with only the traditional understanding of the words being, notion, science, ect. you will be absolutely hamstrung; if you know the terms definitions though the work becomes infinitely more deep and complex. it takes work, but its worth it.

Well, science is a type of philosophy in itself.
There are a lot of different types, often the definitions people are making up haven't been made up before, so they're whacking around in fresh intellectual territory explaining things people feel but don't fully understand. There are also philosophers who do that so hard they end up invalidating concepts people already took for granted. To someone who isn't invested in the investigation already
philosophy probably splits into incomprehensible wordplay in one corner and religious self-help in the other.
If this is you i recommend reading a variety of short, very dissimilar works, like The Analects or ideological pieces by trashy American writers. Unlike scientific inquiry, raw philosophy can whet your critical thinking skills for their own sake and not toward a discipline in particular. The average person will get a lot more compared Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein than they would sweltering in a medical publication - even if the medical publication is much more "applicable" to real problems.

That's your utilitarian upbringing speaking (which is not meant as an insult, most of us are raised as blatant utilitarians). Take for example this part:

> The only times I feel like I learn something are when it's combined with science, say, how our sense of disgust influences our political leanings.

Like most of us, you conflate reason with motive, and unite action with purpose. Most philosophy sets out to think about the very act of thinking. When you say science does "something" because it progresses from one point to another, and philosophy does "nothing" because it closes a full circle, you are already imbuing yourself with many philosophical implications such as "going from A to B is objectively better than surrounding A in every direction", and you are only so certain and unwilling to question these statements because a sense of "accomplishing utility" has been burned onto your retina. I'd say you could start with Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations because reading about language is the most accessible layer of philosophy to an utilitarian, in a certain sense at least. But really, you lose nothing from keeping your thoughts as they are. Do not push yourself into it if it does not make you curious, because you have already correctly identified it's not necessarily going to take you anywhere.

>Am I just too much of a brainlet

Yes.

No. This is how philosophy works.
>Find a set of principles by whatever means.
>Use the principles in a representation such as language.
>Make predictions about reality from manipulation of the representations.
>Test accuracy of prediction with reality.

Most shitty philosophers tend to ignore the last step. For example Communists tend to ignore the Stalin, Mao, Kim, and so on, regimes which is the end results of their socialist principles.

But even how they define terms feels totally arbitrary. When they define a term just based on an abstraction, does it really illuminate anything? For instance, here is something written about the stoics that is incomprehensible to me

>With respect to language, the Stoics distinguish between the signification, the signifier and the name-bearer. Two of these are bodies: the signifier which is the utterance and the name-bearer which gets signified. The signification, however, is an incorporeal thing called a lekton, or ‘sayable,’ and it, and neither of the other two, is what is true or false (Sextus Empiricus, 33B). They define a sayable as “that which subsists in accordance with a rational impression.” Rational impressions are those alterations of the commanding faculty whose content can be exhibited in language. Presumably ‘graphei Sôkratês’ and ‘Socrates writes’ exhibit the contents of one and the same rational impression in different languages. At first glance, this looks very like a modern theory of propositions. But propositions (axiômata) are only one subspecies of sayables. Sayables also include questions and commands on the one hand, and, in a category of sayables called ‘incomplete,’ the Stoics include predicates and incomplete expressions like ‘graphei’ (he or she writes) (Diog. Laert., 33F). An incomplete sayable like ‘writes’ gets transformed into a proposition by being attached to a nominative case (ptôsis, Diog. Laert., 33G). Here a ‘nominative case’ seems to mean the signification of the inflected word, ‘Sôkratês’ or ‘ho anthrôpos’—the latter being the nominative case (as we would say) of the Greek word ‘man’—not that inflected word itself. The Stoic doctrine of case is one of those areas where there is as yet little consensus. Stoic propositions are unlike propositions in contemporary theories in another way too: Stoic sayables are not timelessly true or false. If it is now daytime, the lekton corresponding to an utterance of ‘it is day’ is true. Tonight, however, it will be false (cf. Alex. Aph. in Simplicius, 37K). Finally, the Stoic theory gives a certain kind of priority to propositions involving demonstratives. ‘This one is writing’ is definite, while ‘someone is writing’ is indefinite. Strikingly, ‘Socrates is writing’ is said to be intermediate between these two. When there is a failure of reference, the Stoics say that the lekton is destroyed and this is supposed to provide the reason why ‘this one is dead’ (spoken in relation to poor deceased Dion) is impossible (necessarily false).

What predictions by Marx did Kim test? I am willing to draw a red line between Marx and Lenin, Stalin and Mao, but I don't see what Marxist hypothesis got tested by North Korea or the Khmer Rouge.
Pic related is empirical data backing up one of Marx' theories.

I still don't understand the difference between philosophy and science. It feels like the more that technology advances, the more irrelevant a lot of philosophy will be. For instance, if we advance in brain scanning technology and predicting behavior, won't that effectively replace a lot of philosophy about behavior? Isn't philosophy just trying to conclude things that cannot be empirically proven?

You don't have to read philosophy to understand it, ask yourself questions about reality and try to breakdown/ find holes in your own arguments. Start with questions like what time is

Science uses analytical philosophy

Good. Good.

You are ready for the truth about philosophy. Want to hear it?

It's all fake. Yes, it's all fake. The smoke and mirrors, the tables with exotic fruits and beverages. All fake.

Nobody who believes in his own philosophy would actually write it down. No real philosopher produces textual evidence of their philosophy.

This back and forth is all just a power play. Like playing tennis. Like playing football. Like fashion. It's all just a competition to assert yourself over the other.

Philosophers are just limp-wristed males who instead of butting heads literally on the football field butt it over texts. The difference is philosophy like the intellectual dick-measuring contest has at some point gone so far that it has resulted in simply incomprehensible gibberish. What I mean is that while in a locker-room who has the bigger dick seems self-evident. But in philosophy a dicklet eventually got the idea of punching his dick into him and claimed his dick is the biggest and measuring it inverted is the only way of correct measurement.

And then some philosopher reacted to that and so forth and a chain started over several centuries until we arrived to the point where everybody claims to have a different sex organ and that his is the correct one.

Then someone asked what is a sexual organ? Then somebody asked what is an organ? Then somebody claimed he has no organs and yet his dick is the biggest.

Basically it's all mental illness that developed out of biological necessity of limp-wristed faggots to compete for resources, social hierarchy and reproduction.

So even when a philosopher claims that he renounces social hierarchy, reproduction and resources he is only claiming this so that in roundabout way he can get them.

>Garunteed replies
Have a (You)

Here's a different way to look at it. Consider mathematics. When someone constructs a mathematical proof, the relationships and patterns that are demonstrated were always there, but now they are illuminated and can be drawn upon more quickly; they can be used in the discovery of more patterns.

t. Wittgenstein

Nope, science is nothing else than the practice of science. Analytic phil is a posteriori to science. Yes that means "it just werks", for the most part.

How do theories in science come about?

Not what I was expecting for an example, but OK. This is dealing with ancient philosophy which brings in a whole other side of definitions (i.e. translations). Greek words like aletheia, logos, ataraxia, phronesis, ect. are all used in philosophical works to some degree. The added difficulty with this is what the word would have meant then vs the way we interpret them now. This is one of the hardest parts of ancient sources; the ancients aren't around anymore.

This piece is actually rather straightforward because they are not using terms in the common lexicon. Most people don't have a definition of the word "sayable" so using their interpretation is more or less a simple matter of search and replace. I think you are objecting because they seem to be "arbitrarily" defining something. The trick to this is, most times you need to dive right into the work and understand it from the inside before you can know whether the terms are useful definitions or not. With another reference to Hegel, sometimes this is borderline impossible because the work is so complex and the definitions used are so radically separate from traditional conceptions. Having said that, Hegel to me still stand as one of the greatest philosopher to have ever put pen to paper, and partly for this reason. He was not the type of thinker to get stuck in a box, and if he needed to radically redefine terms to try and reapproach the big philosophical questions from novel perspectives then all the power to him.

Hegel's definition of being:
>Being is the notion implicit only: its special forms have the predicate 'is'; when they are distinguished they are each of them an 'other': and the shape which dialectic takes in them, i.e. their further specialisation, is at once a forth−putting and in that way a disengaging of the notion implicit in being; and at the same time the withdrawing of being inwards, its sinking deeper into itself. Thus the explication of the notion in the sphere of being does two things: it brings out the totality of being, and it abolishes the immediacy of being, or the form of being as such.

You should try some real philosophy like the theorems on the creation of the world. How Nothing becomes a person based on witnessing information appearing out of nowhere in what is essentialy nothing incapable of becoming something.

All the communist leaders in the beginning use the same principle of rich vs poor, proles and proletariat vs bourgeoisie, to recruit supporters believing that after the revolution everyone will be fed and be free from oppression. The people will then own everything. Guess what happens? One individual becomes the state and murders everyone else and they change language to suit their views. Hunger becomes full, 2+2 = 5. Everything becomes a lie. Where's that socialist prediction of a utopia?

And about the graph, it is goddamn fucking retarded to compare profits over time and not account for technological innovation. In 1900 you spent 90% of income on food. And the funniest part is that it is in the communist society that equality is at its worst. Except the bourgeoisie are the upper party members. Everything is owned by them. All profits flow to the top for they are "the people". That's why you'll get a slave cast and a party cast in a true communist society like in north korea.

>not understanding what logic is and where it came from
Where would your science be without Leibniz' Law? Just google what Ph.D. stands for.

>Guess what happens? One individual becomes the state and murders everyone else and they change language to suit their views. Hunger becomes full, 2+2 = 5. Everything becomes a lie. Where's that socialist prediction of a utopia?
Don't you have a Peterson lecture to watch or something?

...

haven't read marx, what theory of his this is backing up exactly?

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall

>Am I just too much of a brainlet to understand it
yes

There isn't a single "how" on how the body of scientific knowledge is formed. No, that doesn't mean that it's random.
Eh? Are you trying to prove my point or what?
>Just google what Ph.D. stands for
WOW what a revelation you anglo brainlet

>And about the graph, it is goddamn fucking retarded to compare profits over time and not account for technological innovation.
>doesn't even know what the rate of profit is
As for the rest of your critique, it is clear that you think the states with self-declared communist government turned into nightmares, and you are of course entitled to that opinion, but you don't explain what parts of the original communist philosophy the socialist experiments of the 20th century disproves.

>When /pol/ tries to read

OP you might just be a relative brainlet because that was interesting, where did you find it?

Okay, so we've confirmed you don't understand the rules of logic or where they come from, you don't understand Leibniz' Law, and you don't understand the history of science. wew, I'm at a loss mate, hope this was b8.

Well, you're right in a way. Usually you take premises that seem self-evidently true, and argue towards a conclusion which isn't intuitively obvious. To argue against the conclusion, someone would have to prove that your premises are incorrect or that the argument form is invalid.

Making a successful argument involves convincing your readers that the premises you offer are initially plausible and more self-evidently true than premises which support the opposite conclusion.

>I don't get philosophy at all

May I strongly suggest that you look for one of the several intro philosophy books out there that arranges the introduction in the form of THE BASIC QUESTIONS ASKED BY PHILOSOPHERS.

E.g., free will vs. determinism.

I know there are good books along those lines out there -- find them.

The questions will ENGAGE YOUR INTEREST, and thus, by following the path of your interest, you will, AS IF BY MAGIC, into philosophy.

why are you RANDOMLY capitalizing SOME words and not OTHERS

It's called EMPHASIS dummy do you not SHOUT certain words in conversation?

For EMPHASIS.

normally you emphasize significant phrases. not shit like AS IF BY MAGIC

in fact you should just take out stuff like that all together

I'm trying to sell something. It's a matter of persuasion - not of you, but the OP - not of style.

See, e.g., Hershel Gordon Lewis, How to Make Your Advertising Twice as Effective at Half the Cost

Victor O. Schwab, How to Write a Good Avertisement

And so on and so on. Sniff.

>I'm trying to sell something.
>(((Hershel)))
>(((Schwab)))

kek

>>author makes up their own definitions
>>proceeds to make an argument with those definitions
>>act like they've proven something with their argument, but in reality they haven't, because they were just arguing with definitions they themselves came up with

This is a lot of texts but certainly not all. Start looking for texts that present problems rather than conclusions, and for argumentative pieces which make use of other people's lingo rather than their own. For example, Frege's puzzle, or Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Read cannons, not authors. You should feel like you're following a dialogue, not listening to a guy just soapbox.

Look, if I can be perfectly honest, I knew I had the BEST answer to OP's question, but I could see their were 30 other posts before mine - at a glance, rather boring posts, which I had no interest in reading. So I knew I had to write my post in a way which would attract attention, without being a complete retard about it. So I wrote it the way I wrote it.

Here's one more for your journal: Julian Lewis Watkins, The 100 Greatest Advertisements: Who Wrote Them and What They Did (2d rev. ed.)

This, too, was written after hours.

god fuck off with that advertising bullshit. this isn't about attracting attention, it's about convincing the OP to read intro philosophy books -- which your post was shit at doing. you're acting like randomly capitalizing words is somehow going to convince him that you're right.

you didn't even give him a book recommendation. fuck off back to or something. your post almost reads like satire:

>I knew I had the BEST answer to OP's question

>they just make up words with arbitrary meanings
>i use words with meanings that I have no control over too
>meaning is the essence while language is the medium Whoa
>assuming that my words mean something to me, they must have meaning they want to communicate through language
>i should start being charitable to the language others use so that i can get what they mean

this should be going through your mind soon, OP.

>disgust influences our political leanings
What the hell, I was just listening to Jonathan Haidt.

Just one question is required.
How do you think words are created?

You are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity.

I shine a ray of pure sunlight into this thread, and you try to shut it down -- to wall it up and nail a plank over it.

Does the TRUTH frighten you THAT MUCH?

Listen to me OP.

I am telling you how to into philosophy. I grok where you're at, and see the path forward. My intent is entirely benevolent, and therapeutic. All of these other clowns are just stumbling around in the dark.

Again, I refer you to: My other posts, and indeed *this* post (perhaps *especially* this post), were a bit cheeky, or perhaps tongue in cheek, but I was being quite sincere in that post, my first post.

Now I could google a book like that for you, but I'm going to let you google it yourself, because I know there are books like that out there - not a few of them. My intuition is that it's best not to "spoon feed" you a particular title. Rather, you poke around, do a little research, and pick the one that feels best for you.

It sounds like you started with some bullshit philosophers like Sartre. I had the same problem a decade ago when I first started. I stopped immediately for a few years because I jumped in way over my head. Start with the Greeks is a meme, but also sensible advice.

All reasoning is circular. The only philosophers I know of that admitted this were Pyrrho and perhaps Socrates. Also, modern science happily admits that it has no absolute truth to offer.
Every philosopher, religionist, or ideologue who argues otherwise speaks from a fundamentally cracked foundation.