Why is it that in every philosophical thread on Veeky Forums, it's just pseudo intellectuals talking around philosophy and literature but never actually discussing it? I've never seen anyone actually explain or attempt to discuss something itself; it's always just vague references to ideas or authors, with unnecessarily complex jargon.
Why?
There's a reason Plato said that you should only study philosophy once you reach your 30s, everyone younger is in it just to win arguments.
That happens in threads that want to discuss books too. It's mostly people saying the book is good/shit with no justification. Or people spout the memes about the books. Occasionally you get a genuine response or attempt at discussion but no one replies to it.
Maybe try check out reddit if you can't keep up with how the game works here
Suck my cock dude.
When did he say that?
When he wasd 28
>every thread on Veeky Forums, it's just pseudo intellectuals talking
why did it take you so long to realize this
Perhaps people don't really feel like making an good effort to explain their stance on something to anonymous strangers on the internet, because they don't get anything out of it that way.
because this is Veeky Forums
In the republic
But Platos not in the Republic
It isn't even exclusive to anonymous strangers on the internet, do you realize how little actual discussion/debate happens in humanities departments? it requires days of preparation.
Then why come here in the first place? If you come here just to stroke your e-cock, then maybe you shouldn't be here.
I come here to learn and discuss things, not to show how intelligent or smart I am.
The Booker T Washington thread was doing good for awhile. It managed to have a civil conversation, about race of all things.
It does happen occasionally.
In the Phaedo
Because when you're smart enough you end up seeing how superficial analytic discourse is and realize its all just a thin disguise of the ugly truth of intellectual exchange.
Which is precisely in the competitive evaluation of social power in any one thinker/idea-as-reference. You don't want to learn shit, you're just buttmad your own references have inferior staying power in this schizophrenic hypermeme environment. So again back to reddiit if you can't keep up with the fast lane
>being smart equates to being a dick
Or, and just here me out here, you're just a dick.
Your virtue signalling has no power here, but I know a forum where it'd be right at home for you
>MUH REDDIT
you sure do seem to know a lot about it. Maybe that's where your pesudo intellectual elitism stems from, you raging faggot
>Why?
Because 90% of the posters on this board are high schoolers, 5% are in college, and 5% have finished college. The 5% of us who have finished college understand that this isn't the place to perform dialectic and come here to troll. The other 95% of users aren't interested in learning and only come here to jerk their e-peens.
Then we should rename this place to /shit/ then. It has nothing to do with literature.
>here me out here
Go eat an entire cactus
>virtue signalling
I immediately stop taking seriously anyone who uses this phrase unironically, you should, too.
No, people still post about those things, it's just that you expect a level of discourse that you're never going to get here because of the structure of this 'community.' This place isn't serious, it was never meant to be serious, and the people who expect it to be serious are the butt of a joke.
>It's shit because it's supposed to be shit
>Therefore anyone trying to make it not shit is shit
A self-fulfilling prophecy.
How exactly would one go about stopping this board from being shit?
>I immediately stop taking seriously anyone who uses this phrase unironically, you should, too.
Except you're taking me seriously by engaging with my post. I don't necessarily agree with the content of the reference but yet it has power to influence discourse in my favor when I use it, much like accusing this faggot of being a redditor.
Ideas have their value only so far as they can shut up others and not be shut up themselves.
So you're goal is to derail a conversation with nonsense?
>Except you're taking me seriously by engaging with my post.
Replying to you and taking you seriously aren't the same thing, sweety.
your*
>I'm only pretending to be retarded
>I'm only pretending not to be retarded
>So you're goal is to derail a conversation with nonsense?
Of course. What else is there? Learning is without question always a by-product of conflict, the more intense and vicious the more learning happens.
Nobody ever truly sets out with an intent to learn, we only ever want to confirm a certain preferred knowledge to ourselves. True learning is fucking terrifying, not somebody anybody would ever willingly submit to
Thanks for the (you)
>Nobody ever truly sets out with an intent to learn,
Making statements about yourself as if they were universally true of all people is a sign of insanity, or at least if I were in charge of defining insanity that's how I would do it. You might want to see a shrink.
>more pseudo-intellectual garbage
You definitely fit right in here.
>You might want to see a shrink.
The fact you assume a-priori that under close analysis your own preferred conclusions of my character will be met is exactly displaying my point. You don't want me to learn anything, you want what I will learn about myself to be the knowledge that you desire to be true and nothing more
>You don't want me to learn anything
You're right, but my desire isn't important--it's obvious that you don't want to learn, which is all that matters. You yourself admit that you don't want to learn.
Exactly. But yet in our very mutual tension does the possibility of learning occur. The moment at which we compromise and ease that tension for the sake of the mere image of decency and pretense is exactly when we cease learning.
Just go to reddit and see what their ballsless attitude gets them, they don't conflict but instead only look how to agree and all they come up with is a list of designated opinions on any one topic that never evolve. Extremely limited.
is right about learning being derived from conflict; western civilization was built on dialectic, although I wouldn't agree that no one wants to learn.
>western civilization was built on dialectic
LOL
>he didn't start with the Greeks
You should be able to explain, using a sound argument expressed using a valid logical form, what it means to say that 'western civilization was built on dialectic.'
search warosu if you want good threads desu
in "Meditations"
That was a decent thread. Lots of goods recs.