Am I too stupid or philosophy is just bullshit...

Am I too stupid or philosophy is just bullshit? Let's take idealism for expample: it says that world isn't fully available to percept by human senses. What the fuck does it mean? it sounds like some pseudoreiligious bullshit

Other urls found in this thread:

yuki.la/his/608930
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

at least read the greeks or something before you ask this shit

Sounds like the first option desu senpai, baka

It means exactly what it says, consider all the elements of scientific reality that require specialized instruments to perceive or are understood to us only through mathematical equations.

That said, a lot of philosophy does delve into pseudoreligious bullshit.

>Am I too stupid or philosophy is just bullshit?
The first, probably.

le-If I just use really big words in a obfuscating fashion nobody will be able to refute me man.

Dw almost nobody understands him.

Well, I think the issue here is being unfamiliar with preceding views in philosophy.

The genesis for the project of idealism in modern philosophy was developed out of the problems of dualism in an attempt to circumvent the mind-body problem, as now all we have to posit is mind.

> it says that world isn't fully available to percept by human senses

If you are speaking in relation to Hegel, he is just taking a page from Aristotle and is just speaking to the case that our senses are fallible and prone to our biases.
You can of course say this is false, but you would need to back up this claim. I for one, have been wrong many times in my life, and I may be mistaken even now about some of my beliefs.
Further, it may be the case that there are things we might never know (it also should be mentioned that "World" in this context means to denote the entirety of reality if it is not clear).

>Am I too stupid
user, I...

What's confusing about it? My money is on the first option

you can't kno nuffin

but seriously it means that since knowledge is pretty much derived from the senses outside of your own perceptive abilities you can't really 'know' the truth, since senses themselves could be cut off, be convoluted, and pretty much left to the subject's interpretation; which pose the question towards the nature of truth and knowledge; if it is rather a culmination of identical individual experiences or there is something outside of those experiences which is absolute that confirms those acquired 'knowledge'' otherwise if that kind of 'knowledge' could not be absolute then it doesn't equate to the Truth.

for better understanding that statement is pretty much agnostic if you put it this way, since God himself is outside human senses you pretty much can't confirm or reject his existence.

>start with the Greeks
starting with the greeks is a dumb meme because it implies that you should actually read anything after the greeks

You're probably smart enough, but just haven't dedicated the time and effort to adequately understand what you're criticizing.

The vagueness of your description of "idealism" suggests to me that you haven't studied it much. If you care, I wrote the pic-related summary of some key Kantian thoughts in an old thread.

yuki.la/his/608930

...

If yo y are going into philosopht for answers then you went to the wrong place

Philosophy only ask questions, or stives to ask better questions, and to provide you with your own tools to make your own choices and decisions.

Half of philosophy is mastubatory nonsense, about 40% is arguments over language, and the remainder is devoted to genuinely pertinent and compelling questions.

It's not all wank, but most of it is.

If you have to ask, you're probably not intelligent enough to understand it.

>asking questions means you're stupid
That's kind of an anti-philosophical position.

There are two sides of the universe: that which we can perceive, and that which we can't.

A simple example is infrared light. Our eyes did not evolve to perceive this kind of light. We can only detect it with scientific instruments.

Ideas can work the same way. Idealists aren't concerned with simple things like, infrared light, they're concerned with what drives human society.

The scope of their concern is best understood if you understand their opposite: materialism. Materialists try to ascribe as much as they can about human history to purely material conditions. For example, the idea that a war was caused ONLY by conflict over resources. A materialist might claim that the Iraq war was fought primarily for economic interests, like influencing the oil market.

Idealists are concerned with broader, abstract forces that work purely in the mind of human beings. They might answer back that the Iraq War was caused by George Bush's naive faith in democracy, believing in its salvational qualities.

Some Idealists go further, making metaphysical claims about the order of the universe. They believe (mostly in antiquity, but some still do today) that the universe is a creation of the mind, not that the mind is a part of the universe. You're probably a good materialist like we're supposed to be today, so this irrational privileging of the mind may be just be beyond your experience.

With recent leaps in Neruo-science, however, we're getting much closer to marrying materialism and Idealism. Essentially, Idealism exists in the realm of ideas, which are physically located in our mind as complex structures whose intricacies are increasingly being understood.

damnit I wish i was smart enough to understand this stuff

here's a somewhat simpler take in the language of Kant's successor, Schopenhauer

>Sensation is physical, it results from the stimulation of nerves and sensory organs under the skin. This data is raw material, nothing like the mental picture we have in our heads.

>Perception on the other hand is intellectual, that is to say, it involves and presupposes an intellect which imposes formal structure upon the material. Sensation provides the raw material which is then worked up to form the mental image or representation which we know as the world of appearances. This function belongs to the Understanding, which is a component of the human mind.

>In other words, the whole world of appearances, extended in space, enduring in time, and causally governed does not simply waltz into our head. It appears in just such a fashion because our intellect imposes forms and structure upon the raw data supplied by our senses. Take away the intellect and you can't have perception. Mere sensation can still operate, and indeed does, in the absence of an intellect. Plants respond to stimuli. The human spinal column reacts to stimuli without input from the brain. But sensation does not equal perception. Vision, for instance, is not a physiological process but an intellectual one. Your eyes may function perfectly but if the part of your brain that processes visual data is damaged, you can't see.

>To understand Schopenhauer you must understand the difference between physiological processes and intellectual ones. Gathering and supplying sensory data is a physiological process; it can even be reduced in most cases to a purely mechanical process. Vision is more complicated than the other senses, likely because light is a more delicate stimuli than say an odor (which is a chemical reaction) or a sound (which is at bottom a vibration of air molecules)

cont

cont

>Vorstellung, which is often erroneously translated as 'Idea', means representation. This term is not simply a concept, but a description of a complex physiological and intellectual process. It also refers to the way in which our whole perceptual apparatus operates.

>The human body deals only in effects, that is to say, everything we receive from without must be construed as effect. When you run your hand along the bark of a tree, nerve endings in your hand relay a particular kind of data up the nervous chain. It passes through the spinal column and is forwarded to the brain, specifically that faculty known as the Understanding. This faculty takes the raw sensory data and imposes the forms of the intellect upon it, namely time, space and causality. The last is most crucial in grasping the purpose of this function, for it is only through applying the law of causality to sensory data that we arrive at perception of an object. The EFFECT arrives first; it lingers as a kind of resonance, because it is awaiting its ground or sufficient reason, so that it may then ENTER active consciousness in a causal fashion, that is, as the effect of a cause. The cause however has to be worked up and PROJECTED by the Understanding. Only once this process has been carried out do you perceive the object which is the cause of the sensation you just experienced: you then perceive the surface of the tree as an object extended in space, enduring in time, and casually operative.

cont

>It is just the same with vision: the sensation, that is to say, the stimulation of various cells within the retina, is classified as an EFFECT which needs a cause. The effect is traced back to its source by the Understanding; an object is worked up in the mind according to the data it has received from the eyes and PROJECTED into space to ground the EFFECT which has just arrived and which is currently waiting to appear in the proper fashion. The object then appears in your vision. Thus we pass from the effect to the cause without stopping. This process is automatic and consistent, and moreover it is integral to the human brain. It develops through experience, but it does not derive therefrom. Failure to distinguish this difference is the chief failing of English empiricism.

>The overarching consequence of this process is just what Schopenhauer states, namely:

>Therefore, the fact that, on the occasion of certain sensations occurring in my organs of sense, there arises in my head a PERCEPTION of the things extended in space, permanent in time, and casually operative, by no means justifies me in assuming that such things also exist in themselves, in other words, that they exist with such properties absolutely belonging to them, independent of my head and outside it. This is the correct conclusion of the Kantian philosophy.

it's not about being 'not intelligent enough' it's about providing a way for discourse

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia

>Read Greek textbook to teach myself Greek grammar and vocabulary (I don't know what syntax is)
>The whole thing refers to Latin to clarify declensions, spelling, and Anglicization
>mfw Heidegger was right

huh what

but in the other post it said time and space are faculties bound to the mind that are grounds to project the world then how is it that "things also exist in themselves" is the correct Kantian conclusion?

getting mixed signals here

>by no means justifies me in assuming that such things also exist in themselves, in other words, that they exist with such properties absolutely belonging to them, independent of my head and outside it.

In other words there is an external world, but we kant know what it is.

Kant resolved thing in itself as an empty x with no intelligible characteristics; Schopenhauer defined it via negation as Wille.


>Schopenhauer endeavors to define the noumenon through inverting the characteristics which belong to representation. It therefore receives a negative definition

>thus whereas all representations were plural, finite, temporal and causal, the Wille (Schopenhauer's interpretation of thing in itself) was singular, infinite, timeless and acausal.

>In other words there is an external world, but we kant know what it is

sounds apologetically catholic
reminds me of someone giving the d

>s just speaking to the case that our senses are fallible and prone to our biases.
only rationalists claim this

it doesn't have to have a moral significance fuckwit

I mean it sounds like a futile attempt to justify God existing

he derives the unknowable object from causality of perceptions , but then causality itself is grounded from space and time which are inseparable faculties of consciousness

how the fuck did he arrive with an unknowable external world then?

Explain to me why qualia zombies and conceivability-possibility arguments are actuall and good forms of defending and validating an argument?

I'm trying to explain the problem Hegel's project was attempting to resolve.

they're not

If you asked Schopenhauer that he would say it's because we are thing-in-itself too, objectification of the Wille.

What you're doing right now is regurgitating the solipsism fallacy a la Fichte.

>I'm trying to explain Hegel

good luck

We have perceptions, but there must be something that is perceived. The world of appearances perishes with the last subject, but the world in itself remains.

It's a logical inference

>though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.

It's kind of like high-level math. Most of it is useless and pedantic but some of it is extremely beautiful and can have enormous impacts on the lives of all people.

Take Marx for example, the guy reads Hegel and writes a book. The people who really took his book to heart basically defined the conflicts of the 20th century.

Heidegger was right about...?

I don't really know where to start here since you're so vague but I'll try

>it says that world isn't fully available to percept by human senses.
Well the senses by their nature are limited apparatus. You normally cannot feel sound or hear taste, thus the senses constrict reality to conform to the mode of that specific sense object. This by the nature of this restriction, you fundamentally cannot experience true unrestricted reality by way of the senses. Thus absolute reality must be experienced through consciousness, not the sensory apparatus.