Started with the greeks

>not applying philosophy to your everyday life

what are you doing it for then? It helps me everyday

You need to masturbate to the materialists, obviously.

they killed socrates for sophistry. you're thinking of alcibiades; blasphemy is the bannable offence.

Learn about the future

...

What kind of Phenomenology did you read?
Have you read the Pragamatists?

Stay away from Spooks, kid

cruise with the christians

Personally, I'd stick around with poststructuralism if you dig it. It's a really active field and there's good contemporary things being published.

can you give some examples?

well when i'm into some trouble i just bee myself xD

tl;dr existentialism

resume with the romans

annihilate with the accelerationists

Not him but Dostoyevsky disproved my nihilistic world view and cured my anti social behaviour, Seneca cured my anger.

holy guacamole
checkd

now it's time to continue where words end. Bach, Beethoven etc

Soirée with the situationists

get into painting

Read about some actual science.

people who have no idea what science "is", and loathe philosophy always say something like this. As if there's an easy way to master a subject in science first of all, or that science is for everyone second of all, or third of all that you're educated in "science". Might as well just add a "The" in front of science. "The Science". It'd still sound as stupid.

The only correct answer.

Not really.

Yes, really. Early 20th century philosophy, which OP obviously hasn't covered yet, is analytic, and so is contemporary Anglo-Saxon philosophy.

The anals are everywhere now. It is the dominant tradition.

Well what have you been reading? Because it seems to me that it's harder to find a philosopher who doesn't influence your everyday life than one who does. Maybe analytic philosophers fit that bill, but even then there are many exceptions and even the thought process itself, as a habit, is useful.

You read the analytics.

>and so is contemporary Anglo-Saxon philosophy

Swing it with the Spinozists?

What's wrong with Sokal ?

I'd say it's not him but rather that for too many analytics and stemfags a specific incident in a specific journal is used to handwave away an entire philosophical school.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

This

You gotta read Peirce, James, Dewey.

where to start with pragmatism?

Nosh with the New Sincere

I've only read Peirce's The Fixation of Belief and How To Make Our Ideas Clear, but those are the founding texts of pragmatism. You'll then want to see how James picks up on Peirce's ideas and then move onto Dewey.

The hard-line scientific approach to knowledge isn't as cool as you might think it is. In a world that's full of uncertainty it just means that you're running away to your little corner to cling to things you think you can verify, because you think that way you won't think anything wrong, but in effect you end up 'not acknowledging things that are true but can not currently be verified', so you're still biased. You'll have to learn to deal with uncertainty at some point, user.

But how can you know if something is true if you can't verify it?

You can't 'know', obviously. You can however make the reasonable assumption that, among the unverifiable concepts there are some that are true, and try to make sense of the world that lies beyond verifiability instead of outright ignoring it.

You should've killed yourself years ago. You've wasted your entire life on being alive.

eastern philosophy

>>>/reddit/

>the most rigorous framework out there makes fewer airtight positive claims than mine makes claims overall
>this is inherently a deficiency because you can't end up verifying every last premise I like
Nigga just put knowledge unverifiable through analytics that you insist on on a second tier and believe it less strongly and for other reasons hahahahahahahaha like nigga just do more than one philosophy

A kid had to die for it to happen.

A: The kid didn't die.

B: It's not like it was a human kid.

Shit, I meant a gorilla.
The kid is ok. Unfortunately.

>not reading the reply chain and making false assumptions about the post you replied to as a result
this is what happens if you don't start with the greeks.

This a great poster. What's the original?

>contemporary dominant tradition = correct answer

spotted the idiot blindly following the zeitgeist

>not touring with Tchaikovsky
youtube.com/watch?v=RvTYPLCQ_18

wew

stop listening to classical music you nob head

>>not reading the reply chain
But I did. Maybe you're just shit at writing clearly.

Battle with the spooks.

see Hardline science-fags believe that truth which lies outside the realm of verifiable scientific knowledge is something that should be left alone. They are unwilling to step into the realm of obscurity, ambiguity and emotion, and they would never go along with the secondary category you propose. That's what I'm arguing against. You can distinguish as much as you like. The question is what qualities you asign to those different kinds of knowledge you think exist.

It is an original; made it months ago. Thought that Veeky Forums had to have some kind of analytic presence and representation, since the rough majority of Veeky Forums is ignorant of >20th century anals.

poetry, it's the only benefit of all that.

And literature, drama, other art also obviously, but you can do those w/o the extensive background