After reading all the important names and ideas in philosophy, I thought I understood everything in philosophy, reality etc.
Until I read about Non-Philosophy.
Which just demolished all of philosophy to pieces, including Wittgenstein.
>All forms of philosophy are structured around a prior decision, and remain constitutively blind to this decision.
Other urls found in this thread:
accesstoinsight.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Congratulations, you finally get it.
>Buddhism
What?
>Eastern memes
Nope.
Eastern phil is decisional as fuck, more than Western phil
non phil is quantum logic used by philosophers, like badiou uses ZFC to speculate.
he is right. stop being a rationalist, aka an hedonist and become a pure empiricist
>non phil is quantum logic used by philosophers
It isn't though.
So you read all the important ideas and names in philosophy and discovered the pre-philosophical only after? I find that hard to believe, unless you've only read analytic philosophy or just arbitrarily dismiss certain philosophers as unimportant. Unless non-philosophy is something fundamentally different than anti-philosophy's notion of the pre-philosophical (whether transcendental, vitalistic or however you conceive it), I find it hard to believe that you did not find the seeds of it as well as the developments (Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche especially, Marx, Freud, etc.) useful for understanding that anti-philosophy is still philosophy.
>including Wittgenstein.
>>All forms of philosophy are structured around a prior decision, and remain constitutively blind to this decision.
That is what he says in On Certainty.
for you
>french contemporary philosophy
Whats the big fuzz? Thats like saying that in order to be able to speak and communicate humans need a fix language and ignore its grammar.
Look! If you mix hot and cold water you get warm!
bastards
>a philosophy
>that gives philosophy a purpose and context
>call it non-philosophy
>pretend its not philosophy
fucking frogs
Seems like a gay meme cooked up by a hack desu
>pretend its not philosophy
The full title is "non-decisional philosophy"
He never says what he does isn't philosophy.
He calls it like that to emphasize the decisional character of all of philosophy.
Literal philistines.
>including Wittgenstein.
>All forms of philosophy are structured around a prior decision, and remain constitutively blind to this decision.
Wittgenstein's late work doesn't do this. Nor does Derrida, or Rorty, et al.
what is it froggy? mad cause ur bullshit is not recognized as relevant anymore?
> et al.
you mean "at all".
thats a good decision.
Reading through that wiki page it's clear that this lad is doing the same thing that his edgy friends like Brassier do, which is to define his whole position in opposition to some lazily constructed strawman, and then give it an edgy name that internet kids will think signals depth and profundity.
>Decisional philosophy
You can't have anything without decisions.
Philosophy can't be non-decisional.
Although that isn't what that french guy argues.
I think he's just pointing out a level of decision and he thinks we can have better decisions.
In non-philosophy context, a decision is an "prior assumption".
For example, the assumption that you subject/object is a valid way to investigate something.
And many other assumptions (decisions).
What did Brassier do?
>they still do pure philosophy
>in this day and age
please, philosophy-influenced human and social science solved that decades ago.
>pure philosophy
wew
>please, philosophy-influenced human and social science solved that decades ago.
Can you post that almighty solution please?
No? Ok.
why'd he call that a decision? it is at best an unconscious decision but decitions are by definition conscious. these french fags cant just say thing plainly... what are they afraid of? i think that is the fault of academia, they all want to embellish their trivialities to get a name.
theyre not better than savages who spend their lives exchanging collars.
>almighty solution
>he is still looking for a magic formula
maybe i shouldnt have said solved but dissolved or clarified.
>He literally says that it was solved
>dodges the request to post the "solution"
Sure buddy, they solved it ;)
>trying to fight mental fabrications with more mental fabrications
>caring about anything but direct experience
Wew lads.
Yeah maaaaan, fuck this system, lets go back to the woods and hunt shit.
a guy is trying to jump his shadow. he cant. he trains himself in jumping techniques. he still cant.
someone tries to explain him what a shadow is. he in only open to people who will suggest him the final jumping technique that will solve his 'problem'.
>different than
Veeky Forums
That's not what I implied at all friendo, but thanks for the (you).
>direct experience
lel
some of us have moved beyond the carnal functions of the simple. The direct experience is equally fabricated as the meta experience. Those of us that understand this can at least comprehend the higher reason of the carnal experience.
weakest bait ive seen.
You know very damn well you're evading.
YOU'RE THE ONE who fucking implied there was a magical solution to social philosophy, not me.
>everything is subjective xD
>you can't comprehend anything xD
>every idea is useless because it doesn't grasp fully the fabric of the world xD
How is this hack different than babby's first nihilism ?
TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.
what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...
Philosophy and reality are not related. Sorry.
lier
*tips*
and for some further guidance youtube.com
Non-philosophy teaches us a very important fact and most people, even the ones well versed in philosophy can't grasp it.
Nonetheless what Laruelle is doing is still philosophy, even if the name changes
Though, thinking you read "all the important names and ideas in philosophy" as in an "it's over for me" seems highly dubious to me. Philosophy isn't about an "I get it", it's among other things an art of reading
this is a thinly veiled rip off of Jung