Is fiction a substitute for people who can't into philosophy?

Is fiction a substitute for people who can't into philosophy?

yes

Yes. And analytic philosophy is a substitute for people who can't even into fiction.

Is organized religion for people who can't into mysticism?

It's because Continentals only care about being cool or aesthetic rather than being truthful.

"Mysticism" is for people who can't into systematic theology and metaphysics.

>truth
Enjoy your fruitless travels.

*tips postmodern fedora*

*tips undergrad fedora*

Is this board so autistic that it doesn't understand the concept of doing things for pleasure?

Continentals have grasped that philosophy can only express a narrative consistent with its historical moment, and are using that understanding to shape and direct modern structures of thought. Pursuing "truth" is meaningless without changing paradigms.
Analytics can't deal with this realization son they've decided to ignore history except a few cherrypicked figures.

>pleasure

yes goy remain an hedonist

>pleasure

There is only eudaimonia and conduct helpful towards achieving it, user. What is this pleasure meme?

Hey man don't overgeneralize like a 2016ian. Plenty of continentals resist historicism of the kind you have described. But even then, they are highly open to the importance of history...just in other, nondeterministic ways.

>Do people tell jokes because they can't offer a systematic explanation about why a joke is funny in order to make people laugh?

In the sense that I read fiction because it interests me, while I've found philosophy is generally endless drivel that makes me suicidally bored, and is rarely anything between self-evident and utterly deluded, sure, why not. It's a bit like saying pop is a substitute for people who don't like beer, though--utter bullshit based on a false pairing.

it's the other way around

I was with Plato up until he decided to be retarded and say at one point in his 'Laws' that atheists and naturalists (who he considered to be the same, and linked them with Sophists) were stupid because, as he says, 'there's overwhelming evidence of the divine everywhere', which both two other interlocutors agree along with no objection or doubt of what he just said, and further essentially says 'Gosh, they're SO stupid that I can't EVEN! *cue mmmphhmmmm by Megillos and Clinias* I mean, how can they not look at the heavenly bodies and their movements [the planets] and see that they're perfect representation of the magnitude and beauty of the Gods!".

I'm an #AREStotlian now.

"Systematic theology" and "metaphysics" are for people who can't accept the limits of epistemology.

It's the other way around actually.

You need enough non-fiction to see it in philosophy. That's how I'm seeing it right now at least.

What?

Of course not.

You obviously haven't read enough of Plato or haven't understood him. The Gods he refers to are the Forms, which he argues about throughout his writings. Have you even read Euthyphro? There he begins rejecting all the mindless,traditional beliefs that people have and in further dialogues he goes to somehow create his own rational religion. You compare him to the irrational religious people we have today but he is as far from them as anyone you can ever read.