I am troubled by the Big Questions - what is the purpose of life? is there a God? what's the right way to act? etc. I have opinions on these questions, but they are uncertain and I am plagued by doubts all the time.
Will reading philosophy help me answer these questions in a way that would convince me? Even if the answer is "there is no purpose" or "nobody knows for sure, lol" - I don't care; at this point I feel like taking a leap of faith into agnosticism/nihilism is no more valid than taking one into certainty/realism. If there isn't anything to know, I want to know that that is the case.
Should I start with the Greeks? I'll do it if I have to, but I'm tempted to solve fun trolley puzzles instead :^(
>Should I start with the Greeks? You already know the answer.
You won't get a straight answer to any question like that but at least they will make you think about them in an intelligent way. There's a lot of different perspectives to gain insight from and you might over time be able to formulate your own opinions and answers.
James Jones
>Will reading philosophy help me answer these questions Yes. Philosophy nowadays is concerned with other matters. All these questions have already been answered. There is no purpose. If you really want one you could say reproduce, have pleasure or obtain power.
There is no God.
Act by the categorical imperative.
A good start is History of Western Philosophy - Bertrand Russell. It's easy to find the pdf.
Brayden Collins
>All these questions have already been answered where the consensus tho
Kevin Moore
If you want to discuss post the research paper not a pol tier info graphic.
Nicholas Ramirez
>act by the categorical imperative Lmao nobody believes in that anymore
Adam Johnson
Mind updating me on that then?
Dominic Clark
Who was surveyed for this and who confucted the survey? And don't just say "philosophers."
>Act by the categorical imperative Isn't that fucking tragic? Nobody does it. Therefore, it means "be a hero". Do I HAVE TO be a hero? The categorical imperative would make the world a better place immediately if everyone started applying it NOW. But they won't. Ever. Why would I bother forcing me to apply it then? This world is shit because we make it shit. Nobody is willing to stop making it shit. Why would I go out of my way to do 'Good' if the world is still going to be shit?.. if people dont give a fuck?
>there's no God >act by Bertrand Russell philosophy *tips fedora*
Colton Edwards
You can filter by demographic if you want, still no consensus.
Luis Bell
>If you really want one you could say reproduce >Act by the categorical imperative
The CI is anti-natalist
Tyler Anderson
Will the Greeks be of any use if I want to know more about the philosophy of language?
Hudson Bailey
I think the greeks are useful in any and all pursuits of knowledge. It's a good foundation to understand anything and everything in our civilization. Not necessary though.
Owen Gray
Maybe if your learn their language
Jordan Stewart
That's because the Cathegorical Imperative is bullshit. You can accept that there's a natural Law derived from God or that there's nothing and fall into nihilism.
Ryder Young
This. Make the leap to faith OP
Oliver Hughes
>Will philosophy help me answer these questions
No, that's a naive misconception, philosophy will make you doubt much more than the big questions and make you skeptical about the constructed nature of reality, the division between perception and object and the empirical validity of logical principles, among other things. If you want prepackaged answers, I suggest not reading any historical philosophers and picking up the logical positivists or something. If you want to throw yourself into the real deal, start with the presocratic fragments.
Josiah Torres
Or you can go with virtue ethics like a normal person and realize other approaches have been destroyed.
Michael Ramirez
just start with Wittgenstein's Tractus and Philosophical Investigations, branch out from him, then come back to him.
Benjamin Allen
>other approaches have been destroyed More like the other approaches are not in vogue.
Dylan James
Utilitarianism and deontology were in vogue for centuries, virtue ethics has proven to work better in explaining human behavior as well as a normative system, despite all of it main themes being written 2500 years ago.
Brandon Reed
>despite all of it main themes being written 2500 years ago. So what you're saying is it's currently in vogue...
Thomas Powell
Yes, every philosophy that's current for any amount of time is in vogue. Is this supposed to be an argument? It's also in vogue to think of my interlocutor as an individual subject, maybe later on subjective idealism will be vogue so I can pretend your posts don't exist.
Eli Cooper
Wittgenstein is always good, but I would recommend reading the Socrates tracts by Plato first.
Kayden Rodriguez
>other approaches have been destroyed Name ONE good argument against utilitarianism that's not actually strawman bullshit like "lol so you think everyone should be forced to take heroin 24/7?"
Brayden Jenkins
That's not the point (and I'm not him) but the fact that you think that 1. philosophy needs to be accessible to the normal person and 2. That a theistic approach to the natural Law is destroyed by virtue ethics when the approach doesn't even adress the ultimate cause of the virtue existing inside every person.
Owen Young
I hate you
Eli Robinson
Not him but the fact that it would put incredible stress in people's life since true utilitarianism would put every life under the same value (except for the life of old people/babies)
Lincoln Baker
>Act by the categorical imperative.
Hegel destroyed that.
Lincoln Harris
>it's bad because it would cause stress
You do realize you're arguing against it on utilitarian grounds, right?
Ryder Bennett
that was the entire point; utilitarianism ends up contradicting itself no matter what.
Oliver Collins
It's not a contradiction of utilitarianism to conceptualize the philosophy in a non-stressful way.
