I don't understand the point of these "philosophers" that ramble on and on about shit in multiple tomes of books...

I don't understand the point of these "philosophers" that ramble on and on about shit in multiple tomes of books, when their entire philosophy can be distilled into one paragraph.

Seriously, can someone explain to me why this shit is even relevant when you can just read the wiki article and get the gist of it? It's like someone writing 600 pages on why water is wet, sure, it might be interesting to autists, but a normal human being just intuitively knows it in the first place.

I've never read anything that wasn't already self-evident to me. Am I just too intelligent for philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iJK0OGlhKF4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

maybe you should write a book about it.

I think some philosophers are rather enjoyable to read and help with freshening up perspectives, like good ol' Alan Watts.

then again you are right. I think they just want to get qt's and be received as a patrician.

philosophy is about proof, no one gives a shit about the idea.

It's about both

don't worry about it user. There's other things to spend your time doing, other things for consideration and attention.

If you don't like philosophy or if you don't find it useful, thats okay.

If you read two philosophers arguing for opposite positions, they can't both be self-evident to you.

>philosophy is about proof, no one gives a shit about the idea.
What "proof" does Zizek give about anything?

In such a case it's not that the positions are self-evident, it's that one (or both) of them is wrong that's self-evident.

Why don't you give an example, you punk bitch?

>I've never read anything that wasn't already self-evident to me. Am I just too intelligent for philosophy?

Ahahahahahahahahaha

Tell me something you read and were genuinely enlightened by.

true. My motto is, from page 150 on, every theorist is just talking shit

>I've never read anything that wasn't already self-evident to me.

HEY GUYS ITS ME POST-HOC, I WAS RIGHT AGAIN!! HEHE ROOM-TEMPERATURE IQS STEP OVER!!

his proof is controversial but he uses lacan, hegel, and anecdotal experience to theorize on possible states of the world.

why is anyone even responding

christ this place has gone downhill

why do you even keep coming back then?

Here is Lacan in one sentence:

I AM LE SEXUALLY PERVERSE CULT LEADER SUBSCRIBE TO MY BULLSHIT SO I CAN GET MORE CULTIST HOTTIES OF ALL SEXES TO LE COPULATE WITH

Here is Hegel in one sentence:

THERE IS A ALSO THERE IS B THEY COMBINE INTO C BUT C ALREADY HAS THE SEED OF D IN IT AND THEN C AND D COMBINE INTO E BUT E ALREADY HAS THE SEED OF F INTO IT AD INFINITUM

Nice proofs I guess, lol.

It's like some sort of mental disease, I think

besides, good posting can still be found in topics with clearly delineated and specific topics

please remember to sage user

there's no proof for anything. ofc it's about the idea.

are you - for real?

In the off chance that this isn't bait... Philosopher have to be thorough, precise, careful and fair. Given most if not all philosophy is part of a larger dialogue where philosophers are either assenting to or refuting the work of another philosopher they have to address probable criticisms, present the arguments of those they are assenting to or refuting and in general do a good job of it so as those who have not read the sources they are writing on can understand exactly what the aim of their project might be.

Sounds like a fancy version of posting on reddit except it's paid by the taxpayers.

you need to get off the fucking internet for once. ffs

And go where exactly?

>people actually took this bait
you are all actual retards

>tafw to itelligent to be smarty
*farts*

youtube.com/watch?v=iJK0OGlhKF4

OP this is more suited for you

Greetings earthlings, as I was browsing Facebook today I came across a hilarious picture my favorite philosophy page posted. Something that all of us philosophy nerds can enjoy!

All sophists will be culled.

The first philosopher.

All things are self-evident once they have been understood. A failure to understand the need to communicate ideas to those who have not understood them yet is a failure of ignorance.

>not doughnut
???

Kierkegaard

cringe

What's with the continental obsession with Saussure? Even Plato discusses the signifier/signified/referent distinction and the phonetic arbitrariness of signs. He wasn't exactly innovative. It's just because he's French, isn't it?

He had a good mustache.

>I don't understand the point of these "philosophers" that ramble on and on about shit in multiple tomes of books, when their entire philosophy can be distilled into one paragraph.


Why are you here?


> he shot the dog

> Even Plato discusses the signifier/signified/referent distinction and the phonetic arbitrariness of signs

saussure is anti-platonic to the core. words signify nothing but a movement of meaning within their difference to saussure. i have no idea how you could get something even remotely platonic from that idea who stressed to the core the ideal referent of the word even if the phonetic sound itself was 'arbitrary' (which, according to the cratylus, is probably not the case). the only bridge i see between saussure and plato is that saussure thought the only non-signifiable was consciousness itself.

and don't even bring the timaeus into this

Charming refutation.

I said Plato discussed them, not that he accepted them. The central issue in the Cratylus is whether names are arbitrary. Plato didn't think so and has his Socrates argue against it, but the Cratylus still has a presentation of the idea, which means that the idea was nothing innovative by the time Saussure popularized it. Try thinking in terms of content instead of in terms of schools and allegiances.

War is horrible. Horrible. You must prevent it and don't even have to look. The truth is already there, everywhere, roughly, speaking.

op what "multiple tomes" of philosophy have you read i'm curious

>Kierkegaard
Well, what did he say that you found so new and interesting?

lol, angry nerds

You're not reading challenging enough material or you're just not smart enough to truly understand what you are reading. More likely the latter than the former.

Into a pussy.

Ever thought that something interesting might come of the pretense? Like, if someone starts playing devils advocate do you just walk away?

You don't read philosophy to be persuaded into "believing" in it. You read philosophy to figure out cases where it could offer a useful perspective .

>>You're not reading challenging enough material
Like what?

The word of God is my philosophy.

>Ayn Rand.shutthefuckuppeg

Wittgenstein's Tractatus

>couldn't even make his point in one paragraph.
Lel

he's right, you know? you look kinda dumb to me with such posts t b h

Read it, it's literally trying to use "logic" to autistically expound on "how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real" through rounds and rounds of excruciatingly monotonous circular reasoning. Completely irrelevant.

To read is one thing. The question is if you UNDERSTOOD it.

Wittgenstein found himself repulsed by the Tractus and called it falliable at an old age. Later, he dejected his inner circle that was created in his footsteps upon the Tractus.

Read his later shit.

you mean the Vienna Circle?

I think you did the meme wrong, where's the irony?

There's no irony.

Yuh

I just explained it to you, so obviously I did.

nah you didnt. You cant say you fucking did with that shitty phrase that you wrote, sorry, user.

REEEEEE JOHN STUART MILL WOULDNT HAVE SAID THAT SKREEEEE

Guess you're too stupid to understand it even distilled to its quintessence then.

...