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?
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.
Matthew Adams
philosophy is about proof, no one gives a shit about the idea.
Jace Campbell
It's about both
Benjamin Morris
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.
Aiden Campbell
If you read two philosophers arguing for opposite positions, they can't both be self-evident to you.
Matthew Foster
>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.
Logan Martinez
Why don't you give an example, you punk bitch?
Aaron Garcia
>I've never read anything that wasn't already self-evident to me. Am I just too intelligent for philosophy?
Ahahahahahahahahaha
Benjamin Watson
Tell me something you read and were genuinely enlightened by.
Jordan Martin
true. My motto is, from page 150 on, every theorist is just talking shit
Luis Butler
>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!!
Zachary Collins
his proof is controversial but he uses lacan, hegel, and anecdotal experience to theorize on possible states of the world.
Jason Nelson
why is anyone even responding
christ this place has gone downhill
Benjamin Garcia
why do you even keep coming back then?
Easton Rogers
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.
Juan Flores
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
Grayson Johnson
there's no proof for anything. ofc it's about the idea.
are you - for real?
Colton Garcia
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.
Michael Davis
Sounds like a fancy version of posting on reddit except it's paid by the taxpayers.
Brody Jackson
you need to get off the fucking internet for once. ffs
Adam Bennett
And go where exactly?
Dominic Gomez
>people actually took this bait you are all actual retards
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!
Evan Butler
All sophists will be culled.
Caleb Parker
The first philosopher.
Isaiah Collins
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.
Camden Phillips
>not doughnut ???
Brayden Long
Kierkegaard
Leo Murphy
cringe
Blake Scott
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?
Justin Baker
He had a good mustache.
Chase Myers
>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
Levi Cruz
> 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
Bentley Reyes
Charming refutation.
Julian Martinez
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.
Cooper Butler
War is horrible. Horrible. You must prevent it and don't even have to look. The truth is already there, everywhere, roughly, speaking.
Alexander Williams
op what "multiple tomes" of philosophy have you read i'm curious
Samuel Watson
>Kierkegaard Well, what did he say that you found so new and interesting?
Chase Jackson
lol, angry nerds
Samuel Johnson
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.
Matthew Garcia
Into a pussy.
Lincoln Martin
Ever thought that something interesting might come of the pretense? Like, if someone starts playing devils advocate do you just walk away?
Joseph Kelly
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 .
Brandon Morgan
>>You're not reading challenging enough material Like what?
Tyler Kelly
The word of God is my philosophy.
Charles Howard
>Ayn Rand.shutthefuckuppeg
Gabriel Miller
Wittgenstein's Tractatus
Eli Nguyen
>couldn't even make his point in one paragraph. Lel
Nicholas Carter
he's right, you know? you look kinda dumb to me with such posts t b h
Adrian Sanchez
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.
Cameron Scott
To read is one thing. The question is if you UNDERSTOOD it.
Michael Adams
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.
Xavier Baker
you mean the Vienna Circle?
Brandon Thompson
I think you did the meme wrong, where's the irony?
Levi Richardson
There's no irony.
Christian Rodriguez
Yuh
Easton Perez
I just explained it to you, so obviously I did.
Adrian Collins
nah you didnt. You cant say you fucking did with that shitty phrase that you wrote, sorry, user.
Angel Long
REEEEEE JOHN STUART MILL WOULDNT HAVE SAID THAT SKREEEEE
Robert Edwards
Guess you're too stupid to understand it even distilled to its quintessence then.