I need a friend who can hold conversations on Malick, Schelling, Hegel, Kant, Fichte, Spinoza, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Montaigne, Rousseau, Freud, Hume, Berkeley, Locke, Leibniz, the presocratics, David Foster Wallace, Clauswitz, Grand Strategy, Politics, Machiaveli, history, chess, Go, Risk, Stirner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, other existentialists, and most of all, Malick, all simultaneously.
Later.
That would be me. But I am too autistic for le friendship. Oh no!
I would love to help you OP but sadly I am too autistic for le friendship.
Sounds a bit like my gf... what race are you user?
I would recommend someone I know but I am too autistic for le friendship
Jewish.
Read Martin Buber and start a commune right now אחי
Malick is utter trash.
not me desu but i hope there's a transcript of that conversation on Veeky Forums, sounds interesting
Why Malick of all filmmakers?
Fuck Go, Risk and Chess. Play Civ
where's the videogames?
>not aoe 2 hd
>not actively following The Viper's evisceration of opponents
Veeky Forums's taste in everything, including god-tier RTS, is shit shit shit
Badlands is his only good film. One of the great American films actually.
why not Days of Heaven?
Civ isn't RTS though
this.
nothing triggers me more than those pseuds that worships malick.
days of heaven is great
I'm sorry that you're not as deep as me
I need a friend who can hold conversations on Solomon, Herodotus, Anselm, H.D., William Blake, Voltaire, Attlia the Hun, Courtney Love, Yugioh, Walking Sims, Puzzle Platformers, Astronomy, Synthetic Mythologies, Davey Wreden, Advanced Poetic techniques, and most of all Malick all simultaneously.
Later.
>Courtney Love, Yugioh
No thanks.
Hah!
>I need a friend who has my fact level of comprehension and intellectual skill instead of someone smarter than myself
>Malick
stopped reading there
I can do a good portion of those, but not all of them. Ask me again in 5 years.
>doesn't get Courtney love
Kill you are selves
>not age of mythology
I need a friend who can hold conversations about anything other than work, videogames, or tv shows
You seem boring
Let's talk about it favorite tactile sensation user.
I am very boring actually. Good point.
w-what about video games?
is this a pasta?
Waste of my fucking time desu
Malick is for people who see the beauty in life
Epic cringe from that list
you're in luck
song to song is the worst film of 2017 so far, utter trash. and this is coming from someone who liked to the wonder.
>Stirner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche
:)
I like the feeling when you have velvet in one hand and you rub it together so that the stitching lines up horizontally. All those tiny little smooth microbumps passing over each other makes my fingers feel like they're being electrocuted
embarrassing post
>Malick
>DFW
>Locke
>Hume
>Risk
>Stirner
ugh
>Malick
'Sup, embryo
>Stirner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, other existentialists
>other existentialists
>other
I don't like using the term pseud, but even through the bait you can see it
Unless this was intentional and I got meta-baited
Thin Red Line is one of the greatest war movies of will time, tho
Troll or no, I have a little something on Aristotle (by way of Euclid) that I wanted to mention. I just understood it.
Euclid's book V, prop 12 of his Elements runs thus: if any number of magnitudes be proportional, as one of the antecedents is to one of the consequents, so will all the antecedents be to all the consequents. I was a bit uneasy with Euclid's demonstration so I sought a modern one for my personal satisfaction.
Translated, this just means that if you have n ratios of the form x_n / y_n, such that all are equal, then this is sufficient information to conclude that the sum of the numerators (the x's) divided by the sum of the denominators (the y's) equals the same ratio. My write-up follows:
"
-So you have n ratios, and they're all equal (that is, all being the same ratio quantity r). So x_1/y_1 = ... = x_n/y_n = r.
-So each ratio's terms can be related to the common ratio r like this: x_1 = r * y_1 , ... , x_n = r * y_n.
-Add up all the x_n's. You can equate this to an RHS composed of the r * y_n terms, which are pairwise equal. You can then pull out r!
-So x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_n = r * y_1 + r * y_2 + ... + r * y_n = r ( y_1 + y_2 + ... + y_n ).
-But this just means that ( x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_n ) / ( y_1 + y_2 + ... + y_n ) = r = x_1 / y_1 = ... = x_n / y_n.
-Which was what was to be demonstrated (although Euclid specifically handles the three-case in a distinct way, though suggesting the above). Done!
"
The Aristotle connection is that Aristotle mentions this result in his Nicomachean Ethics, while treating of proportion in (what appears to be) a discussion on just distribution, fairness, and so on. Aristotle's version occurs in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics, (1131 b 14):
"the whole is to the whole as either part is to the corresponding part".
>chess, Go, Risk
Neat post, user.
damn...
damn...
I LOVED Knight of Cups, but Song To Song wasn't as good.
...
Meant to write
> damn...
The stupid thing is that I beat my brainlet head about it for two days, getting confused about series versus a chain of equalities. I tried (mathematical) induction at one point but I realized that I was just assuming what I was trying to prove.
The trick for my proof which satisfies myself is to identify and name the common ratio r. From this, the rest proceeds.
It also gave me an excuse to re-crack my Aristotle V.2. It was also gratifying in that reading Euclid around this point lately references Pythogoras. I got a presocratic reader recently and I realize half of it is basic math demonstrations along these lines. This just encourages me to Start With The Greeks, as it were.
Did you happen to be reading Euclid's demonstrations at the same time as Nicomachean Ethics or did you seek out the demonstration once you saw the statement?
Damn I don't know how to play Go, sorry
Let me explain.
My first object is the renaissance mathematician Cardano's Ars Magna, which cites about thirty or so of Euclid's props. This led me back to Euclid, I wanted to read and understand all of these props, which took me about a week of free time in evenings.
In the course of this, I could mostly either immediately understand Euclid's arguments, or else rephrase them in modern terms to my personal satisfaction as to a proof. Still one wants to appreciate what Euclid actually did, but that's another matter. For myself, I just want to know above all "that the thing is true" for future purposes.
But I got stuck on a few toward the end. The one that I just excitedly posted about was one of the last ones I was stuck on. So now this little task is complete.
But why mention Aristotle? Because Heath's English Euclid translation happens to mention its re-citation of same in Nicomachean ethics. I have an Oxford Aristotle handy, and lo and behold, there it is. It was just fun to actually have all of this stuff handy and actually start using and working with it.
"gnomons" also crop up in this nexus, another topic.
I admire your perserverance
Even though I like maths and literature I just don't think I'd be able to treat both of them in the way you did
59 posts in and all I see...
brainlets
Alas, my search has failed. Knowledge doth increaseth sorrow indeed. I'm only 22 years old and already I am at the precipice of genius. So close to my magnum opus. I wanted a companion who could equally stand with my nonpareil genius.
Inspiration should be a quality that should be unceasingly searched for, but a quality hard to find and a quality that is as dead its architecture. Genius, in essence, is operoseness and assiduousness. It is esemplastic in its seeking and endeavoring. Sadly however, with no inspiring figureheads to lead or soften it up and beat it like you would Fortuna, it withers and dies away as quickly as the brainlets that make up this material realm.
I shall seek the form of the Good elsewhere. Thank you for all your time Veeky Forums, you have shown to me that I am, and always will be, the smartest.
Later.
Same
That's an interesting infographic.
>Veeky Forums shitposting: 164 IQ
>social work
As expected.
it shows
wait a minute, that why they had steve jobs with that same pose on the cover of the walter isaacson book?
>I want to have a bunch of surface level discussions on all the Phil 101 philosophers to make myself seem more intelligent than I really am
I like this type of posts.
I think though that
>x_1/y_1 = ... = x_n/y_n = r.
This first step is already Euclid's statement entirely.
You're using techniques that need even more basis than what you're trying to prove.
It's like proving that 1+2=3 by showing that 1=3-2
malicked
I don't know if you are still there, but I'd like to inquire what would you like to talk about the given topics?
I couldn't but help noticing a peculiar name among your list: Leibniz. It is an interesting finding, since there aren't many who would bother themselves with his philosophy nowadays...
Moreover...
>Freud
why not Jung?
My object was to use simple algebra to convince myself of Euclid's statement rather than relying upon and fully appreciating his proof-as-such. I acknowledge same elsewhere in the thread - my intent was simply to satisfy myself about the truth of the statement by whatever means available. introducing the "dummy" r makes possibly the elementary, modern manipulation that I employed (assuming finitely many equations).
I am still a bit queasy about Euclid's demonstration because I haven't taken the time with it. For the moment, I have something which personally satisfies me as to same, which is what I need.
Have you not read his Theodicy, philosophical essays and New Essays on Human understanding. The man is pregnant with ideas, not to mention his influence on Schelling and Fichte. We could talk about him all day alone. I'd specifically talk about his theodicy and monadology.
Freud because he was more influential. I don't have anything against Jung though. Haven't really gotten into him yet beyond MBTI and cognitive functions
Is this samefagging or has Veeky Forums never done math? The connection to Aristotle is interesting at best and the math is some 10th grade algebra shit
>grand strategy
There are a lot of intellectuals in the /gsg/ thread on Veeky Forums.
I have read some of his essays and specifically his Monadology at least three times now. Although I haven't read his Theodicy (yet) I know some of the basic underlying themes.
Personally, I think Freud is a bit overrated, even though he was basically the founder of psychoanalysis. People have advanced and - dare I say it - surpassed his work in multiple ways, but to me Jung has the most useful framework of all the other people who have worked on Freud's legacy.
I'm usually a completionist when it comes to studying the works of the people I read. If I get into one philosopher or thinker I'll usually want to autistically finish all of the things he wrote. When it comes to reading philosophy, I don't like leaving holes behind. I'm almost afraid of getting into Jung at this point because I'll have that itching feeling in the back of my mind if I don't finish everything he's written, and he's written a lot. I'm working through the canon semi-chronologically so I'm planning on getting into him later on, probably in my 30's. I'm 22 right now so I want to spend as much time working through the "greats" first, though I'm not implying Carl Jung isn't great. From what I've seen, he's also a bit more into the occult and the spiritual, which isn't bad, but my mind is sensitive to the material I read (I have schizoaffective disorder). Usually it's not a distraction but when I study material on the unconscious my mind will start to splinter a bit and become more fragmented. There's a double-edged sword of course, because when I'm reading guys like Fichte or Schelling my mind will "become" the ideas I'm reading, in a manner of speaking. I'll see the world in the way they see it. In a word, I'm not ready to read Carl Jung and see the world the way he sees it. I'm still trying to get used to my condition.
This was a troll thread btw, but I do read a lot since I have the time and my parents support my hobby.
You also mentioned in your list Nietzsche. I'm just curious, how did you ''see'' his world, given your condition?
Many would deem his philosophy as brutal or view it as too much to bear. In addition he talks a lot about the Abyss... Wouldn't ''seeing'' this drive you to the brink of madness?
Anyway, given your condition and considering Jung's philosophy / psychology, I agree that you should not start reading Jung. He too, like Nietzsche, talks about the Abyss and I would say even in more detail than Nietzsche (I'm currently reading his Liber Novus and I can say that its content is though to swallow).
>Stirner, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, other existentialists
>other existentialists
Nietzsche gives a guttural response to pure nihilism, the kind of nihilism that people rarely consider, I think. His response to eternal recurrence is especially maddening, but the only response nonetheless. Basically, Nietzsche to me, gives a valid response to hell. I'd consider him the guy laughing while burning in the flame. When I had a psychotic episode Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego came up and basically I was screaming towards God that he had interpreted the bible wrong. That God was Nebuchadnezzar and Nietzsche was Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.
Nietzsche gives a scary-ass response to nihilism, but I think Kierkeekard does as well.