Philosophy is for failed artists or scientists...

lmao philosopher manlets on damage control

>every single

what about ayn rand?

or christopher hitchens?

And yet you're talking about them and not the people in their chosen fields who were supposedly their betters

camus fucked 1000x more girled than op for sure

>someone's contributions to society can be discounted if they're short
Heightism is the new racism

Literally how not, bitch? How's a fictional exploration of reality not useful, Herr Philosoph? I do remind you Plato's entire work was considered as literature in his day, inscribed in the tradition of the written dialog

back 2 redditt

>scientists
>genius
Eat shit.
You don't know what 'aesthetic' means. You're a heretic for denouncing aesthetics. You are, ironically enough, a Christian by image alone. Eat shit.
You're wrong on all accounts. Go back to your vagina ethics paper, twat.

Being a composer is for failed visual artists

This is a dramatically-inflected, or modulated, if you like, word about the context of the inquiry:

The peevishness of the higher-caliber professors, in the elite American universities, when confronted with the possibility of being imputed with Romanticism, is symptomatic of the failure to resolve the American formula for the division of human possibilities. Now found in the anti-intellectual notion of the ‘spiritual’, as opposed to the so-called finite secular sphere of social construction. “Finite” then points us to the distinctive and peculiar notion of the empirical found in the same circles. One who surveyed this, from a high peak, might be struck by awe. Much in the way the one with a Weltanschauung, in the age of Burckhardt, and Wagner, felt the radiance of High German myths, performed on the stages of Bayreuth.

Romanticism seems to signal some kind of flight from the “finite”. The concept of the forest, of the wanderer, of the special way, of the flight from scientific rationality into the fairytale world. However, doesn’t one who survives all this, see only a specific set of biases, of inherited ideological dispositions? Doesn't one suspect that consciousness itself is infinite, unintellectually-religious, foolish, non-rational. The only place from which rationality can be defined, the seat of arbitrariness?

Those primitive disputatious rascals who see such forms appearing before them, of the American world as such, might, heart and spirit, stream into the dissenting polemics of academic print. However, in the decisive respect, these would be only those who had failed to grasp the golden nugget of their own perspicacity. Had failed to understand the error of epochs. Of standpoints as such. Had let oneself bathe in the light cast by the transformations of worlds, but not confronted the burden of that vision of the transformations in and of oneself. Once not seen, now evident injunctions from unknown quarters.

I wonder if one must comprehend this question form American and European and Russian, and Chinese angles? And not just suddenly in a great unitray thought.

My essay surveys two recent philosophical strains of thoughts, Speculative Realism and Object-Oriented Ontology, in order to show their relevance to Romantic literature and culture, and the humanities more widely. I explain how Quentin Meillassoux, in his book After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, targets “correlationism,” the notion that there is no access to the world except by the human mind, as the defining problem of modern thought. Romanticist Timothy Morton, springboarding from Graham Harman's Meillassoux-inspired Object-Oriented Ontology, theorizes what he calls a “hyperobject,” a non-localized object like climate change that disturbs and disrupts the supposed connection between human being and worldly phenomenon. These theories, I show, intersect with Romantic apocalyptic traditions that foresee a future paradise brought on by human action. As I read it, though, Meillassoux's Speculative Realism and Morton's hyperobjects shine a light on the largely ignored, post-apocalyptic aspects of Romantic literature in works like Shelley's “Mont Blanc.” I argue that Romantic post-apocalypticism relies on Romantic irony to root us in a temporality of the present rather than a deferred vision of a utopian future.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lic3.12254/abstract

Bravo.

I align with you on a few points. The unwillingness to accept an outside formal system that has different axiomatic principles than the logic employed by philosophers is, for some, a dry subject by this point.

Godel's Incompleteness Theory proves that no axiomatic system is complete, but they are weighed by us and used based on how much those systems apply to the world we live in. Why can't different forms of art and literature be more valuable to us compared to logic. We are not completely logical creatures, and this is understood. The human experience is not limited to a purely scientific and logic one.

Philosophy doesnt properly explain what it means to be human.

>what it means to be human
Fuck off, humanist. You don't matter that much.
>theory
>proof
Fuck off, systematizer.

If philosophers suck so much, OP, why are they living rent-free in your head to the point that you made this post?

Absolutely nothing matters you fucking idiot. You're going to die and your life means nothing.

Your life only means something to you, enriching it and being happy or fulfilled matter to the individual. The human experience is all you have, and empathizing with an artist that helps you see what the experience is for them in a meaningless world is a great thing. How do they cope with it? Do they post bullshit on a korean underwater oragami board and sulk like betas in their waste of a life?

Fuck off.

>Wittgenstein
>middle class

The Wittgensteins were one of the richest families in Europe.

>nothing matters
This is what humanists actually believe.
Fuck off back to France.

Actually humanists do believe things matter. That's why they advocate for mankind's advancement. There's plenty of anti-humanists who run in the same circles though.

t. humanist pretending not to be a humanist

Because it brings philosophy into actual relationships between people, into life, which is what its supposed to be about anyway.

Fair enough I suppose

>humanists

Anyone who takes philosophy more seriously than a passing pleasure is a moron

>humanists

I thought Wittgenstein was a fairly successful engineer. He made important developments in the design of jet engines, but lost interest in it and turned to philosophy. Also why do you say he wanted to be a musician? He certainly appreciated it, but we've only found one attempted composition of his, just three bars. I don't think he 'settled' for philosophy at all.

fuck this thread made me spit out my coffee

>philosophy is for failed artists or scientists.
how did you arrive at this conclusion without utilizing philosophical concepts?

>or a genius scientist
oh, you don't know what 'philosophy' is.

Veeky Forums has the best bantz.

The Reach belongs to the Forsworn!

Chomsky is a linguist and philosopher.

>american
>linguist
Ha-ha! Good one!

>Veeky Forums has the best bantz.

na m8 aussie hours on /pol/ is objectively the best banter and you are in literal denial if you disagree.

So? Einstein was only 5' 7".

Ayn Rand cant write

Nice. Always good seeing modern philosophers being taken down a peg.

lmfao manlet philosophers are pathetic. I'm sowwy did I huwt youw feewings? :(

Zizek would kick your ass.

as much of a philosopher as anybody is, just laughing at the oxymoronic statement "philosophy is for failed artists or scientists."

literally impossible to conduct science without conducting philosophy.

Philosophers like Descartes, Leibniz, Frege and Bolzano were p good mathematicians too. You're retarded OP :(

#1 Quality Bait.

I've realised that I have no fishes. And I leave in the belly of a whale. Will I be spat onto the shore like some mythic Byron? Does that city crumble before me and need my enterprising hands? And how shall I rebuild these giant cock like buildings so their erections stand the wet hole of time?

---

Am I free to think now that I've given you art? Or does art require philosophy?

sounds like a thomas bernhard rant
you're just a failed thomas bernhard, op

>Godel's Incompleteness Theory proves that no axiomatic system is complete

>Object-Oriented Ontology

Can you fuckers please not make the term 'Object-Oriented' anymore overloaded than it already is?

they have to make these ridiculous terms up to make up for the fact that they are wasting their time and that no one takes them seriously. "doesn't the term object orientated ontology make me sound so smart and almost scientific? I look smart, right guys?!"

>philosophers wish they could make an impact on the world, they wish they could create beautiful works of art, they wish they could be good looking Chads, but they always fail, so they try to argue their way out of it, reason their way our of it: "I may not be able to get that cute girl, but, uh, it's because I'm the Ubermensch, hehehe, right guys!?" Every philosophical theory has been overturned, and philosophy has NEVER come up with a definitive answer. It is a failed field, and no one takes it seriously. Philosophers are all sad, pathetic, delusional people

wish i could disagree with you opie. fact is i can't
>dem alternatives to pathos failure & delusion tho

Ayn Rand's philosophy is 2nd rate at best, and Hitchens is a babby-tier intellectual for pseuds

Einstein was a Jew.
Therefore, his "theories" are frauds.

Nah
Properly utilized, philosophy is a lasting pleasure
This is like saying "anyone who takes eating more seriously than a passing pleasure is a moron" and eating chicken nuggets for every meal. You're being shortsighted

You haven't read any of the biographies of Wittgenstein, have you? He could have easily been an engineer but was drawn by an intense impulse towards philosophy. And though he loved music he didn't want to be a musician. Russell was a mathematician. And their heights just prove short men are superior, but that shouldn't come as news to anyone who has thought about it.

>implying anyone but some women and Veeky Forums cares about height
Stopped right there

1000 times zero is still zero.

>pure math more adequately addresses questions in logic, rationality, and ontology.
>math
>ontology

Hah, you're a philosophy major? What a sorry state we're in.

The best part about philosophy is that all critiques against it only provide more evidence as to why we need it. It's useless in every sense--it isn't tied to political, monetary, or ideological interests. It is about asking questions and developing suspicion for all of the answers that so-called "intelligent" people espouse. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

>tfw 6 foot alphamode nietzsche

> some women care about height
> some women
> some

Most women care about it. A lot of women will overlook it if they are attracted to other traits of yours (physical and/or personality traits).

t. woman

Why is that girl in a sleeping bag puking milk?

>relativism
fuck off

Poor OP is just upset he isn't skilled enough to be a philosopher.

>philosophy is for failed artists or scientists
yeah sure. enjoy your shit thread

>Wittgenstein - wanted to be an engineer, failed, wanted to be a mathematician, failed, wanted to be a musician, failed
he got into philosophy BECAUSE he got into math, BECAUSE he was into engineering. He didn't flunk out of these programs. People get into subjects through other subjects.

This is a pathetically loose definition of fail

>Literature is better suited for exploring the existential, ethical, and theological questions of life
maybe in an artistic sense, but literature rarely (if ever) creates unique schools of thought and usually just piggybacks on the work of actual philosophers to create its worldview.

>meaning isnt real because its only in your head!
>meaning doesnt exist because it only has finite spatio-temporal extension!
look at the cartesian retard up in this bitch