Is philosophy worth the baggage?

Fair enough.
What's wrong with Aristotle?

Original guy here. I think my white knight was implying you too frequent this site so your point of condescension is void.

But I'll take a different route. Who said i couldn't enjoy the heaven of the forms and occassionally shit post on a weeb porn site.

His logic.

>I think my white knight was implying you too frequent this site
yes i do
>so your point of condescension is void.
no it isnt
>Who said i couldn't enjoy the heaven of the forms and occassionally shit post on a weeb porn site.
i did

K. Thank you for your stunning contribution.

What part specifically? Is there something in particular you disagree with (from categories or politics or wherever) or are you just talking shit, my guy?

>being this needy
Wew honey.

I'm pretty sure that my neurotic nature based on recently diagnosed bipolar disorder makes forces me to twist every thought into an autistic and pretty much crippling level, so I just tend to philosophy, specially contemporary philosophy. I reread the intro of Being and Time everyday just to enjoy the ride, I'm so familiar with it that I can read it in less than an hour. I would like to reread the entire book but I'm bussy reading new stuff. I don't think of myself as above the average joe in terms intellect, I'm really slow at everything else, and I don't feel like a retain much of what I read, so I always write notes but when I read them they are really incoherent.
If I didn't do this I would need to talk about all that crap with real life people, which would be hell for then and me.

you're welcome

look bb being resentful ain't gonna get you anywhere

what is being and time about? speak english please

>trying to start a discussion in a subject i'm interested in is 'needy'
Haha now I see what this is.

>being resentful
i am not

Stop with the "speak english please" trope. That's the second time you've used it tonight.

I can respect bits of this attitudes. You can improve it in time if you keep it together, and you may retake a few of those concessions.

I never understood this one

Oh do tell mister one-liner

why?

I think it's that neither structure is a triangle and that is simply not a hypotenuse, but I don't know I'm waiting for the guy to respond to my post. There is a subtle increasr in area about the hypotenuse of the triangle which is conpensated so to speak by the empty square. Maybe.

Nah dude, i'm done with (you)

Read William Hazlitt.

Should add you can tell it's not straight by measuring the gradients of the red and blue triangles

i dont read books written before 1950

Good. I doubt you could keep it up much longer. Thanks for the exchange of (you)s

And if you don't have that empty square there the structure fails to look like the original one. And the subtle change around the hypotenuse goes unnoticed.

There is a slight curvature in the 'hypotenuse' in the lower one. If you get an image editor and draw a line between the 2 ends of the hyp you'll be able to see the curvature.

Being and Time, the title is pretty straight forward

Some people disregard it as mystisim, those people are usually slaves of cartesian metaphysics autism.

Which are the bits you don't respect, faggot?

* I mean both triangles have curved hypotenuses,

True for the first one too, no? Just 'curves' the other way.

That's what I was saying. The 'curvature' comes from the difference in gradients.

no. learn a trade

>he hasn't read Hegel's lectures on Aristotle
>brainlets STILL dont get Aristotle

it's been over 2300+ years now...

The difference in curvatures creates the difference in gradients. If there was no curvature and the lines were straight the gradients would be the same. Subtle difference in approach.

Take shape A. Take the red and blue triangle and just for now imagine their hypotenuse to be straight. The gradient of the red triangle is 3/8 and and the blue triangle is 2/5 (Deduced from counting the blocks). Thus there's a difference in gradient with no need for curvature in the individual blue and red triangles. I'm not sure I follow your logic?

>Has reading philosophy made you feel better?
No
>Does understanding master-slave dialectic improve your life in any way?
That's hard to define and it's not really the point to be quite honest with you.

I'm not going to say that you should do it or that it will tangibly improve your lot in life. Though I will say that if you do take your time and study these things and reflect on them carefully that you're more likley to appreciate the time you spend instead of regretting it or feeling like your time has been wasted.

That being said, if you find yourself frequently lamenting how you spend your time not doing anything of any real import, studying philosophy is generally a great way to get over that provided that you have the intellectual capacity to engage with the ideas presented to you.

So in short, if you sincerely feel that you have better things to do with your time, then don't bother. If you don't then give it a shot and see if it intrests you, if it doesn't interest you then find another trifle to worry over.

Settle down now fella you don't wanna ruin all your good work. You have a desire to be humble and honest and are almost there.

I was speaking of the overall object.
Where in both cases the base and height is the same.
The reason 2 triangles of apparently different gradients fit together is because the gradient and the top of the red triangle is steeper so it connects to the steeper blue triangle as the triangles are concave.
In the lower case the triangles are convex so the blue triangle has a lower gradient than if it were straight at the top so it connects to the shallower red triangle.
The presence of curvature is why the triangles of different gradients seamlessly combine not the 2 triangles having different gradients when considered straight,

> Is philosophy worth the baggage
I think so. I've been reading lots on philosophy and behavioral psychology. But yes to truly learn it can change you

In fact for triangle A if you take away the area of the entire shape from the triangle you think it is then [(5*2*0.5)+(8*3*0.5)+(5*3)] - [5*13*0.5] = 32-32.5 = 0.5 (forget I did it backwards. Now note that the shape B would overshoot the apparent hypotenuse by the same amount that shape A undershot it (inward to outward arrow) You see that the difference in shape A and shape B without the missing square is exactly 1 square. Thus, the missing square.

Also pretty neat how a pythagorean triple appears. No doubt necessary to product a unit area difference.

I'm sorry, two of them appear. Spooky.

Actually completely ignore these comments lol.

I value the pursuit of truth higher than being uncomfortable because of the depth of the rabbit hole.

This is garbage. Stop posting it.

And the master-slave dialectic isn't a "thing" to learn or a "badge" to acquire. It's about exploring the concept of morality.

Why?

>tfw read only the Stoics
>tfw it actually, unironically helped me even though I disagreed with many things

Philosophy isn't supposed to make you feel better. It's supposed to make you wiser.

Read poetry if you want to feel better.

If you can live without reading philosophy, then you shouldn't waste your time with it because you'll never understand it anyway

Blue triangle: 5/2
Red Triangle: 8/3

bullshit. if you want to feel better, just follow your immediate impulses

ie browing 4chin, reddit, youtube, snapchats, videogames, junk food, alcohol, all substances

yeah sure youre going to pay for it in feelings of worthlessness but you might as well since you can get prescribed drugs to fix your "ailments" anyways, leading to reliance, depression, suicide, and boom no more sadness

ding ding

Can you be any more pretentious? Some people encounter philosophy later in life. Do yourself a favor and stop chasing the absolute. Your reductionism is nauseating.

philosophy is academia and academia is rife with nerds and nerds are a bunch of anal-retentive assholes with terrible personalities

i wouldn't bother with philosophy for the culture surrounding it, i'd just do it if you're predisposed towards liking it or get something out of it

>and academia is rife with nerds and nerds are a bunch of anal-retentive assholes with terrible personalities
Is there any hope to find grounded, honest people in academia, especially humanities?

John Searle, though he turned out to be a rapist or something so his overall character isn't great
Peter Singer but his philosophy has pleb tier utilitarian premises

Philosophy is ultimately for people who either doubt everything, are obsessed with truth, want to build a full fledged worldview that covers the whole of reality, or are obsessed with being intellectually airtight. I can't speak to your experiences with people who are into philosophy, but if your ethic is "dude just enjoy your life, take your nose out of those silly books", then philosophy is definitely not for you. You either "get it" or you don't, although the motivation for philosophy is often something that must be awakened - once that door is open, there's no shutting it.

this desu.

imagine being in a car. you can basically shift gears between
>manageable paranoia
>unmanageable paranoia
>virtually no paranoia
>falling asleep at the wheel

paranoia imho is the gas pedal, and being an excessively hardheaded empiricist is the brake. the more wonky you get, the faster you can go. the more you require citations from Karl Popper, the slower. which is fine ofc. sometimes it's good to go slow.

there are other features also. many of which you will only discover after taking the engine apart. for example, the car also comes with an ejector seat.
>and occasionally a surface-to-air missile launcher fy

i mean yeah but they're outliers

Yes

Someone for the love of god please explain this shit to me, how is this possible?

Nice one, retard.

just look at the yellow and green block

It's a bullshit little trick, neither "hypothenuse" is really a straight line.