NEET is not a label, it's a way of life!
[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 26514)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPEG, JPG, MP3, OGG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 7000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 2464 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 161909866749.png - (0.97MB , 1521x739 , waasted.png )
26514 No. 26514 [Edit]
Anybody ever read nay philosophy?
Just so you know, Plato is the truth
Expand all images
>> No. 26515 [Edit]
I respect that anon's anger at laziness but why would I give two shits that I get 'remembered' in history? I'm already adverse to people remembering me while I'm alive, let alone while I'm dead, and I wouldn't frankly give a shit about this rock after I die, or the people and culture on it.
I really don't get fetishism about being super important in human history, or spending your entire life in a haze trying to get put into a history book somehow. I think it'd be better to spend that time working in smaller circles and trying to improve lives that way, or not bothering with even that and focusing on your own life, unles you really care about being some history head that'll get made fun of for his funny, outdated interests by worthless teenagers in a few hundred years.
>> No. 26516 [Edit]
>>26514
What's nay philosophy?
>> No. 26518 [Edit]
>>26514
Bullshit. That anon forgets the other side of the coin. The universe doesn't care if you're lazy, and it also doesn't care if you're not. It's also impossible to be "remembered forever".
>> No. 26519 [Edit]
>>26514
>ever read nay philosophy?
Nay, I haven't
>> No. 26520 [Edit]
>>26514
I've read Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Saint Augustine, Abelard, Berkeley, Hume, Descartes, Kant, Rousseau, Nietzsche, Michelstaedter, Heidegger, Sartre, Marcuse, Sloterdijk, and others I can't even remember now. I doubt I could truly understand more than a 5% of all I read, and probably remember less than a 1%.
You need fertile land for a good harvest, even if you have the best seeds to plant they will be useless if you are into the middle of the desert. The desert means being fucking stupid.

Said that, I like to apply Plato and idealism to my apreciation of 2D, so I can justify it's actually not derivative of 3D but the other way around.
>> No. 26522 [Edit]
Most of the useful parts of philosophy have been subsumed into math/science. It feels like most of what remains in modern philosophy today is just arguing semantics or definitions.
>> No. 26525 [Edit]
Oh my God I'm sure the successful gogetter businessmen who work hard on making powerpoints and spreadsheets day in day out are very critical workers and history will remember them.
>> No. 26526 [Edit]
>>26525
Other business humanoids might remember them if they did really well, or really fucked up.
>> No. 26527 [Edit]
If the whole point is simply to be remembered there's easier ways that don't require that much effort. Recent history have proved even two dumb depressed kids could figure how to do that, with astonishing success. You couldn't even say they are remembered in a particular bad way considering the number of admirers and imitators.

>>26525
The classic ancient example of inmortality in history was Achilles. Ours is Steve Jobs. We don't care about moral examples, heroic deeds and beauty. But worse than that, we also don't care about who invents, innovates , creates. We only care about who makes the better business for himself, more money and better marketing.
Maybe that's why we idolize mass killers in the other hand, something's not right and we know it.
>> No. 26528 [Edit]
>>26526
Not without looking them up. Nobody knows the guy that founded Coca Cola off the top of his head, and it's one of the biggest corporations around. Bezos, Gates, Jobs, and the rest will all be forgotten a generation after their death.
If you want everyone to remember you, you need to either forge a new country, significantly extend an existing country or start a religion. If people being able to look up your name easily is good enough, the most expedient way would probably be to get chisel your name half a meter deep into a granite mountainside somewhere. Future archeologists will stumble across it at some point.
Then again, what's the point of being remembered? There's nothing that makes a life goal of being remembered more worthwhile than a lifegoal of collecting a million empty cans of beer. Once you're dead, you either cease to exist and are therefore incapable of caring, in oblivion/heaven/hell for eternity and therefore don't care because it doesn't affect you, get reborn without memories, in which case you're again incapable of caring, or reborn with memories, in which case you don't care because you've had ten thousand names already.

As for philosophy, I've read Evola and Neoplatonists for the most part. Stoics too, but they seem lacking in my opinion.
>> No. 26698 [Edit]
File 162911045326.png - (200.39KB , 640x480 , 1626407119843.png )
26698
Plato is garbage. All philosophy before Kant is an exercise in exploiting the imprecise nature of language as well as tedious and empty rambling on concepts such as being, essence substance and so on. They all imagined that by investigating the concepts in themselves, by the use of pure reason, would reveal the objective nature of reality, despite the fact that all the schools of philosophy disagreed with each other. They were all using their own "pure reason" to arrive at different conclusions and so revealed that there was no objective knowledge to be gained by this process, only arbitrary personal preference.

For thousands of years the only solution to this impasse was skepticism or spiritual faith. Skepticism is unsatisfactory to most because it is the desire of reason to know, and this thirst cannot be quenched easily, whereas spiritual faith relies on personal feeling and intuition which can appear to be entirely arbitrary to those who do not share the same enthusiasm.

Luckily Kant-Sama broke this deadlock by proving it is impossible to acquire any objective knowledge using pure reason but we can have knowledge of things as they appear to us. The grip of the old method of philosophy was finally broken, and the flowering of new, sophisticated methods and perspectives was now possible. It's just a shame that so many thousands of years were wasted with the old, uncritical method.
>> No. 26700 [Edit]
>>26698
I agree with all of this except that philosophy before that point was all useless. Not all of philosophy aimed at explaining reality. Plenty of it was more about how people should live and debate with each other. Stoicism and cynicism are two examples.
>> No. 26701 [Edit]
File 162915133399.png - (513.53KB , 760x920 , 47266860_p0.png )
26701
>>26698
>Kant-Sama broke this deadlock by proving it is impossible to acquire any objective knowledge using pure reason but we can have knowledge of things as they appear to us.
Kant has the world's stupidest opinion. What is there to gain by prefacing all your beliefs with "oh, but that's not true really"?
"Truth is relative" inherently becomes untrue whenever I choose not to believe it.
>> No. 26702 [Edit]
>>26701
>prefacing all your beliefs with "oh, but that's not true really"
There is no really, you still don't get it. The preface is "according to observation". If you disagree with something, you need to back it up.

Post edited on 16th Aug 2021, 3:40pm
>> No. 26703 [Edit]
>>26702
>There is no really, you still don't get it.
The statement "There is no truth" cannot be true, because if it was true there would be truth.
I'm sorry.
>> No. 26708 [Edit]
>>26703
He's not saying that there is no truth but that what is true has to be filtered through our consciousness and thus any expression of truth that we make is subjective. Of course, this perspective does have some traction with the vulgar relativists who believe that there is no truth but I don't think philosophical ideas should be degraded merely because the ignorant make a mockery of them.
>> No. 26758 [Edit]
>>26698
>it is impossible to acquire any objective knowledge using pure reason but we can have knowledge of things as they appear to us
that relies upon the assumption that your senses work, and the assumption that your brain works. in other words, you believe in the truth, you cannot know it.
>> No. 26762 [Edit]
>>26758
This probably goes back to that age-old philosophical debate: yes, it's true that on a pedantic level since everything we perceive is mediated by our senses, it's impossible to get a truly objective perspective of the world. But at the same time that doesn't mean you have to basically throw out everything: if you think of our individual senses as noisy, imperfect measurements then by aggregating across both space (multiple people observing the same thing) and time (continuity) as well as controlling for the correlation between our individual senses thereby providing redundancy, you can "minimize" the subjectivity and establish things to a high degree of certainty – such that there would need to be a grand conspiracy on the part of the universe to trick not only all of your senses but that of all those around you, those before you/after you, and orchestrate things in such a way that the illusion maintained perfectly under manipulation by inanimate things.

Now maybe that is indeed the case: some eastern religions have the term maya which seems to refer to some sort of illusory nature of the universe as perceived by our conscious (although honestly I've never really come across a concrete, non-handwavy explanation of this, and not sure if it is indeed applicable here).

View catalog

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


[Home] [Manage]



[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]