Thread: So i had this thought

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

Have you read any actual books, or just stuff you find on the internet?

awh, don't be a dick :D

yes, I have read more than just what's on the internet, albeit not a whole lot. just a few general philosophy books, which actually I guess isn't much better than internet. but my point is, I do/will read books.

key differences:

Hedonism's main claim is that only pleasure and pain can motivate us and that we should live our lives based on the pursuit of pure pleasure.

Existentialism has a lot of variations depending on who you're reading. but typically the model based on someone like Sartre[which is very very different to people like Kierkergaard or even Heidegger, who is somewhere nearabouts] is mainly about freedom. Sartre argues that freedom is basically a universal authority and that what makes humanity is that man is free. Freedom and holding the reigns of one's own destiny is the universal nature of man.

oh, my god, I almost bought Sartre's Being and Nothingness but I flipped through it and I'm sorry but it's way over my head. maybe I was just distracted that day, but I read a few lines here and there and was just like...what? I feel fucking retarded, and I hate it so much. I really want to understand all this. I guess I just need to keep reading. probably should go to college. I don't know, I live smack in the middle of Arkansas, I'm surrounded by the most ignorant people there are, and I do NOT want to be like them. it's depressing :(

So if you genuinely want to pursue some of this stuff, read some books. Existentialism and Humanism by Sartre is very easy really, and not long. I wouldn't recommend reading much Nietzsche though, as he can be very tricky to understand. Read nietzsche but first read whatever introductory philosophy books and more advanced stuff you can. it's no good diving into nietzsche if you know nothing about the traditions of philosophy.

thanks for the tip, although I did just buy his The Gay Science. haven't started on it yet. but I'll get that book, and look into Camus.

existentialism doesn't really appeal to me from what I've gathered, but it seems so complicated, I don't even know. the only thing I'm fairly sure of when in comes to philosophy is determinism. that I will argue for.

anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to post all that for me, thankyou.

ALSO!!! I love when I take time to type up long sincere posts and don't get a reply :D

(wheeeere is Praise)

Originally Posted by nerve

oh, my god, I almost bought Sartre's Being and Nothingness but I flipped through it and I'm sorry but it's way over my head. maybe I was just distracted that day, but I read a few lines here and there and was just like...what? I feel fucking retarded, and I hate it so much. I really want to understand all this. I guess I just need to keep reading. probably should go to college.

Certainly go to college if you really want to understand this stuff on a kind of life changing level. The thing is with most academic philosophy is that there are varying degrees of difficulty, massively so. I like to think nowadays I can manage most books, but there are some I just can't finish, namely Heidegger's Being and Time, which is fucking monstrous. But the key is patience.

Don't expect to be able to read through and understand because often the ideas just aren't that simple. I justt today finished reading a relatively short ook by Wittgenstein, but it took me a decent while to read simply because every bit I found my self reading and re reading til I actually really understood it.

And this is what sadly is required to get to the true core of most philosophy. The positive thing is that more recent stuff is often easier. And there are some great modern books that are alot easier to read. Namely anything by contemporary-ish philosophers, like Thomas Nagel. I can't recommend him enough.

Of course it is neccessary to read some of the real difficult classics, because there is a level of insight you can gain pretty much unparalleled by any introductory books or companion guide.

Originally Posted by nerve

thanks for the tip, although I did just buy his The Gay Science. haven't started on it yet. but I'll get that book, and look into Camus.

existentialism doesn't really appeal to me from what I've gathered, but it seems so complicated, I don't even know. the only thing I'm fairly sure of when in comes to philosophy is determinism. that I will argue for.

Try not to form strong opinions on any idea without really investigating it first. Thankfully it looks like you're humble enough to understand this. Which is very good indeed.

Like I said, I really wouldn't recommend diving into Nietzsche until you know what's what elsewhere. Because for starters he's kinda tricky if you aren't used to the kind of writing, and a lot of his stuff is kinda contextual to philosophy as a field.

If it's at all possible, and you are really serious about the subject, look into reading as much as possible, and if you are serious I can put some thought into good books to start with and tell you. But then again if you just want to dip in and see the lay of the land, read some introductory books and summaries etc, which again I can probably give you some help with.

Originally Posted by nerve

I guess I just need to keep reading. probably should go to college. I don't know, I live smack in the middle of Arkansas, I'm surrounded by the most ignorant people there are, and I do NOT want to be like them. it's depressing

Yeah I can imagine how you feel. Although thankfully I'm not too experienced with it.

In such desolate lands though, books should be your salvation. Really, there are centuries of worldwide wisdom there, and they are absolutely invaluable. Until you decide to move somewhere else or maybe even go to college, read read read. :3


Sorry if I come across at all patronising. But I really think more people should get interested really in this stuff, and I am pretty passionate about it all myself.

I think you all missed the point of this thread. It was supposed to be a parody of Idolfan's threads.

Originally Posted by tnemrot

I think you all missed the point of this thread. It was supposed to be a parody of Idolfan's threads.

But 'hoppa didn't tangentially reveal any masturbatory fetishes in the OP, unless I misread the bit about the cornflakes.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

But 'hoppa didn't tangentially reveal any masturbatory fetishes in the OP, unless I misread the bit about the cornflakes.

Duly noted.

why do I feel all warm and fuzzy inside ;_;

Originally Posted by nerve

why do I feel all warm and fuzzy inside ;_;

derp?

derp. derp?

Carousoul, you seem to think that people can only reach an understanding of philosophies threw reading others take on them, or that you can only know by learning from others, YOU ARE WRONG!

You could not be more wrong. There is an ability to learn from ones experiences and if one person can come to learn something in there life, what makes you think the only way anyone else could learn of it is to read a book or be taught it from that person?! So you're saying i would HAVE to go to college to get a better understanding of the universe and other such great mysteries? where the fuck did the "teachers" learn it? Was there always a "college" and a "teacher"? Yes knowledge is passed down and added to but that doesn't mean you HAVE to attend a college to learn said knowledge. You act like anyong that hasn't attended a college and tries to talk about the way the universe works should be shot in the face... Get Over Yourself! Einstein didn't go to college and he guessed shit about space and got it right.

Edit: ^ please excuse the mess on post #39

Originally Posted by MementoMori

Carousoul, you seem to think that people can only reach an understanding of philosophies threw reading others take on them, or that you can only know by learning from others, YOU ARE WRONG!

Originally Posted by MementoMori

So you're saying i would HAVE to go to college to get a better understanding of the universe and other such great mysteries? where the fuck did the "teachers" learn it?

I do not like how someone clearly so ignorant talks with such assumed authority. It's pathetic and arrogant of you to think you know anything about the way this world works to anywhere near the extent of people who have dedicated their life to studying it.
You're criticising me for telling someone the best way to learn a subject seriously is attending university to study it. You come across both as ignorant and anti-intellectual.
The teachers learnt it from their teachers, who in turn learnt it from theirs or somewhere else. This chain stretches back to create thousands of years of accumulated human knowledge and understanding. The human race has been around for a very long time and our combined knowledge and understanding has slowly slowly developed.
You may not realise it but the vast majority of ideas you have will have come from someone else, directly or indirectly. "Deep" ideas you come up with one day will no doubt have been planted by things youve seen or read or heard, almost undoubtedly.
Why is it that people 4000 years ago had a vastly inferior knowledge and understanding of the world? They could experience it directly just as well as we can. If we don't need to be taught or hear someone elses ideas on something to seriously consider it, then why has it that they didn't come up with advanced modern ideas then?
I won't claim and indeed did not claim that we can only learn from university studying. What I do claim however is that clearly we can only seriously learn with where we're up to as a race by taking into account the wisdom of others. IF you take a man and let him go through life never being taught anything and never coming into contact with people he will be an idiot. He will be stupid. No matter how many times you run his life, he will never come out at the end having thought up dada, quantum physics, or the moonlight sonata. That's because complex advanced ideas in humans are the result of generational development.
Nearly every single aspect of human intelligence we value is passed down between generations. Knowledge of the world, critical understanding, social understanding of other people, appreciation of complex forms of art and beauty. All these things we today assume are innate are the result of thousands of years of worldwide combined human experience and enquiry and learning.
Modern universities condense the accumulated knowledge and results of humanity into academic and rigorous courses to educate. Top world universities are the best and most successful ways of passing on knowledge and teaching in the world, and thus in order to really understand the complex ideas that humanity has produced on a certain subject it is useful to attend these.
You mention Einstein, but simply a quick google into his childhood reveals he was raised in a very scientific family, he was interested in and read the works of Kant at an early age, and he did go on to enrol in a scientific studying course. All of this is being clearly taught by other people, dead or alive.
It also comes across as massively ignorant and demeaning of you to say Einstein "guessed shit about space and got it right". Einstein studied scientific disciplines in various forms for many years, and very hard, as well as being an immensely gifted person, before making careful considerations and conclusions based on his knowledge, others ideas, his personal
observations and a critical understanding. This is not "guessing shit".
He did not, as you would probably like to think, for your own self esteem as much as anything I'd imagine, just muse one day some ideas about the universe with no real prior education on the subject, and just get it right.
Don't take my word for it though. Go and talk to an Ivy League or Oxbridge professor on philosophy about the nature of the mind, or similarly a professor of neuroscience, and then speak to some randomer of the same age who likes dreaming and thinks it's "really deep" on this forum about it, and see how much teaching can give to you.
You profoundly misunderstand the true complexity of ideas, and you seem to absolutely mock the combined knowledge of human history, which is incredibly problematic of you.
If someone chooses to pursue a subject, but would rather not attend university, they can entirely, I wouldn't call this impossible. However I would expect them to rigorously read and talk to more knowledgable people and to think critically. All these things are basically just what you do at university. Except in university you are guided in it by knowledgable people and it has a structure designed to maximise thought and learning.
One could spend their lifetime reading all the major works of philosophy for the past 2500 years and they would certainly learn a hell of a lot. But this is simply another form of teaching. It is a less structured, impersonal way of pursuing it, and likely far less effective or efficient than studying at university just for a few years. IF you can't see how absolutely inferior it would be, you're guilty of being blind, or wishful ignorance.
There are ideas from hundreds of years ago that have been the subject of hundreds of books in academic philosophy, and argued back and forth for many lifetimes, and you will get people coming on here on this very forum and making ham fisted and inarticulatly the same idea [which they will have indirectly been given by forms of entertainment and other indirect teaching] like it's something new. You know, something they just thought of whilst "experiencing the world".
It's arrogance on your part to assume that you or somebody else could just "come up with" ideas that have been refined and developed for generations of humanity.




Let me spell everything out very simply for you:

-The human race has a massive accumulated knowledge of the world passed on from generation to generation.

-Over time this becomes more profound and complex of it's own accord than any individual could ever come up with alone.

-Particular subjects have been particularly refined in knowledge between generations by teaching of them as subjects; maths, literature, philosophy, sciences.

-In order to gain specialised knowledge that has been passed through the generations on a subject of your interest, you must be taught it specially. For there is an extraordinary amount of information which you cannot "guess" on your own.

-In order to facilitate this teaching in society we have Schools and Universities.

-Universities are designed to be the best possible route to gaining knowledge on a subject, and for thousands of years have served that purpose successfully.

-Going to university will give you the most proficient and best amount of knowledge on a subject clearly available, based on the above points.

-Just looking at the world and casually reading stuff on the internet and the odd book, clearly, will not capture anywhere near the full breadth of information there is. As a result, you can be considered ignorant on the subject in comparison to those who have studied it especially at a place designed to carry knowledge.


I understand you may feel inadequate for your clear lack of education, but instead of digging in as you are and defending your position as equal, why not try and engage with the plethora of human knowledge and understanding we have, rather than thinking you're some superhuman who can gain just as much insight on your own.


Please don't respond to this if you're just going to vomit out more anti-intellectual idiocy, because it's painful and pitiful to read.

edit; although probably not as painful as the sheer WALL OF TEXT factor of this post.

See! that's why i love you Carou.
See i had this image that you thought the only way one could come to gain any knowledge is through courses at a school or a university. Where as i understand that is the optimum way to achieve equal understanding and intelligence as others well knowledgeable in the subject, i was (very poorly) getting at that there's another side of learning which is to take what you learn in the schools and universities and go into the world with it and study, and try to think away from the strict boxed confines of the school such as Darwin did, and Einstein and so many many others. Also, I would like to apologize for the very arrogant use of Einsteins' way of correlating hypotheses and theories in my previous post, i did butcher what i meant in saying that he "guessed shit and got it right". You gave a better and more thorough explanation of the reference. Well played Carou, and actually i didn't mind reading that wall of text at all. I hope i cleared up my point here, also i would like to say the previous post wasn't meant as an attack towards you but more a conversational catalyst

Originally Posted by MementoMori

See! that's why i love you Carou.
See i had this image that you thought the only way one could come to gain any knowledge is through courses at a school or a university. Where as i understand that is the optimum way to achieve equal understanding and intelligence as others well knowledgeable in the subject, i was (very poorly) getting at that there's another side of learning which is to take what you learn in the schools and universities and go into the world with it and study, and try to think away from the strict boxed confines of the school such as Darwin did, and Einstein and so man many others. Also, I would like to apologize for the very arrogant use of Einsteins' way of correlating hypotheses and theories in my previous post, i did butcher what i meant in saying that he "guessed shit and got it right". You gave a better and more thorough explanation of the reference. Well played Carou, and actually i didn't mind reading that wall of text at all. I hope i cleared up my point here, also i would like to say the previous post wasn't meant as an attack towards you but more a conversational catalyst

You are a glorious human being.

As are you my friend.