File: image_2026-06-02_192034764.png (63.7 KB)

>>25317851
Nihilism is gay and fake

Socrates is annoying to me because he's so obviously doing mental gymnastics to justify what he thinks is "true and beautiful" rather than what is just true. To me this is, at the very least, hypocritical

>>25317851
>Phil majors consistently score among the highest on the LSAT, GRE, and GMAT.
gay as hell framework value conformity

>>25317856
That's usually what people are looking for when they make criticism of philosophy as a major. it is one of many ways to justify its value, but it is the easiest to understand for normies who probably dont even know what philosophy is.

>>25317852
Why is materialism nihilistic?

1s in the chat if I should keep making and maintaining these threads

>>25317859
Normies should be filtered. Normies normiefying philosophy is the worst that has happened to it. It should go back to being a less popular endeavour only traveled by the most passionate for it.

File: 1779986263431400.png (252.0 KB)

>tfw you want to read an untranslated text

>>25318376
you sound like youre 14

>>25318376
>It should go back to being a less popular endeavour only traveled by the most passionate for it.
I don't know that it was ever that, or even that its not currently that. What normies engage with currently is not "philosophy" it's just comfort quotes.

File: HJgYnyPWwAA0Vm7.png (355.1 KB)

>>25317851
Asked a thread or two ago about pragmatics in the philosophy of language. Noble pursuit or waste of time?

Also that frogposter with the crass ethical dilemma made me think about act utilitarianism. I consider myself closer to deontology and virtue ethics, but is there any books that argue for it in a political philosophy context? Primary sources are fine.

Also interested in the philosophy of history, particularly counterfactuals. Any interested anons throw book or articles at me.

File: brainlets-talk.jpg (86.7 KB)

>/phil/ - Philosophy General #6

maybe one day this general will have activity again, in the meantime peace out and love philosophy

>>25318487
no u

>>25319635
Activity here tends to fluctuate. Every once in a while someone will chime in with something interesting.

>>25319635
the philo in philosophy already means love. philosopher: lover of wisdom.

>>25319685
love the love of wisdom

>>25319305
thanks for the bump, chump

>>25319676
I asked a few questions and got nothing.

>>25320198
I would expect that to be the case at first, but perhaps people will gradually begin to haunt and reply to stuff. Probably too very few people on this website are actually knowledgeable/willing to share their knowledge

>>25320316
Yeah I mean i just wanted to know about pragmatics at most.

File: brainlet thinks he is smart.jpg (130.9 KB)

>>25319698
No problem! Gotta keep a pseud containment thread on a board with 10 pseud threads going at all times up!

>>25318726
For pragmatics, I recommend Acting One by Robert Cohen. In one chapter goes over the practical techniques of speech and how that speech offers implications in Part IV: The Actor's Technique. Here's an excerpt.

>Emphasis

>Emphasis is the stuff of oral interpretation, the decision to make one word or syllable more important than another. Almost any line can be read with a variety of emphases. Look, for example, at Macbeth's line to his wife, after murdering Duncan: "I have done the deed."

>*I* have done the deed. [It was *me!*]
>I *have* done the deed. [You thought I wouldn't didn't you?]
>I have *done* the deed. [It's all over now.]
>I have done *the* deed. [It's the most *important* deed I've ever done.]
>I have done the *deed.* [It's just a "deed," nothing more.]

>All of those emphases are justifiable, but you can play only one of them. Which one fits the interpretation, stimulates the action, and best serves your production of the play? Should there be subemphases or equal emphases, such as "I have *done* the *deed*"? Emphasis, in a produced play, may be indicated by the director; more often, however, you will have to make these selections yourself.

(1/2)

>>25320842

>Guiding your choice of emphasis should be the question, What do I want the other characters to hear and understand? Like diction, emphasis is a communication device; it should stimulate the right kinds of responses from the other person. What does Macbeth want his wife to understand from his utterance? If he worried that she is taking too much control, he may emphasize *I*. If he thinks she may want to turn back, he may emphasize *done*. If he thinks she may become hysterical, he may emphasize *deed.* Emphasis, then, is closely related to GOTE [Goal, Obstacle/Other, Tactics, Expectation] components, to the goal of your character, and to the tactics [inductions or threats] you choose to implement that goal.

>>25317853
But are ugly truths really ugly ?

>>25320871
This is retarded, if nothing is ugly then nothing’s really beautiful neither

>>25320902
Our existence, in many ways, when not in pursuit of its perfection, is ugly - here is an ugly truth.

>>25320871
I'm not sure I understand your point

>>25320842
what about Searle's speech acts

Gonna read Plato's Republic after I finish up the five dialogues. what am i in for? more of the same? (I dont think i can handle more of the same)

>>25322432
whaddabout em

>>25324887
(cont.)
bothered to look it up. It seems they essentially describe the same innate function of speech, and Cohen most likely heard/read of him, but Acting One gives a multitude of exercises to practice speech (and acting in general) that may help someone understand it on an experiencial level, rather than merely philosophical and theoretical. It wouldn't hurt to read both, but it's likely easier to digest and apply Cohen.

>>25317853
You are annoying because you don't understand historical context.

>>25324915
>historical context
I.e. blabbering on and on and on and on and on spouting verbal diarrhea for hours when a normal person can say the exact same thing, hitting all the same exact points with concise language in ten minutes.

File: Plato's_Academy_mosaic_from_Pompeii.jpg (766.9 KB)

>>25317853
Phaedo (including Apology and Crito) and Republic and Alcibiades 1 are the only major dialogues were Socrates talk as the infallible saint we believe he was.
All others either end aporetically or Soc is shown as the learner; or they're stalemates (Protagoras and Gorgias and Cratylus sort of). In Phaedrus he goes astray but then redeems himself, according to tradition this was the first dialogue Plato wrote.
There's no reason to start with all the minor dialogues, most are sidenotes addressing adjacent problems.
Euthydemus is a comedy, actually hilarious.
Ion is essential, Meno is misunderstood so it's bad to start with.
Protagoras is definitely the best written after maybe Symposium.
Gorgias (hot take: Callicles actually win more points than Soc) and Phaedrus and Republic complete each other.
Alcibiades 1 is correctly placed as the first dialogue to read, it highlights the overarching aim of Philosophy itself, know yourself—this is continued in Theaetetus but don't fucking read Theaetetus early on, it is arguably the top 3 most difficult dialogues and should be immediately followed by Sophist and Statesman...
>Alcibiades I
>Protagoras
>Ion
>'Last days of Socrates' set of dialogues.
>Phaedrus (reading it after Phaedo gives it a certain surreal vibe, since it seems paradisical and deals with the afterlife and why homos should stop corrupting true friendship with degeneracy).

Laws is underrated if you skim over most of the actual laws on your first read; book X has the origin of the First Mover Proof of God (it's also mentioned in Phaedrus).
Letters are all authentic and were written long before any of the dialogues—and no there's no development between the dialogues.
Parmenides will humble you;
—The last third of Timaeus is pure jank (but last 2 pages is gold), while first half of Timaeus is pure oracular dictation of the word of God.
Clitophon is canonical and hilarious!
Read Proclus' Commentaries (pbuh), but keep in mind that Plotinus and Iamblichus were literal Gods in comparison.
Good luck.

>>25324933
>There's no reason to start with all the minor dialogues, most are sidenotes addressing adjacent problems.
Why? Aren't those dialogues the very examples of what Socrates claims he does in the Apology and the Phaedo?

>>25324933
is this just copy pasta? I don't see how this is a response to my statement

going to LA for the week. any good/cheap book stores stocked with philosophy stuff?

File: 804375af2190d0d3fded9f60238e31c5.jpg (57.0 KB)

>>25318376
Hegelian Trvke

Who else Wes Cecilmaxxing?

File: IMG_0732.jpg (156.6 KB)

was this the guy who was making all those esoteric kantianism threads a few weeks ago

>>25326419
Undoubtedly. With any luck, he fucks off to xitter for eternity and leaves us in peace.

>>25326416
Im about to now. Whats his deal

>>25325447
The post starts with pointing out that Socrates is sometimes wrong.

File: capy.jpg (78.9 KB)

I want to start reading philosophy chronologically. I've read some Bataille and I've gone through Wittgenstein's stuff with secondary lit (lol).

Should I start with a history of it? Kenny's or Jones's?

>>25326770
Why would u start with that shit lol. Bertrand russells history isnt bad

>>25326698
I think i was confused by the first sentence. There must be a typo or something

I think that DNA is consistent seems to hint that there is universal moral law and its found only through ones activity through language in their immediate community. This practical angle I am drawing from its nature as hermeneutic or emergent rather than intelligized. And which can and may have already been repeatedly lost, or is obscured for political reasons by those who accept the practical idea that dominance and the success of ones own principles and ideas being accepted by a population in the short term is achieved when the population thinks in polarities (us vs them) which is probable at least in premodern life (the full ethics reserved for the chosen), and that it didn't even need to be intentional to turn out this way (it is easier to kill someone named nazi instead of human or neighbor)

What seems urgent is language only has meaning when it is defined through one’s activities. A philosophy when it builds a concept is only initially sensible if the writer is emotionally capable of engaging with others in a kind of fellow researching group, which can popularize the concept insofar as it is strucurally plausible, lest phrases like Dasein or Lebenswelt remain the inner narratives of a schizo. For those who cannot make friends with people should not do philosophy but instead remain confined to agreeing with one at least until they can do the former.

I think evolution of a language which is contemporaneous with the present or with an eye to the future or with respect to the present historical situation can only be done by groups, any kind of group, though the ones focused on it are usually those who have won over the funding of the departments, who can publish and have already won the respect of readership or journals and then trickle down from there to NYT or the podcasts. But also groups who do art in any capacity (rap artists, podcasts) have the ability to change language and are likely doing it better now than ever since their voice filled the gap left by the university now dominated by sport franchises. Irony seems to be in the core of the willingness to accept a new concept or definition of a word or phrase since it is a kind of humor which proves to someone something understood by both which is unspoken but an opinion or impression they can agree with for the most part, but which has never been felt and seems to have been evoked from some deep seated contemplation.

It’s a stark requirement to be able to make change like this because very often someone who will not (on account of upbringing or genetics) emotionally connect to others may disappear into the world of abstraction without the totality of experience gadamer requires for good works (science in his case, but any application to understanding reason) since the dimension for community is missing any potential inventiveness to language one’s activity in the world may inspire. It’s like wondering if someone would develop English if they were the only person capable of speaking

What should one read after Humes Equiry concerning human understanding? What are the best rebuttals to its argument, especially causality?

File: 1779645997149734.jpg (14.5 KB)

>>25328460
Enquiry* ffs

>>25328460
>especially causality?
We make it up to make sense of the world. - Nietzsche (paraphrasing).

>>25328460
>the best rebuttals
a flavor of weak falibilism