[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



What are some philosophy books that are so correct that they leave no room for debate?
>>
>>12187612
you need to go back to tv
>>
>>12187612
The Collected Works of Plato, the Bible and my diary.
>>
You won't find an entire philosophy book that isn't subject to at least a few objections. There are, however, certain ideas presented in certain books that may seem unassailable.
>>
The Tractatus Autismo-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstien.
>>
Anything by Hume, and literally nothing else.
>>
>>12187612
anything by Buddha
>>
>>12187612
Der Einzige und sein Eigentum
>>
>>12187721
So nothing.
>>
Spinoza, anything deeply related to logic.
>>
>>12187700
A few important ideas in Hume's philosophy are back-asswards. Even he admits he wrote himself into confusion regarding personal identity, for example.
>>
Anything by Neil Degrasse Tyson
>>
>>12187750
Spinoza's metaphysics are a fucking disaster.
>>
Kant with his Physical / Noumenal world stuff as well. Related to that Donald Rumsfield quote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
>>
>>12187812
Redpill me on him.
>>
>>12187812
Admittedly I've only read Ethics partially, most of it was dealing with logic. Care to elaborate on what the problems are?
>>
>this hasnt been posted yet
*hits pipe*
>>
>>12187834
Hit that pipe too hard
>>
"I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally" - Bertrand Russell
>>
>>12187812
One problem I would point out is Spinoza’s idea of parallelism. It renders the attribute of extension (physicality) explantorily superfluous. It undermines any reason we could give for inferring the real existence of extension in the first place. Spinoza claims that everything under the attribute of extension is non-interactionary with everything under the attribute of thought (Propositions 2, 3 of Ethics I). How is it then, or why is it, that we, as thinking beings, could or should infer the extended aspect of nature at all? If the extended attribute of nature was to suddenly disappear, no human being would even notice, if our minds truly function independently of extension. Spinoza even writes “The human mind has no knowledge of the body, nor does it know it to exist, except through ideas of the affectations by which the body is affected”. Because of these reasons, there are no grounds for thinking there is an extended aspect of God or nature at all. Therefore, the manifestation of God which Spinoza earlier said to encompass the object and the idea of the object, as far as we could possibly know, really only consists in the idea of the object. Interestingly enough, this would lead us into a philosophy not unlike George Berkeley’s immaterialism.
>>
>>12187612
None, because that is impossible. All truth is fallible.
>>12187750
>Anything deeply related to logic
Yikes!
>>
>>12187721
Based and truly redpilled
>>
>>12187899
If i'm wrong please explain why. Are you saying that Logic can be disproven, or that spinoza doesn't engage in logic.
>>
>>12187910

You might be interested in reading Lewis Carroll's story called "What Tortoise Said to the Achilles".
>>
>>12187925
>What Tortoise Said to the Achilles
Very interesting, thank you. I've got that Godel Bach book with this stuff in it, should get around to reading it.

I find this stuff pretty hard though, no prior experience with it. Do you have any recommendations for other material? Or just dive in the deep end.
>>
>>12187959
Are you talking specifically about logic? Or philosophy in general?
>>
>>12187973
Logic. Anything I see an equation my brain pretzels itself. I can understand abstract ideas when they are presented in language, but whenever formulas are thrown in I get hell confused.
>>
>>12187986
If you want to start studying logic, I recommend taking a course at your community college for 60 bucks or whatever it costs these days. Other than that, you should start with Aristotle's Organon.
>>
>>12187700
Wrong.
Read Whitehead
>>
>>12187986
cheers mang will do
>>
>>12187612
His hands are far too small and hairless
>>
>>12188002
Why don't you try disproving Hume yourself, instead of appealing to a great philosopher's authority?
>>
>>12187925
Based on the wikipedia page I don't see what the big deal is. You can't justify modus ponens through modus ponens, so what? Logic is proven by reductio ad absurdum.
>>
>>12188027
Lmao what kind of argument is that?
>>
>>12187612
Greg Johnson's White Nationalist Manifesto is solid with no real critiques yet.
>>
>>12188036
Can you elaborate on that more? Specifically "logic is proven reductio ad absurdum".
>>
>>12187618
Even as a Christian I can admit this is wrong.
Between the two of them, there is more than enough room for debate to be had.
>>
>>12188042
Out of everything ever written by Whitehead, you would need to point out something specifically, be it a passage, or a concept developed in one of his writings, to argue how that has been able to disprove something thought of by Hume (like the problem of causality, the distinction between ideas and impressions, or agnosticism as the safest possible philosophical possition).
>>
>>12187700
>What is philosophy of science
>>
>>12188121
How about the whole chapter titled "Locke and Hume" in Process and Reality?
Although he talks about Hume frequently throughout the while book.

Whitehead has flaws too, but he pretty irrefutable demonstrates Hume's own inconsistencies.
>>
>>12188155
Dude why don't you say explicitly what the objection is, otherwise stop name dropping and GTFO
>>
>>12188161
Why don't you read a fucking book nigger, instead of asking people to try to condense hundreds of pages into 4chan posts?
>>
File: 20181205_180808.jpg (1.48 MB, 2560x1440)
1.48 MB
1.48 MB JPG
>>12188170
I own the book. I've read it. If you understand it, it shouldn't be hard for you to clearly state what Hume is wrong about.
>>
>>12188191
Well, I haven't finished reading it, I was actually reading this exact chapter right before I saw this thread, so maybe your understanding is better than mine. Why do you think Whitehead is wrong here?

>But Hume admits that there are novel compound ideas which are not copies of compound impressions. Thus he should also admit that there is a novel simple idea conveying the novel 'manner,' which is not a copy of an impression. He has also himself drawn attention to another exception in respect to missing shades of colour in a graduated colour scheme. This exception cannot be restricted to colour, and must be extended to sound, and smell, and to all graduations of sensations. Thus Hume's proposition, that simple ideas are all copies of simple impressions, is subject to such considerable qualifications that it cannot be taken for an ultimate philosophical principle, at least not when enunciated in Hume's unguarded fashion. Hume himself, in the passage (Part I, Sect. IV) quoted above for its relevance to his doctrine of the association of ideas, says, " ... for nothing is more free than that faculty [i.e., the imagination ]." But he limits its freedom to the production of novel complex ideas, disregarding the exceptional case of missing shades. This question of imaginative freedom is obviously treated very superficially by Hume. Imagination is never very free: it does not seem to be limited to complex ideas, as asserted by him; but such freedom as it has in fact seems to establish the principle of the possibility of diverse actual entities with diverse grades of imaginative freedom, some more, some less, than the instances in question.
>>
>>12188352
I don't think Whitehead is wrong, I just wanted you to contribute meaningfully to the thread. And now you have, since that is an excellent point Whitehead makes.
>>
>>12188378
Are you not the person who posted >>12187700 ?
If you don't think Whitehead is wrong, then how can Hume's work be "so correct that it leaves no room for debate", when it's very clearly been corrected and improved upon?
>>
>>12188400
I am not that anon.
>>
>>12188400
I am >>12187758
>>
File: 187816-004-9330460F.jpg (11 KB, 232x350)
11 KB
11 KB JPG
>>12187612
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler (1925)
>>
12 rules for life. You cannot justifiably say in any way, shape, or form that washing your penis is not a good lifestyle choice.
>>
File: xaxnuc4p9a411 (1).png (54 KB, 858x424)
54 KB
54 KB PNG
>>12188490
based
>>
>>12188482
Based
>>
>>12188490
just washed it today, shit was SO cash
>>
>>12188191
I agree with this man's post- state what hume was wrong about.
>>
Negative Dialectics - Adorno
>>
>>12187612
Can't think of any books, but this paper is airtight.
>>
>>12188914
(pages 3&4 out of 20)
>>
>>12188915
>>
I forgot which philosopher said it, but they said something along the lines of not trying to align yourself fully and completely with one school of thought, and to always be open to new information--something about subscribing to a singular rule/book/whatever traps the mind
>>
>>12188918
>>
>>12188922
>>
>>12188925
>>
>>12188927
The rest is just applying the same reasoning to the other examples at the beginning of the paper, so I'll stop posting here. I really do think this is a neat finding, hope somebody else appreciated it.
>>
File: Kaczynski.jpg (42 KB, 306x423)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>12187612
"Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How," both books by Theodore Kaczynski.

"The development of the technoindustrial system cannot be controlled, restrained, or guided, nor can its effects be moderated to any substantial degree. This, again, is not an eccentric opinion. Many writers, beginning with Karl Marx, have noted the fundamental importance of technology in determining the course of society’s development. In effect, they have recognized that it is technology that rules society, not the other way around. Ellul especially has emphasized the autonomy of technology, i.e., the fact that modern technology has taken on a life of its own and is not subject to human control. Ellul, moreover, was not the first to formulate this conclusion. Already in 1934 the Mexican thinker Samuel Ramos clearly stated the principle of technological autonomy, and this insight was adumbrated as early as the 1860s by Samuel Butler. Of course, no one questions the obvious fact that human individuals or groups can control technology in the sense that at a given point in time they can decide what to do with a particular item of technology. What the principle of technological autonomy asserts is that the overall development of technology, and its long-term consequences for society, are not subject to human control. Hence, as long as modern technology continues to exist, there is little we
can do to moderate its effects.
A corollary is that nothing short of the collapse of technological society can avert a greater disaster. Thus, if we want to defend ourselves against technology, the only action we can take that might prove effective is an effort to precipitate the collapse of technological society. Though this conclusion is an obvious consequence of the principle of technological autonomy, and though it possibly is implied by certain statements of Ellul, I know of no conventionally published writer who has explicitly recognized that our only way out is through the collapse of technological society. This seeming blindness to the obvious can only be explained as the result of timidity."

--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery (2010), Preface
>>
>>12187860
Pretty interesting take anon, it's been a while since I read, and really enjoyed, Ethics, but my hand wavey response would have something to do with the fact that extension is necessary simply as a result of the fact that Spinoza's god/substance has infinitely many attributes, extension simply must be one of them. This doesn't solve the interaction problem you're proposing, but if the mind has knowledge of the existence of the body only through ideas of affectations of the body, it still has some knowledge of the body that seems more substantial than Berkeley's philosophy. Either way, I'd much rather try to reconcile this issue than Descarte's mind-body problem desu.
>>
>>12188968

Ah yes. Infinite attributes and yet we only experience two of them (one, really). It's suspiciously ad hoc but God is infinite after all.
>>
>>12188191
nice
>>
ITT my favourite philosopher desu
>>
>>12187612
I laugh every time I think about Kant tying his arms down to keep himself from masturbating. Any man who believes that much in his philosophy is worth exploring
>>
>>12189127
He was a truly based guy.
>>
>>12187612

12 rules for life by jordan peterson
>>
>>12189127
>tying his arms down because he was too much of a walking to not masturbate
Really good philosophy this midget Protestant gnome had.
>>
>>12187618
Based and aletheia-pilled
>>
>>12188087
I’m no Christian and you are wrong.
>>
>>12189138
big penis
>>
File: 1544035800127.jpg (71 KB, 720x700)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>12188482
this
>>
You write like a faggot and overly complex yet you still manage to say nothing. The writer you quoted uses simpler words than you and conveys information better. Faggot
>>
>>12187758
Only a true genius can write himself/argue himself into confusion.
>>
Stirner.
>>
>>12187676
>The Tractatus Autismo-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstien.

kek this for sure
>>
>>12187618

Plato came as close to the truth as a pre-Christian pagan could get. SPBP
>>
>>12187860
I think that is interesting take but we know from his other postulates how he solves the problem you raise. Our mind is the idea of the body.
>>
>>12187860
Id say that you understand that they dont interact is correct but dont think of it like that- they are the same thing- the idea and the object are the same thing under different attributes
>>
>>12187612
>On Nature by Parmenides
>Discourse on the Method by Descartes
>Treatise on Human Nature by Hume
>Being and Time by Heidegger
>Myth of Sisyphus by Camus
>Philosophic Investigations by Wittgenstein
>>
>>12189934
Who are you talking to
>>
>>12190498
He knows exactly who he is, but just to be clear >>12187860


Unless it might very well be copypasto
>>
>>12190394
I still don't understand why it's logically necessary or what it's supposed to explain that extension is an attribute if indeed only the attribute of thought is within the human purview. Why does an idea need a corresponding object in order to exist in Spinoza's world? It seems to me that ideas can exist in their own right.
>>
>>12190527
I don't think it's that terrible.
>>
>>12190529
I don't know what you mean. Are you saying that humans are unique in that they have a mind that conceives the attribute of thought?

I think that's just how god is, it has infinite attributes, our mind comes to know the body and itself through the attribute of thought but it couldn't do it without the affections in attribute of extension because they are the same thing. God is a thinking thing. God is an extended thing. 2p1 2p2

Is your question why cant knowledge just know itself, since they are the same thing?
>>
>>12187796
i want his cock so badly
>>
>>12190598
I don't see the reason for extension's existence in Spinoza's system. The attribute serves no purpose as far as I can see. If God can insantiate our reality solely with the attribute of thought, then physicality is superfluous. I'm sorry, I wish I could articulate my objection better. I'm starting to consider whether I'm misunderstanding Spinoza somewhere.
>>
Critque of pure reason, nah I'm just kidding
Atlas Shrugged
>>
>>12190673
ah, no worries.

Could it be that you misunderstood that we are modes in God, and not god himself. God is just doing his thing, we came about from it, we came to know of ourselves and now Spinoza is just trying to figure out how to come to our best perfection and blessedness. But make no mistake, extension exists because it comes from God's eternal nature. Its necessary because of that, not for any other end.
>>
Schopenhauer most definitely
>>
File: 419Rmj1OdyL.jpg (26 KB, 317x500)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>
>>12190566
He's a pretentious cock
>>
>>12187612
The Enneads
>>
>>12187676
This, except by Wittgenstein himself (half the time because he's the only one who knows what he's talking about).
>>
>>12188945
>our only way out is through the collapse of technological society.
Meaning its impossible. Even if we somehow get rid of modren technology, new one will be created to fill that void of human curiosity and comfort.
>>
>>12188502
im not even /pol/ but blessed image
>>
>>12188087
>Admitting the Word of God is fallible
That makes you a bad Christian.
>>
There is only mind.
>>
>>12192752
This tbqh
>>
there's something you're after and it's called mathematics
>>
>>12192782
No. Mathematics is a subset of the mind. Mathematics is only possible with discrete units i.e. essence. Mind is the essence that enables mathematics by its fundamental properties.
>>
>>12187615
Tolkien is /lit/.
>>
>>12192839
This seems like word salad, but I'd like to believe you've just taken LSD and are now operating on an entirely uncharted plane of cognition. Reveal the secrets of the universe to me anon
>>
>>12192752
Came to post this
>>
>>12187612
Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgnestein (not the tractatus...) (but people just pretend they know Wittgenstein.. :(, just as I thought, this board is full of psueds) (if you want to have a better knowledge of him, read his article on SEP at least)..
>>
>>12190712
This! And "Writing and Difference"
>>
File: themonolith.jpg (146 KB, 1280x799)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>12187612
>>
>>12193556
Woahh that's the same room as the end of 2001: A Space Odysseyy!!! :DD
>>
>>12187700
except kant btfo hume
>>
>>12193586
How
>>
>>
>>12192752
Literally the only philosopher besides Plato which grasps the basic truth of what the Easterners comprehended. Nondualism. Perception is reality, reality perception. Your Soul is itself Reality, reality is not something which has ever or will ever exist outside of you. What we call "body" is merely mind. Consciousness is eternal and indestructible, and you will continue having rebirth and rebirth until you've finally remembered your true nature as Pure Consciousness.
>>
File: 9780691128597_0.png (90 KB, 316x480)
90 KB
90 KB PNG
>>
>>12194298
>>12193729
>>12193556
>>12190712
I hate niggas who just post a pic of a book and don't even explain what it's about or even post some text at all!
>>
>>12188502
Wait, what? Is this pic real? What vid is this from?
>>
>>12191516
I think Ted's argument (although I can't speak for him) is to return to a state wherein technology is self-sustaining and as minimal as possible.
e.g. A broom or solar panels.
>>
>>12195410
The Foundation for Exploration

The most superior understanding of free will, power, the sexual nature of man and woman, and how to construct society
in order to allow for true happiness to flourish.

Contents:
Preface- Understanding the necessity of working with subjectivity.

Introduction- The Question: Should I continue to exist? Basis of philosophical thought in creating an existence that allows
humanity to thrive.

Section 1: Welcome to Not Nothing- The duality of human nature- rejection and destruction, or acceptance and building
given the inherent structure of existence which is- "We have free will, we are not all powerful, we are not all knowing,
and we experience the universe with a biological framework and consciousness."

Section 2: Destruction and Building- Cultivating power, facing powerlessness. Path of destruction involves a lack of self-
control, courage, wonder, and/or humor, with the person succumbing to powerlessness through either wrath, depression,
madness, hedonism, or ignorance due to the lack. Path of building involves self-control, courage, wonder, and a sense of
humor.

Section 3: Power, Biology and Society- Maintaining a strong society (and individual) through a balancing of the pursuance
of our animalistic nature completely with a complete rejection, and a balancing of the desire to obtain all-power and the
desire to relinquish all power from oneself. A society comprised of men and women pursuing an animalistic/hedonistic
sexual nature will crumble. The polar nature of masculinity in men and femininity in women must be upheld.

Section 4: A World Completely Off the Mark- Application of the philosophy into the areas of Government, Politics,
Economics, Agriculture, Environment, Crime and Punishment, Mental Illness, The Media/Entertainment/TV/Internet/
Porn/Advertising, Lack of Freedom/Technology/Overpopulation/Overcomplication/Globalism, and The Exploration of
Outer Space. Focus is in creating a society in which people feel the most power, connection with one another, and
connection with the universe.
>>
File: 1510426336095.png (364 KB, 497x419)
364 KB
364 KB PNG
>>12187612
sorry; not sorry
>>
>>12195434
no. that's not his argument.

"You write that “we should seek optimum levels of technology and social
order.” Several other people who have written to me have raised similar
questions about an optimal or acceptable level of technology. My position is
that we have only two choices. It’s like flipping a light-switch. Either your light
is on or your light is off, and there’s nothing more to be said. Similarly, with
only minor reservations and qualifications, we have only two choices at the
present point in history: We can either allow the technoindustrial system
to continue on its present course, or we can destroy the technoindustrial
system. In the first case, technology will eventually swallow everything. In
the second case, technology will find its own level as determined by circumstances
over which we have no control. Consequently, it is idle to speak of
finding an “optimal” level of technology. Any conclusion we might reach
about an “optimal” level of technology would be useless, because we would
have no means of applying that conclusion in the real world. The same is
true of any “optimal” level of social order."

--Theodore Kaczynski, "Technological Slavery" (2010), pp. 306-307

You should read his two books "Technological Slavery" and "Anti-Tech Revolution" to fully understand what his position is.
>>
>>12195434
On second thought, your interpretation may be consistent with Kaczynski's view, but you have to realize two things:

1) you mention "return to a state" and this suggests a conscious path toward an optimal level of technology. If this is the case, Kaczynski disagrees that this is possible.

2) You mention "solar panels." But solar panels are dependent for their manufacture and upkeep on the survival of the techno-industrial system. Over time, as they break or wear out, there would be no spare parts, service knowledge, manufacturing ability etc.
>>
>>12195434
Solar panels are not self sustaining retard
>>
>>12192718
>thinking the modern bible is the true word of God

the bible is important but to call the king james bible God’s word is preposterous. it’s worth reading and will get you closer to God but it has been victimized by centuries of human editing
>>
File: 1520188472895.jpg (146 KB, 960x960)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
*hits pipe*
>>
>>12196506
The only artificial device that is capable of self-replication (with a helping hand from the shop employees) is the lathe.
>>
Philosophy is the cucked man's art
Inquiry and inquisitiveness are whole and good, but the tradition of philosophy is akin to a padded hallway reaching to infinity, packed full of shit slinging, whether by individuals or under the guise of organized religion. Philosophy should be studied in times of comfort and readily abandoned afterwards.
>>
>>12197620
what about the stone knife
>>
>>12187676
wittgenstein's ladder is the stupidest shit ever
he argues that metaphysics isn't possible to talk about while one of his premises is a description of a pseudo-leibnizian metaphysics
>>
>>12197728
He was a brainlet.
>>
>>12187612
Only pic related because it acknowledges philosophy in itself is flawed tool.
>>
>>12195693
So, is it a defense of free will or just a book about free will?
>>
>>12190495
based
>>
>>12193548
Bump
>>
>>12197769
Philosophy is not a tool.
>>
>>12188755
Came here to post this. To me Adorno's thought, and Negative Dialectic in particular, always feels terrifyingly totalitarian.
>>
>>12193548
PI is only interesting to idiots who actually fell for the philosophy meme in the first place . It says little that isn't obvious.
>>
>>12198518
nope. the idiot's (non-)reading of pi is exactly that. it goes beyond a 'critique' of philosophy to put forward a way of reading philosophical statements themselves. nonsense is not necessarily (or even often) useless



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.