BOOKS

it's a poker training book...

Attached: aliceshake.gif (720x405, 375.26K)

dubs. why read Hippolytus ? im reading Augustine of hippo right now ? can one have too many hippo based apologists? im worried about reading Nietzsche, from the vague ideas I have about his work it seems that being valid and based doesn't mean that ur philosophy isn't toxic. (is it better for the soul to be the ubermensch or a slave of christ?

I've met about 85% of those measures or something close to 85% of those measures. Those measures are mostly arbitrary and not legitimate, though.

I'm not going to lie, I grasp what Heidegger is doing in Being and Time, I understand the essence of it, I've experienced the essence of it in my life and can intellectually harness the memory of said experience. I just can't follow most of his writing in Being and Time and hold it intellectually in my grasp for more than a fraction of a second. His mastery of language and thought through language in Being and Time eclipses tenfold the top thinkers I've read. I'm both humbled and repulsed every time I try to read Being and Time. I've read a small amount (proportionate to his corpus) of his other work and I don't have nearly the same problem. Being and Time is just on a whole other level.

I just finished notes from underground by Dostojewski, currently reading Stranger by Camus when I’m done with it will be re reading “ Weźmisz czarno kure...” by Andrzej Pilipiuk - if you guys can find any book of his from series about Jakub Wendrowycz I highly recommend them. They are easy to read, funny and main character is an Polish drunk exorcist living in 1990~ post communist Poland

I’ve had this neat book about the weapons of World War 2 for awhile now. I’ve gone through the Handguns, Axis Riffles, Flamethrowers, and Japanese Naval/Aircraft sections. It’s quite hefty, and it’s a pain to lug around the airport, but it goes in depth on the mechanics of every, with detailed diagrams to match!

I’ve also got to reacquaint myself with “68W Advanced Field Craft: Combat Medic Skills” when I was in Vegas.

>Unrelated: Mangled Kana

Attached: 43CC9B63-1517-44A8-B4A2-8A99DFF655A7.jpg (828x988, 117.56K)

ill get round to reading him one day. also comfy piccy . ummm have a n ice weekend :^) and remember to say something nice to ur mom !

112 KB JPG
#
Nietzsche's thought is incompatible with any form of value-based systems, be they Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or anything else. Nietzsche rejects anything that's got to do with asserting the superiority of some people over others due to moral qualities, religion, claims to well-grounded knowledge, or anything else. The Übermensch isn't what people "ought to be like", but rather what would go beyond all categories of moral and aesthetic judgement. His "death of God" is more like a recognition of the lack of validity of absolutes from a philosophical point of view, which means that no claim is necessarily better grounded than any other one. Unlike Marx, Nietzsche never claimed that he could predict the future or the downfall of current belief systems and power structures, but rather that, even though people have beliefs, they do not necessarily believe them because they're rational. What they do and act upon is simply because of the strength of certain people's will over those of others. Heidegger partly adopted Nietzsche's thoughts regarding the infirmity of convictions and the lack of fundamental self-evidently true ground for reasoning and beliefs, but at the same time, he never explicitly denied the existece of God or the possibility of values existing. As much as Heidegger tried to make the truth independent from all subjective judgements, he also universalized the idea that Man is fraught with anxiety about his own existence, and that there is a consistent opposition between Man and Others.
It kind of makes sense after reading Plato and Aristotle, makes a bit more sense after Kant, and becomes clear after reading Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Husserl. Heidegger was one of those thinkers who wrote in a small pocket of a much greater field, who attempted to answer great questions by using tools and working in response to analyzing frameworks that had been developed by people who'd come before him. Not getting him is normal.

I'm mostly reading Hippolytus for his survey of the Pre-Socratics. Going to dive into some of the rest of it for the giggles but may abandon it when I don't find it rewarding enough.

Nietzsche is well worth it. And of course he's toxic. But you have to be able to go there. Bitterness is the metaphysical equivalent to "the nothing." You can't be afraid to acknowledge it. Also, he does so much more than his rejection of Christianity and his turning towards the ideal of the ubermensch. There really is so much more to Nietzsche that you won't read about on the internet.

>say something nice to ur mom
I would if I could

Attached: 1651986952387.jpg (850x850, 65.98K)

I've made a pact with myself to not read any Kant in my lifetime.

It's a completely absurd and arbitrary goal but hey, if you can't keep a promise to yourself your word amounts to nothing.

Attached: 9tu4rAff1v8ljjro1_500.gif (500x466, 708.34K)

Trips!

kant got rustled because he wasn't based like Swedenborg, understandable, that's all I need to know about his works.

i have notes from underground sitting on my desk for two years now but still havent read more than 10 pages of it (got it cuz of Yea Forums meme). i enjoyed the stranger a lot.

Attached: aeuhvcfdv.jpg (800x1200, 245.01K)

nice trips. but what if u promise urself that ur words alone mean nothing?

If you haven't already realized your words mean mostly nothing you haven't been reading the philosophy we've been talking about.

I know only that I know nothing. don't big league me like this ;c

sorry to hear that :/

Exploring Western philosophy without reading Kant is like having an automatic car but ripping out the engine starter. You might be able to find a way to start up the engine using a manual crank of sorts, but you'll have problems with the gear shift box and other stuff.
Even though Kant did not invent critical thinking, he did come up with much of the important vocabulary used by thinkers who came after him and brought the importance of separating objective reality from the mind's natural way of interpreting things as a discussion topic onto the table. He also tried coming up with an ethical system that did not need for a God in order to be true, but still managed to figure out a way to make God's existence necessary for people to feel like they can be rewarded for doing the right thing.
No, it's because he was a 5 foot goblin.
The first half of Notes from the Underground has some interesting ideas, but the second half gave me the same feeling that No Longer Human and Rousseau's Confessions did, which is that the author knew that he was onto something that might be right but that many people would strongly object to, so he did everything possible to sabbotage any attempts at being taken seriously (ruining his own reputation in the process) so as to avoid offending society by portraying himself (or his self-insert) as a madman.

Attached: 1651989197004.jpg (850x1202, 79.78K)

Plato nic

Attached: Screenshot_20220508-031107_WhatsApp~2.jpg (720x712, 81.87K)

is niceness not its own reward?

No offense bby, its in my nature to try to intellectually big league people.

I've read a tiny portion of Kant and have read several comprehensive overviews. My impression was that his main contribution was essentially restating what Socrates/Plato already nailed down only doing it in modern terminology. A priori/ A posteriori are problems Plato and many of the other Greeks already covered,

me too but its a bad habit that alienates midwits my sister got pissy today at me lunch (idgaf what she thinks ) but it made my mum upset and nearly spoiled mothers dya.) I think we should probably work on it, and we should save being based for peers . (altho then, we aren't fully based) also I like to insert my self into more well read peoples conversations to humble myself, because a valuable thing to remember is theres always someone done more thunking, anyway cope finished please and thanks for reading idiots (lmao0)

Attached: 1643388203530.jpg (1196x752, 459.51K)

Being nice is not necessarily synonymous with doing the right thing.
Kant's main objective wasn't stating the a priori-a posteriori distinction (which was known to philosophers who came before him, like Hume and Leibniz, and which he started out his first Critique by assuming that his audience knew what it was), nor was it merely stating what the analytic-synthetic distinction, but rather it was finding out what a priori synethic truths are and how some (but not all) a priori synthetic statements are true, along the way exploring subjects like the creation of the universe, whether or not it is endless, what the difference between philosophy and science is, and how the methods used to prove lemmas and theorems mathematics do not necessarily hold true for philosophy.
I often get into arguments with my sister and other people in my family too, but it seems like I'll never be able to convince them that anything I believe in, that they don't already believe in, is true.

Attached: 1651991368306.jpg (850x1202, 58.31K)

it feels like they don't care what about the pursuit of truth they only care what is popular opinion. I only argue with them because I must care, but it fills me with negative emotion and them too probably. ahh well

also can u recommend any philosophers who have explored ideas like that without god, only might is right? (and ethics are a cope of the weak?)

I can’t meaningfully contribute to the conversation, but I’m enjoying listening in.

im enjoying generally degenerating the quality of the thread. am I a bastard_?or maybe I just like older anons giving me attention. hmmm

Attached: 1643842368586.png (1400x1800, 1.08M)

I mean, this thread is 87% cooler than the average Beth thread. Mine die when there’s no-where for the topic to go, whereas others go on to derail. Still, I’m enjoying the philosophical discussion… more for me to consider!

If you are a fan of fantasy I'd say yes. It is a bit staggering when you step back and look at all it inspired and how much work went into crafting the world is lore languages and history.

As said even while they may be sarcastic I did indeed also like the parts where they were just walking.

Though it can be slow paced for some tastes, the attention to detail of their journey and shameless descriptive narrative doesn't really happen anymore in more modern fantasy novels. Going as far as shamelessly providing whimsical poetry prose and song, which contrasts the times where it can become serious and thoughtful, even morbidly curious.

I'd say it certainly isn't for the impatient rushed reader, and if you've read too many pale shadows of it the tropes will seem cliche until you remember it is the very bedrock ether and medium so many other's shamelessly plundered from rather than use their own creativity at such an extreme level.

Attached: Orb-Check.jpg (680x680, 56.15K)

currently rocking brothers karamasow, before that i finished mccarthys border trilogy

Your fortune: Godly Luck

i should re-read it too at some point, the hobbit even more so
maybe the other stuff like silmarilon

Attached: 1645634817719.jpg (526x514, 52.58K)

i've been thinking about picking up Nietzsche but I keep hearing that for each philosophy-related book you should read context and etc which would have me reading the greeks for years before Yea Forums even allows me to touch kant and it seems like a lot of work in general

do you guys read stuff like that for fun or does it exhaust you mentally to think about it? t. lit-let

The Hobbit is excellent too of course, but it was before he had written the world it was published in 1937, more raw he was finding his own. He didn't publish The Lord of The Rings until two decades later of creative world building. The Silmarilon is all background story written over the entirety of his life for Middle Earth and is fascinating but sadly he never got to finish it himself. Definitely worth the read though unfinished as it was.

Attached: book134.jpg (400x412, 43.16K)

>who have explored ideas like that without god, only might is right?

Schopenhauer and Nietzsche both wrote a lot about how will is primary. I would even say Schopenhauer's "Essays and Aphorisms" is pretty accessible to novice philosophy readers if you're looking for something to start with. Free PDFs are easy to find and that's the kind of book you don't have to read from start to finish - you can jump around if something doesn't click with you and not feel like you're missing anything.

I read most of Nietzsche only having read a few chapters of Plato and a couple books of the Stoics. One hundred percent reading Nietzsche made me go back and read a lot more of the Greeks, especially the pre-Socratics. There is no proper order to read stuff. You're on your own journey - fall into it and it will make sense to you as you go along. Although I will say maybe watch a few videos or read a few summaries/analysis (wiki like stuff) on Plato and Aristotle so you're exposed to these ideas that people after them are responding to.

And it's both: I read this stuff for fun and its mentally exhausting. Its similar to why people work out or run marathons.

Yeah its hard for me to grasp having never properly read Kant. Part of me still feels like his ideas that I have read about seem redundant and I'm not sure if that's because a lot of them truly seem like ideas the Greeks have brought up before or if because Kant's systematic way of thinking has become so ubiquitous to contemporary Western thought that it automatically seems redundant. Like I said, I should just go ahead and read him.

Attached: book125.png (505x589, 804K)

Plato's Parmenides

Attached: book117.jpg (480x557, 78.32K)

My favorite read from the past two years.
Absolutely amazing book.

Oxford Dictionary of Quotations

Reading a 1770 page dictionary for the past week and honestly it's been pretty gud. There's too much variety to get bored and it's like learning a little bit of everything.

Attached: Screenshot_873.png (795x686, 78.7K)

Attached: book153.jpg (456x640, 78.12K)

the kybalion

Attached: 4aa0aa28fa98a5d3130a80f4c8853ffd.jpg (736x736, 79.44K)

book of blood by clive barker

I loved Notes from the Underground and the Stranger
>some of the only books I was forced to read in school that I actually enjoyed

You can just read Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy articles about stuff like Aristotelian logic and metaphysics, the empiricism vs rationalism debate, objective vs subjective realism, and Kant's critical system if you don't wanna get swamped by having to spend literal years studying thousands of pages of philosophy books just for the sake of understanding Stirner and Nietzsche's criticisms of their predecessors. I read Thus Spake Zarathustra and several other works by Nietzsche without having read any philosophy works except for Plato's Apology of Socrates and bits from The Republic back when I was 14, so I just interpreted it as criticisms of Christian morality and beliefs. It was only up until I had to read Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations for a philosophy of language course in college that I realized that reading philosophical works chronologically was necessary, after which I decided to read the Pre-Socratic fragments and Plato's some of most important dialogues (Apology, Euthyphro, Crito, Meno, Phaedo, The Republic, the Symposium, Parmenides, Theaetetus, Timaeus). Even though I'd say it's not necessary to read primary sources in philosophy in order to become acquainted with important ideas and terminology made use of by great thinkers, I believe that reading a lengthy book usually makes a person spend so much time contemplating an idea that they eventually come to understand why somebody else believes what they claim they believe, even if they don't really agree with them on it.
I thought The Stranger was a bit of a fedora-tipper-ish book back when I read it. The protagonist came off as a person who believed he was above other people (especially, for example, the priest at the pre-execution scene) because he didn't want to make any effort to understand why other people do and believe in what they do.

Attached: 1652030861015.jpg (850x1202, 69.73K)

why would someone care about useless thoughts of some old geezer?

I feel glad whenever threads I make get any replies at all. Many times they die without getting even a single reply.

Attached: 1652032328797.jpg (850x1202, 71.45K)

so you admit there's no reason to care about your thoughts

Because it temporarily helps stave off negative thoughts and boredom.

Attached: 1652032499784.jpg (850x1202, 53.82K)

there is, depending who you are and which objectives you have. otherwise you shouldnt really care
those are mentally costly readings though. cant you combine business with pleasure?

it's just that if the thought so of some old man don't matter, and one day you'll be an old man, if you're lucky, then by your own logic your thoughts don't matter
so shut up idiot

your argument makes no sense, aristoteles isnt very proud of you

>cant you combine business with pleasure?
Business is for work time. Logical word games (philosophy) is for free time.

Attached: 1652034032188.jpg (640x313, 29.26K)