Hello Yea Forums friends. Let's have a comfy philosophy thread. Recommend philosophy to me. Discuss philosophy...

Clueless

> He doesn't study the Greeks as a genealogy of concepts.

Ok, Lawrence, but go neck yourself like your friend Epstein did.

There's just so much good stuff out there. Thank you user

It's that tool-using animals can apprehend universals that is the issue. When will you get this?

>t. communist
Fuck off frog. Go back and consider that your French charlatans all had to write their nonsense in order to survive. They did it to make a buck, to earn a patronage, to be successful. Their philosophy is tainted by capitalism and not actually a search for truth. Their motives were much less noble. Just as one example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

>People who do not dedicate themselves to studying a certain field are denounced by people inside of that field for not knowing the inner rules or debates of that field.
It seems like you might've probably misunderstood what I was talking about there by supoosing that I was referring to people talking about issues commonly touched upon in academic philosophy, as opposed to people talking about issues discussed in their own fields.

When Hegel was writing about the Philosophy of Nature, he was both referring to something explicitly in the realm of the natural sciences, as well as doing a metaphysical dissection of them.
When Deleuze & Guattari wrote Capitalism and Schizophrenia, they were borrowing material from fields like ecomomics, psychoanalysis, literature, anthropology, etc. for the sake of arguing stuff within the realm of philosophy.
On the other hand, you'll never see physicists or mathematicians use arguments from outside of their fields for the sake arguing something inside their own areas of research.

> hazy conceptual categories means the Greek were right!

Particular-to-universal abstraction has not been an issue except for the worst cumbrains of philosophy.

Hum, yes, Bataille was a fuck. So was Foucault and probably Deleuze and a couple others. Post-structuralist France was mired by Freudian thought, French philosophers often wrote fetishistic philosophy. And no, they didn't. Bataille specifically refused to make money in any shape or form. He lived, as he said himself, as the perfect parasite, and that everything else would be compromise. But no one has that degree of conviction without being a psycho either, so the other Incorruptibles all more or less compromised in regards to their politics.

Anyways, my frog daddy is Maurice Merleau-Ponty, so bitching about the later frogs doesn't reach me so much.

>universals

Attached: image.jpg (1024x1377, 349K)

> What is 'We are a strange loop' by Douglas Hofstadter?

A scientific divulgation book, not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

It is not the case that they are denounced for not knowing well the field of philosophy. They are denounced for publicly talking shit about a field about which they know practically nothing.

Thank you! Good stuff :)
Do Heidegger and Gadamer count? Been meaning to get around to Husserl tho.
Baudrillard is okay. I tried reading Being and Event long ago and gave up. Thinking of reading Theory of the Subject.

>Maurice Merleau-Ponty
patrician taste, user.

And I argue that yes they did. Even the parasites had to satisfy someone else's taste with their work and opinions.

I've been studying the Mengzi in the original. It's based as fuck; read it if you like philosophical dialogues. The translation on ctext is acceptable.

Seconding this, add the French phenomenologist and associated as well (Bergson, Jankélévitch).

Keeping with the Frenchfaggotry, I'd add I special strain of French thought that brings together science and spirituality and/or is heavily influenced by Catholicism: Comte, Brunshchvig, Meyerson, Boutang, Desanti and personalism in general, Weil, Levinas. Throw in Bachelard, Lautman, Alain and Canguilhem fior good measure and you have yourself a rather nice collection.

We don't deal in universals, we only think we do.

>Do Heidegger and Gadamer count? Been meaning to get around to Husserl tho

I dont know about Gadamer, but I can't stress enough how bad Heidegger is. Every aspect of his existence is regrettable. And few people knows about how fucking creepy he always was unless they started by reading Husserl and the history of him taking Heiddi under his wings only to have him fuck him over and obscure the entirety of his works.

>Baudrillard is okay. I tried reading Being and Event long ago and gave up

Like I said, try The System of Objects. It is infinitely easier to read, and filled with gems of insights.

Once again you fall back on efficient causes and can't grasp the issue.

>patrician taste, user.
>And I argue that yes they did. Even the parasites had to satisfy someone else's taste with their work and opinions.

Meh, it's not really the hill I want to die on. I mean, starting with the Surrealists, no one in France in the last century has had enough conviction in their philosophy to not compromise at all with the capitalist society they find themselves in. At least no one known across the Atlantic.

>I dont know about Gadamer, but I can't stress enough how bad Heidegger is.
In the words of Rachel Bespaloff "if you take from him what he owes to Kierkegaard and Husserl, what's left?".

Holy fuck I had never heard this but it expresses so perfectly everything I have always felt about why Heiddi is such shit.

I always felt that Husserl's heart must have skipped a beat when he read the first paragraph of Sein und Zeit, erasing his entire career and that of most of his colleagues.

Emmanuel Mounier's Introduction to Existentialisms is one of the most well written book I've ever read. It feels like Mounier is making sweet chaste catholic love to your mind by exposing the different strains lesser known existentialism.

The he behaved with his old master is very sad. I haven't read either so I can't comment on their philosophies, but respect for the master and grateful for your benefactors are so fundamental virtues even Ulysses, who in the Odyssey is pretty much a pirate on top of a liar, has respect towards them.
The only possible word for this is dishonor.

I like Weil, Bachelard, and Levinas
Systems of Objects is his best. Still not incredibly my current thing. What about Hardt and Negri? And Agamben? Signature on all Things was pretty fabulous but I was thinking Homo Sacer...
Academy is less commercial than people say (tho susceptible to its own politics).

I used to read a lot of Philosophy when I was younger but at some point I really lost interest. I think the only thing that really made a difference in my thinking was Socrates, and that amounted to be sceptical in general and question everything.
Most philosophy is just loosely defined terms and a line of reasoning that doesn't follow real logic, as in propositional logic or first order logic.

Is that something more people experience? Are there books that you would recommend to someone like me?

A physician is not a physicist.

Art of Philosophy
Orpheus and the roots of platonism
Varieties of religious experiences
How to change your mind
You must change your life
Bodhisattva's brain
Waking dreaming being
Death dream and the self
The philosophy of cbt

Physicians and physicists and even mathematics could all use more philosophy

Thx user I will check them out. However from the titles alone it seems to me that some of those books might not be what I am looking for. I really prefer books that are very logical and where, after reading them, I feel that I have found an objective truth, however small it might be.
That is also the reason why currently I am much more interested in mathematics than philosophy. But I will have a look.

Klages was his true master. Of the comosgenic eros is the true sith holocron...

Have you ever tried any early analytic philosophy, like Frege, early Wittgenstein, or Carnap?

I have read some Wittgenstein, I didn't put enough effort in which is my fault, but that goes in the right direction. Honestlx I have never heard of Frege or Carnap but I will look them up.
What should I expect?

Letters from a stoic

>I used to
>when I was younger
"I used to" means it was in the past; no fucking shit you were younger in the past. That's how time works. You're not ready for philosophy.

>implying politics is not also a system of quid-pro-quo transactions

If you like maths you can try Kripke, he did both.

BRONZE AGE MINDSET

Attached: conan.jpg (1035x1300, 204K)

Dialogues are the most cozy form of writing. Cannot wait to get back to them after I finish Kunt.

Attached: 1565086578266.jpg (800x1254, 410K)

You have missed the point. I have read philosophy books and later made the decision (which is not based on hard data or hard logic) to quit it.
I, at this point, think that most philosophy is a waste of time. But maybe I will find something that will be worthwile.

g-go on

Wat metaphysical structure does that promote faggot

Presocraticism

>tfw finally scored a complete Plato :^)

Actually homeric poems was the dualism to philosophy

Also stephen hawking.

I don’t think it’s altogether possible to study Badiou and totally ignore politics, because in the end this philosophical project is ultimately to serve a vision of radical politics. At its most fundamental the question Badiou is trying to answer in the Being and Event series is ‘how can the fundamentally New come to exist?’, which has obvious resonances with the idea of radical politics.

The best introduction book about Badiou remains Peter Hallward’s Badiou: Subject to Truth. For a guide through Being and Event William Watkin’s Indifferent Being is excellent.

As for Badiou in his own words the book Philosophy and The Event is a good introduction. It’s a long transcribed interview, not difficult at all and covers a wide range of topics, you start to get a feel for his interests and general worldview.

As for his real books, Ethics and Saint Paul are two good places to start and are by far his most widely read texts in English. Though their full importance in his system can only really be appreciated in retrospect after reading Being and Event, that book is so punishing that without some sense of what the end result is gonna be it can be a lot to stomach.

After reading one or both of those you can either read more of his more peripheral work if you want or jump right into the core stuff. Other works of interest are his Manifestos for Philosophy, Metapolitics (which is kind of a revised Ethics in light of his book Logic of Worlds), Philosophy for Militants, his writings on Samuel Beckett, Handbook of Inaethetics, and The Century.

The core of his system is defined by four books; Theory of the Subject, Being and Event, Logics of Worlds, Immanence of Truths. Being and Event is the most important of these and ought to be tackled first, even if Theory of the Subject was written first. Theory of the Subject is a lot less focuses and probably even more difficult than BE, so it’s best understood retroactively. After reading BE (which is no trivial thing, it will take you a long time) read Conditions, it’s a series of papers and lecture that will supplement his arguments in BE. Theoretical Writings also has additional texts that will help make sense of specific topics.

Before moving on to Logics of Worlds, read Briefings on Existence. It catches Badiou as he starts to seriously consider criticisms of BE and begin to rethink his system in a way that prefigures LW. Mathematics of the Transcendental is also a useful reference when approaching LW for helping out with the technical/mathematical aspects.

Badiou is a true believer, he is one of the only French intellectuals to never give up on communism, even when it became deeply unfashionable.

philosophy is little more than the register of the follies of mankind.

Oh, the wisdom of Yea Forums on a Sunday early morning.

I’m not convinced Laruelle has produced anything of value. First, nobody, not even his fans and followers can give anything like a short statement of what goals he’s trying to accomplish, what questions he’s trying to answer, or anything like that. This is distinctly not the case for people who are scholars of Badiou, Zizek, Foucault and others. My local Derrida superfan has told me the reason he won’t give me basic summary is for reasons internal to the logic of deconstruction, but by doing so he is at least acknowledging the question and telling me that Derrida’s thought addresses the nature of meaning.

Second thing with Laruelle is that he seems to have intentionally crafted his philosophical project in such a way that makes it specifically marketable. He has a catchy and provocative label in ‘Non-Philosophy’, he’s established organizations dedicated to promoting his ideas, and he’s already helpfully periodized his work into five ‘phases’, saving potential scholars the trouble of trying to sort out the ‘early’ and ‘late’ work. All this points towards somebody who is *trying* to be the next big name Master Thinker in France, in the tradition of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, and Badiou. He even wrote a whole book attacking Badiou, mirroring how Badiou wrote a book length critique of Deleuze which marked the beginning of his ascendence in the English world.

If somebody could give me a good summary of why Laruelle is undertaking the project he is and what he hopes to accomplish it would go a long way towards convincing me he’s not a con.

You are the one who has missed the point. The point is that you haven't even the attention to language to know that it's useless to say that "when I was younger" is useless when you have already established that what you are referring to is in the past, and so of course you would lack the capacity to understand the careful and nuanced uses of language employed by philosophers.

What cheat secondary lit can I use to surmise Brentano and Husserl?

Heidegger

I guess I am most interested on his takes on Plato, Hegel, and Lacan. Is he worth it for metaphysics / metapsychology?

Now he's calling it nonstandard philosophy. Methinks he just took Deleuze (too) seriously on the extinction of ontology. I am less convinced that Deleuze was right about everything. But at least he is not just doing wannabe deleuzean creative writing like too many scholars.

This book is quite comfy -- mayhaps even more comfy than poetic renderings of the same work

Attached: 92D2EC0A-25E0-4C9A-868B-34805C218041.jpg (333x499, 41K)

I think so. A nice thing about Being and Event is that Badiou charts out three ‘alternative routes’ through the work based on what you are interested in, and he says it’s totally viable to just read the chapters on historical interpretation independent of the rest of the book. In that book he has chapters dedicated to Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel, Pascal, Leibniz, Rousseau, and Descartes/Lacan.

That's right. OP should go east and then really understand the root of many philosophical ideas. Personally I prefer Zhuangzi.

If you guys have the time, go through some essays from Isaiah Berlin. It's worth it.