Anyone else completely disinterested in philosophy...

The final stage of philosophy is realizing that philosophy is a massive waste of time.

Philosophy is gay, study math or science.

I recommend not bothering with study if it doesn't interest you. Just keep making your own philosophical inquiries. Keep arguing with yourself, coming up with points, etc. Don't be afraid to write it down and then a year later throw away your writings and refute everything you thought you knew then. Eventually though, I think you may run into certain questions or systems where you wish to know what the established thought is. That's where formal studies come in. This board will tell you to start with the greeks, which isn't a bad idea. Starting at the genesis of analytic philosophy and working your way through history is a good course because as history has gone on, each new era of philosophy builds on and refutes the previous. However, there is also nothing wrong with taking a course or reading something that will provide an overview for you. No need to sit and digest difficult philosophical texts for years just to get an idea of the world of formal philosophical thought. You can obtain a summary of some kind in the form of say, a text book, and then decide where you want to dive deeper. If you really want to dive even deeper (and this is one of the hardest parts for Yea Forums autists), find someone in real life that you can have reasonable philosophical debates with. Find many of these people, representing a broad array of ideas and philosophies. Argue points not to win, but to explore your ideas and their flaws.

It's daunting, which is why I say to not worry about it if you have no interest. Just keep up your personal inquiries and write stuff down. Enjoy your stories and think about what they reveal to you and how they make you feel. Write that down too. You'll be fine, user.

Attached: fog-foggy-forest-4827.jpg (2200x1467, 659K)

wittty pls go

Thank you user, that's a really great response. I'll try the Greeks but who knows. I guess I'd like to know why people are so interested in philosophy, the real formal stuff. People reading Wittgenstein and stuff along those lines. At a certain point it almost seems to become its own language and there's such a breadth of prerequisite knowledge that I wonder if all those years of study would be worth it to understand an interesting idea. Maybe that is a reductive way to put it, but since I'm so disconnected from it, I can't think of a better way.

Formal philosophy is absolutely worthless. You're correct that no amount of thousand-page books actually solve any of the big questions. They just create really elaborate systems that people disagree on the meaning of and get no answers from. Part of the reason people claim to enjoy these historical philosophers is because they can't admit to themselves they wasted their time and they want to feel like they have something to show for it.

Wittgenstein didn't say anything that will improve anyone's life or answer any big questions.

"But saying formal philosophy is worthless is philosophy too!" Yeah, but you don't have to spend years trying to understand it. It's right in front of your face.

Very well said and exactly my thoughts, but I also feel like a brainlet if I just say people who read those philosophers do it to seem smart.

Everyone will have their own reason for their interest.

My personal interest stems from my inquiry about our world, our society, and the way we think. I wish to understand the great human truths of myself, if there are any such truths. Eventually I realize my own limitations and wish to learn from others as well, as their ideas may mesh with mine and expand my awareness. However in choosing whose ideas to study it is simply a matter of filtering for me. The most logical system for me to choose is to talk to those around me, and read those philosophers whose work is most readily available. Those who are most readily available are usually famous philosophers whose work is considered philosophically sound.

Still though, without the necessary interest of finding things out for myself, I would have no reason to even consider reading these philosophers. I don't take their ideas and use them as my own, I take their ideas and consider how they interact with my own ideas. Ultimately philosophy is intensely personal. This user says it well. People that study philosophy for the sake of it are engaging in a pointless task. If formal studies were necessary to come to an understanding of the truth of the world, one would not find so many uneducated individuals completely at ease with themselves and with an array of complex philosophical thought that is unmired by formal study.

I envy you, I sort of habitually keep engaging with it even though I'm Münchhausentrilemmapilled.

I read philosophy because I thought I will find truth and hapiness, because of that I genuinely enjoyed it, the hope made it enjoyable.

I still think that people should read some of the Socratic dialogues. The dialectic method is really pretty simple, but effective for day to day issues. I know many people who simply cannot argue in a logical manner, it could help them.

You have to be a narcissist to pick a philosophical system out of all that exists and elect it as the true one, just because you have a hunch that it reflects the truth.
No one has ever been able to figure anything out, systems collide, eventually get synthesized and everything seems to be going fine until someone comes and rejects the synthesis and go on a completely different path... Years later comes another guy and resurrects the first system while ignoring everything that opposed it and the cog keeps on moving.

that’s almost like a definition of scepticism

you’re all oversimplifying here

what do you mean by the “actual truth”?

Philosophy isn't just metaphysics. Ethics has plenty of real world value. It would be very foolish to claim logic has never seen progress. And understanding at least some epistemology and ontology are helpful to those areas, even if generally they are going in circles.
The most important philosophical question was and is still "what is a good life?" and everyone must wrestle with it.

Attached: 1536487810676.png (1333x821, 84K)

Damn, who is this semen demon?

Suicide is the most important philosophical dilemma.

This is what my ball sack looks like when I shave it

Over simplifying as opposed to what? Dumping entire philosophical texts on this Taiwanese shoe making forum? If that's what you believe, any brief conversation about philosophical topics can only be oversimplified.

Rather, that is an answer to the question. But years ago I decided suicide was a poor answer, might as well let it ride.
More functionally it seems, you maybe Judy need to start working out.

Attached: 1541526438346.png (1080x1044, 268K)

Epistemological skepticism is like institutional critique art. People will still accept or reject your meaningless words to make themselves look smart, you're just perpetuating the institution you're up "against". I'm not against thinking about otherworldly matters, social conundrums or the meaning of meaning. I'm against the institution of philosophy, so my only option is to not engage with it.

Attached: banksy-love-is-in-the-bin.jpg (760x507, 75K)

Great advice. Philiophy texts are a slog for me (either absurd, self-evident, or insanely over-complicated), so I did myself a favour and gave them up. There is lots to read in the world without torturing yourself with long-winded Germans.

you ignore that there’re many branches of philosophy and many doctrines as well
sure logic, aesthetics and metaphysics won’t tell you how to have a good life (if that’s what is meant by the “actual truth”), but there’re other less abstract branches of philosophy
first you should specify what you mean by the “actual truth”
whatever it is, questions like if one can know this actual truth and how it is acquired are philosophical problems

i was referring to camus, user
www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil360/16. Myth of Sisyphus.pdf (absurdity and suicide)

institution of philosophy? so just philosophy as an organised branch of humanities
and why are you against it?
just because there’s no objective truth is philosophy like in science?

Oh, I've actually read that. But it was a while ago. He had a similar conclusion if I recall.

I'm not even the skepticism guy. I agree I would need to define what human truth is for a more meaningful conversation. It's unfortunate that even that is up to intense personal interpretation and could be the topic of a lengthy essay.

>philosophy
Unless you are a mathematician gtfo

I'm afraid that's how I will look. I hope I will pull of the "cool grandpa" look though.

Attached: ng.png (850x400, 149K)

Sophia, or the Holy Spirit, gave you life.

Attached: sophia.jpg (846x957, 272K)

I can not define real truth, but something like a mathematical formula. Or even something as simple as walmart has the cheapest apples are trurhs for me.

When it comes to good life different philosophers have different opinions, therefore some of them are at least partially qrong. And many schools of thought are simply their opinion. Is ir better to be a stoic or a hedonist? Should the republic really be run by a philosopher king? No fully objective reason to believe one philosopher over the other is given.
Then there are things like Plato's forms that are so abstract and simply dont make sense to me, even if I kind of understand what they mean but the conclusions make no sense. Why for example is there an immortal soul just because we can imagine a perfect circle? Simply doesnt follow from that premise.

Fun fact: uninterested means "not interested," disinterested means "unbiased"

so you don’t even know what you mean
(it’s a bit similar to wittgenstein’s “the unspeakable”; again, philosophy)
actually, some people have attempted to define truth, so it’s not indefinable, but there’s no agreed definition of truth in general

there’s no objective truth in philosophy, particularly ethics like in science, if that’s what you mean
philosphy is not dogmatic in the sense theology is, it refers to reason instead of authority, that’s why there’s a great variety of doctrines
why would you reject all philosophy just because you don’t agree with one philosopher?

>interest in mental well-being
>hanging out on Yea Forums and eight***n all day and avoiding society
pick one

It's not that I disagree with one philosopher, it's that I have not seen any philosopher that fully convinced me, neither is there a philosopher that convinced all other philosophers.

Objective truth would be so strong that noone would be able to argue against.
It should not rely on authority, it should just be a logical argument that is so true and so strong that it can easily convince everyone and it's obviously true.

I don't see the great variety of doctrines as a positive thing, it simply means to me that all texts are subjective, they are just their author's opinions.
There are texts that are worse than others, Like Schopenhauer's book about women which is not more than a glorified blog post but even the best books are imperfect.

I can't define truth, but I think there can only be one true philosophy about a certain topic.

Or take something like Kant's categorical imperative and his advice not to lie to a potential murderer. That stuff is so far removed from reality that I can't take it seriously.

it's not because we want to feel smart it's because we desperately want some kind of ground to understand reality. i more or less agree it's hopeless

>I can't define truth, but I think there can only be one true philosophy about a certain topic.
then you’re wrong (if you mean sth else than logic)
as i said, there’s no objective truth in philosophy like there’s in science
how could it be different?
and why is it bad?

Pretty much. It's ironic really, pursuing philosophy in order to understand life, knowing that if you were capable of it you would be living instead of philosophizing. Consider the happy elite, a face and voice worthy of love, a mind worthy of praise, a body worthy of lust, and enough money to never worry about lacking. Meanwhile, philosophy is explicitly for those who lack, only its pursuers quickly come to understand they're not gaining anything, but rather realizing just how much they truly lack. It's tragic really, but funny in a way.

you really dont get it, it's not about not having stuff in life, it's a different impulse. read ecclesiastes

there’s a philosophical school - analytical philosophy - which asserts that philosophy (/anyone) cannot answer these questions, which is why philosophy should be the analysis of the language
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
there’re many different doctrines which tackle this problem in different ways

I'm familar with it. Still, it describes God's domain, not human's. You can probably get a somewhat peaceful feeling after reading it, but as with all things it would be transient, and you will soon come back to your all too human being.

ecclesiastes is about a king who still struggles with these things. so is the epic of gilgamesh. camus didnt exactly lack pf worldly pleasure, neither did Hume or many other philosophers

broaden your horizons a bit

I am the truth.

philosophy is for people who strive for something higher and are not satisfied with mundane everyday life
some just have a different concept of happiness than you

But the fact of the matter is that literature and art in general hone in on the suffering, otherwise they would not have a point. Still in reality the absolute majority of people who do not lack are by their own admission happy, and the less they lack the more probable it is that they are happy. The depressed glorious genius is a compelling trope, but reality tells us most depressed people have lower IQ. Sure, it's not beautiful to "lower" life to these tangible parameters, but it's only when you stop generaliizng beautiful concepts that you see the ugly truth in the details.

>but reality tells us most depressed people have lower IQ.
your source?
as far as i know, intelligent people are more likely to suffer mental disorders

Yet they are still to achieve anything. What a waste of time.

they achieve intellectual satisfaction, for some people it matters, maybe not for you

Philosophy is to intellectual satisfaction what masturbation is to sexual satisfaction

i completely disagree with you
then what can provide intellectual satisfaction if not philosophy (the pursuit of wisdom)? are you a stem retard?

Yea Forums != Yea Forums v /pol/ v /r9k/

Always within easy reach? Honestly a bit better to do on your own?

Wisdom is earned, not read.

just stick to the point and answer my question
(i think that reading/educating oneself in general can help to earn wisdom)

Philosophy relates to the pursuit of wisdom in the same way as a cult. It is a social institution, just that. Its teleological core is ironically secondary to the social relations that make up its foundation. There are people with great insight inside philosophy, just as there are outside it. The difference is that the philosopher bows down to an arbitrary canon and its definitions and terminology.

>i think that reading/educating oneself in general can help to earn wisdom

Lol, no way. Think of it rationally. Of which is the better way to learn about sex: to be used by an old man who promises just one more quickie and you'll get it, or to boldly take up a shy christian virgin and learn your way into the correct form of sodomizing his twink butt? I'll let you do the rest of the thinking for the answer, as wisdom rests on intelligence of course.

so what can provide intellectual satisfaction instead of philosophy?

a very bad analogy for acquiring wisdom
wisdom requires reflection, which reading/education help get

Ha, now that's a good one. Wisdom requires reflection as much as birth requires masturbation.

again a bad anology
wisdom - the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise.
experience won’t help you get wisdom if you don’t reflect upon it

Philosophy can't provide satifaction unless you are vain and delusional. It's a fruitless act of mental excercise - masturbating your mind.

Science on the other hand can be proven or disproven and most importantly utilized.

>science can be proven
If it wasn't obvious before you need more philosophical training

and it’s very obvious from this that you’re a STEM retard
many people would disagree with that

He types on his computer.

i’m not saying that sciences cannot provide intellectual satisfaction, but humanities can as well

>Science on the other hand can be proven or disproven
Inside the arbitary framework of scientfic thought.

You don't decide it's the most true. You abide by the principles for a particular philosophy for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest is that it brings a greater meaning to your life. I for one find the stoic principles very fulfilling to pursue and helps me with my thinking. Naturally I have an inclination to them and abhor epicurean, hedonism that society is so rampant with. I don't think it's the only way to live or the best way for everyone. It does put the onus on myself to give meaning to my life, as I don't believe that life has an inherent meaning beyond a biological perspective.

You're not looking for universal truth, you're looking for universal meaning

I'm only into philosophy because I want to disprove that it is useless

People have certain times where philosophy becomes a pursuit due to anxiety. I felt this too, when I felt lost I resorted to philosophy and oh boy did I find some gold. I would have found more if I kept digging into for example Wittgenstein but I'm in a Kantian slumber right now. Just wait you'll get the urge eventually (you have to keep intellectually stimulating yourself though i.e. reading challenging books).

Wait I meant I want to PROVE that it is useless

Humanities definitely can. But STEM is not retarded, it's a good use of your time and a good career path.

I am not this user , I have posted in this thread a few times though. I think my dislike for humanities might be in part psychological, while humanities can be great I just like hard science and math for being for all practical purposes either right or wrong. Maybe I am just an anxious person at heart, knowing something is true or false, as insignificant that thing might be gives me a sense of peace. I was looking for this in philosophy but I didn't find it. In science it's hard to find the correct formula but once you have done it you have created knowledge that will be true forever. Philosophy gives me new ways of thinking about things, but it never answers my question with a high degree of certainty.

Read philosophy as a study of human search for truth, not the search for truth itself. The fiction/non-fiction divide is kind of pointless. Emotions aren't everything human

If you mean meaning as in living a meaningful life sure I want that.
But I would already be happy with any piece of information that is for all practical purposes true, even if I can not define it 100%.
There are big questions in philosophy like "does God exist" and while I can not truly define God I think I have an intuitive grasp on what God or a God is. Or eternal life, I don't need to define life, we are all living and we know what it means.
But even on smaller things philosophy often doesn't give any real answers.
I am happier with my CS thesis that proved a very, very minor thing regarding AI than I am reading several philosophers with conflicting views on an issue.

I wonder how you can have an AI without some philosophy involved

AI doesn't mean strong AI. I just imiproved the convergence rate of a poker bot. Although the algorithm can also be used in medicine.

>In science it's hard to find the correct formula but once you have done it you have created knowledge that will be true forever.
Ha yeah dog, that's not even correct for physics, much less the harder sciences.
*hard meaning more difficult
**more difficult because it is taking so much longer to get anywhere.

Attached: 8b0eca688ea130f91c1c2d9974eee425.jpg (231x231, 12K)

i didn’t mean that STEM is retarded at all
i called him a stem retard, because he literally said that o n l y stem can give you intellectual satisfaction
i can understand your perspective, but only philosophy can answer (or at least attempt to) some questions, which due to the fact that they’re highly speculative, are unanswerable (not answerable in the sense a scientific question is)
some people seek refuge in learning about astrophysics of stars, some in reading german metaphisics, and both ways are equally valid

if you cannot express something, then you don’t really know it
the limits of my language mean the limits of my world.

>apples
Define apple