Philosophy is not only useless, it’s harmful

And that assbaby grew up to post on Yea Forums! Well done, assbaby! Everyone clap for the assbaby!

What if your impulses toward beauty and love lead you away from revelation? What if they lead you to destruction and revolt?

That's actually quite interesting. I'd like to read about the philosophy of philosophy, why a particular person would need to study it and how can the points that you've raised be satisfactorily addressed. Personally for me, when I read great philosophers (the Greeks, Nietzche, Stirner, Schopenhauer), very quickly I come across passages which are objectively wrong, or make assumptions without giving any attempt to justify them (which need to be justified, because they're very non-obvious). It's come to the point where I'm starting to believe all classical philosophy is useless and stopped taking stock in it. In mathematics, when someone claims to solve the riemann hypothesis and the first point of their proof is objectively wrong or unjustified, people usually don't bother to read further and recognize the person as a crank, which he is. I'm starting to believe that a similar approach should be taken with regard to philosophy.

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 13K)

Philosophy is not as rigorous as science so it allows for faulty logic to stay and that has consequences for the philosophies that follow.
Without a Hegel for example there is no Karl Marx.
Yet Karl Marx has been proven wrong.
So by extention Hegel was wrong.

>Without a Hegel for example there is no Karl Marx.
>Yet Karl Marx has been proven wrong.
>So by extention Hegel was wrong.
Huh? It's only true if Marx's philosophy is a direct logical consequence of Hegel's philosophy, which you seem to admit it's not.

They usually do, but I think that's part of it. We fell before we were redeemed. You remember in the end what it was about if you don't become swallowed up with anger and bitterness, but remember what love and beauty actually are. Apart from the innocence of children that's kind of how I see it.

same poster
>One is disabled by philosophy.
This point is objectively wrong. You need only take Marx as an example, whose philosophy Gramsci literally called the philosophy of action. It enabled people to enact gigantic changes in the society, by recognizing the structures that be. I'm sure there are many many more examples where philosophy has pushed people to act a certain way, regardless if it was to their benefit or not.

Is anything real?
If I turn around will you still exist?

Please demonstrate the 'faulty logic' of philosophical investigation and how a proper logic would look like (protip: you'll fail, philosophy has been through this)

>logocentric
Stopped reading

If something is in line with nature or not is irrelevant, only what's adaptive or what isn't is. Aristotelianism should just fuck off and die already.

Kierkegaard.

Read Hume and then go to Kant if you need some extra supplement. Frankly if you're not interested in history and you're just looking to vaccinate yourself against clever word games that's all you need.

Attached: 1491907730431 super harris vs mech hume.jpg (920x2492, 424K)

*Plus some Wittgenstein for a finishing meal.

Why?

>complains about philosophy
Are you disabled by philosophy or by reality? Philosophy just realizes this and asks the questions you would ask anyway
Really, that we have philosophy as a form of science is just conditio humana. Stop being intelligent and curious. this will solve problem you but not for all of us which philosphy tries to answer

I agree OP
I just spend my last 3 years binge drinking trying to forget
Ignorance is bliss, that's the only thing i want to keep

Well if i were a philosopher id try to quantify things as much as possible so as to put in the realm of math.
For example if i wanted to do a new branch of economics id try to quantify motivation.
Id begin with the smallet unit, the human before branching out to the biggest unit, society. Not the other way around.
But then again is it possible to quantify something subjective such as motivation given that every individual has different motivations?
But i only know philosophy from youtube videos so im pretty ignorant.

>But i only know philosophy from youtube videos so im pretty ignorant.
yeah I can tell faggot
start with the Illiad and go from there.

Illiad is the beginning and the end

Pragmatism is the end-game of philosophy. There is no where else to turn.

>retard
>zipperhead
Checks out.

Yes OP, welcome to the world of philosophy, a game with no winners, enjoy your stay.

But to answer your question, philosophy is in certain ways necessary. Even if you historicize philosophy you would still need to use to arrive at question to account for phenomena and categories of thinking not found in other disciplines. At best philosophy is critical tool in which you can use to probe into how categories of thinking works, such as philosophy of science or philosophy of mind. Second, trying to take down philosophy by using philosophy is called meta-philosophy so you are still using critical reason. Third philosophy still applies when one asks moral and theological questions, even the "faith not reason argument" was coined by philosophers , namely Augustine. Finally if you don't want to accept philosophical arguments at all, but still epistemically accept philosophical propositions existing, you arrive at quietism, which is basically not giving a fuck.

Look into Godel and the philosophy of mathematics, especially the mathematical realism debate, it will blow your mind.

Is pragmatism the answer? i.e. philosophy can be useful even if it isn’t “true” in an ultimate sense

>t. never read enough of the Greeks
you don't understand that when philosophy discusses God (incl. what is "right" relationship between us and them) it becomes a suprarational mystical exercise. you need to read more and shitpost less.

t. mystic

There isn't just one answer, just ways to ask and questions and its useful as far as you can apply it to your life and ways of thinking.

Murder is natural and so is rape, guess rape and murder are good then.

That sounds like pragmatism. What you’re saying is very characteristic of a pragmatist point of view

Can someone help me explain why the labor theory of value is true?
Lets say someone does a painting.
Someone could do an hyper realistic painting and it could be worth less than an abstract painting.
The hyper realistic painting obviously took more effort, yet its worth less.
According to the labor theory of value this shouldnt be possible.
And if thats not what implies what the heck does it imply?

>A bunch of pseuds that don't read speculate about the nature of a field they haven't studied.

>Booo-oooh, life brings up very complex scenarios that cannot be solved with my moronic ;_;
Pussy

Yeah pretty much

I've spent the last 2 years slogging through philosophy. After a certain point I stopped gaining anything good from it and it just turned into vain intellectual masturbation. Each philosopher tries to be more big-headed than the last, asking questions that don't even need to be asked.

Starting around the 1800's they stop even trying to investigate the object world or the divine and just start trying to construct their own religion through metaphysics which reads like intellectual mental illness. Each philosopher makes assertions rooted in nothing and then the next philosopher comes and knocks them down and asserts their rootless assertions for infinity. It's fucking dumb.

People shit on me for saying this but writers like Evola/Guenon, the greeks, and the bible are all you need. They ask the questions that should be asked and actually answer them.

Attached: Dahyun3.jpg (1000x1500, 250K)