I can't help but read most philosophy as a mess of words and arguments over definitions that have no real world meaning...

Nobody actually acts as a total skeptic though. Epistemology is the most obvious example of this but it applies to morality as well. So everyone is doing it and claiming it's all pointless is therefore a bit of a copout.

I'm not really talking about skepticism. I just see philosophy as a tangle of words in the limits of language. Language is useful, but most of philosophy seems unwieldy.

I guess it just is the love of wisdom, groups of guys who enjoy these word-games.

Do you have any beliefs about what is real or what is moral? That's philosophy

Not him, but no

Attached: C59E3789-1C4C-4201-B6F4-946055249D8F.jpg (1170x528, 73.28K)

It sounds like you're reframing philosophy to things that are more everyday/intuitive to make it seem more relevant. My brother can say something is real or good/bad and he's never read any philosophy in his life and those actions do not make him a philosopher.

Give me any moral system in the form of premises and a conclusion and I’ll show you its flaws

Philosophy would be less retarded if philosophers had to rely on pure logical arguments with premises and conclusions rather than just paragraphs of word salad. A dialogue would be an improvement, but we see with Plato how Socrates’ opponents often do not give a reasonable answer or ask the right questions back at Socrates. It’s all just a game, there is no real knowledge being acquired, other than the reminder of your lack of knowledge.

How would that be less retarded? Philosophy can't rely on "pure logic" (which does not exist), and even if it could, why would anyone bother?

>It’s all just a game, there is no real knowledge being acquired, other than the reminder of your lack of knowledge.
Should I just practice epoché?

And it reminds me of what Linji said over and over: "Nothing further to seek."

>Philosophy can't rely on "pure logic"
Why not? Are there some truths that aren’t either accepted premises or logical derivations from those premises? If you want to present your work as something truthful, and not just your personal opinion, something pretty and interesting to believe in, then you should make it clear the things you are assuming, and make it clear how you got your conclusion from those premises. Otherwise you are trying to deceive or simply trying to entertain. And if you want to make philosophy artistic and entertaining, then you should declare this purpose in the beginning of the work.

Yes, most philosophy is just posturing or moral grandstanding without any evidence to back it up

Read Wittgenstein

>Wittgenstein
I'm know that he more or less made this point and "ended philosophy" but in which book did he do this?

Yes. The pursuit of wisdom often comes from attachment to the world and the belief that your current mode of existence is insufficient. You believe you need to discover the truths of existence to be happy. Or maybe you think yourself wise enough to know such things, and feel wounded by not knowing, causing you to keep seeking. But there is nothing worth knowing. This is all just a dream.

Attached: B38AEEFE-27D1-464A-BD64-0C622EFE11D9.jpg (1101x356, 73.07K)

You can only show what you disagree with usually, there are plenty which are irrefutable.

There are no truths which can be ascertained through pure logic. You cannot name a single one without referencing sense data or some sort of external intuition to justify it.

They do, just not a good one.

Yes. Psychoanalysis has the answers

I never said pure logic. Sense data and intuitions would be premises

So then we agree that philosophy is not pure logic. I don't see what the argument was.

Thats a feature not a bug.
Survival and reproduction are the main directives of a healthy human.

How do I read philosophy as a low iq pleb? I read "Conspiracy against human race" as a starter to get me ready for the big stuff.

The pre-Socratics are fun to read, especially for beginners. Idk about after that though, I'm of the mind that Pyrrho and some of the Stoics kinda arrived to the end of philosophy's purpose. Maybe start reading eastern philosophy, esp. Buddhism and Taosim, it might be a natural transition from Pyrrhonism.

(Plato and Aristotle aren't worth it, imho, and a lot of Indian "philosophy" is metaphysical woohoo)

Attached: Thangka.jpg (639x900, 257.87K)

I'm interested in what you believe the Stoics and Pyrrho's beliefs are as to the end of philosophy's purpose.

In tractatus. Then he disavowed his sinful ways and wrote other things. So no he didn’t end it.

Attached: 91A7061F-8297-4FC6-A88A-44BEFAE42E1C.jpg (640x640, 60.08K)

Ataraxia and epoche remedy the unnecessary avenues of philosophical thought (especially good at stopping metaphysical nonsense in its tracks). The tranquility of ataraxia isn't the final achievement, but it's better than filling your head with useless junk. Living in accordance with nature is such a simple idea but it also covers all of life. I would also say that over-philosophizing can be regarded as on the the "unhealthy passions" that one must abstain from via apatheia.

It's also fit for kings and literal plebs. Anyone can be a sage, no matter their station in life.

Sounds like the relativists and sophists got to you first.

Attached: 1595781661871.jpg (500x232, 30.49K)

>I can't help but read most philosophy as a mess of words and arguments over definitions that have no real world meaning behind them.
Correct.

>Should I just stop reading?
No.

Just because it's all language games doesn't make it anything less.

Why do you write such dumb posts with confidence?

Because I can.

Bbbbbbbbased.

But what’s the point in participating in these language games?

Post some diagrms.

>the greatest seers, saints and yogis agree on very little
Says who? There was massive agreement upon a few central themes among ancient enlightened people from all parts of the world

Deleuzepilled

Like what

>That there exists a higher state of mind one should practice attaining which is most easily defined as being absolute tranquility.
>That virtue is so important that even death is preferable to committing a cardinal sin
>That action and duty are superior to inaction
>That death is nothing to fear
What more do you really need? Also, I think people need to accept that much of the "philosophy" they read was really just the precursor to science. It's been over 200 years since science split off and became its own thing, it's time to move on lol.

fun

>That there exists a higher state of mind one should practice attaining which is most easily defined as being absolute tranquility.
in other words, people can be happier. Yeah most people believe this, but how to achieve this is people disagree on. But even this can be rejected if you believe that everything happens for a reason, and that resisting the world is what leads to your own suffering.
>That virtue is so important that even death is preferable to committing a cardinal sin
Depending on what you mean virtue, there are plenty of thinkers who reject virtue, and even reject the idea that death should be preferable to something, or that something should be preferable to death.
>That action and duty are superior to inaction
Again, wrong.
>That death is nothing to fear
It’s easy to believe the opposite if you’re a Darwinist who hasn’t reproduced yet, or a believer in the afterlife but you haven’t done what’s necessary to go to heaven instead of hell. Especially in times when people thought it necessary to offer sacrifices to please the gods.

Attached: 5E794A27-708D-43F2-9046-D84347696641.jpg (992x1522, 383.05K)

>science replaced philosophy
Sam "midwit" Harris take

>and a lot of Indian "philosophy" is metaphysical woohoo)

Attached: 51qv76.jpg (959x981, 663.22K)

>Should I just stop reading?
No, just move on to Rene Guenon, the king of Yea Forums, he predicted and diagnosed the reason for all of this roughly a century ago, read the sources he mainly draws from too

>"It is also an important consideration for these philosophers to be able to put their name to a 'system', that is, to a strictly limited and circumscribed set of theories, which shall belong to them and be exclusively their creation; hence the desire to be original at all costs, even if truth should have to be sacrificed to this 'originality': a philosopher's renown is increased more by inventing a new error than by repeating a truth that has already been expressed by others. This form of individualism, the begetter of so many 'systems' that contradict one another even when they are not contradictory in themselves, is to be found also among modern scholars and artists; but it is perhaps in philosophy that the intellectual anarchy to which it inevitably gives rise is most apparent"
- Rene Guenon

Attached: guenon-3.png (247x359, 90.96K)

>in other words, people can be happier.
It's not just about happiness, it's about transcending the animal-brain
>there are plenty of thinkers
The world is full of clever people sure, but I said enlightened thinkers, ie the extremely wise. As we all know, the surest sign of wisdom is joy. Second surest is probably humility. One can summarily dismiss any and all thinkers who exhibit undue stress, despair or ego. which leaves relatively few, who I believe are mostly in agreement on the key themes.
>Again, wrong.
Keep reading, lol. The Indians talk a lot about the path of inaction, but generally they agree that it's not the true path even though it offers some degree of enlightenment.
*Half of philosophy

>the king of Yea Forums
I feel so sorry for him

Consider, for instance, the concept of a material world. But we can only concieve of ideas, and material things are not ideas. Therefore the entire notion of a material world is incoherent and meaningless, free for philosophical manipulation and sophistry.

Since non-ideal objects are incoherent, then only the existence of ideas are possible. But to say an idea exists just means that it appears, for to say an idea has existence, but can't be seen or heard or felt etc. flatly contradictions what we mean by idea (that is, an appearance). So when people posit the existence of things outside themselves, they are talking nonsense, for one can't even distinguish the differences between something existing and not existing in this manner. This is what leads to sophistry like modal realism, stuff like Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (that all mathematical structures exist as different universes), different forms of Platonism, etc.

The problem is, then, that the existence of other minds is COMPLETELY UNCONCIEVABLE. For what is another mind but the fact that there exists an idea that can't be heard, felt, etc? But concieving this is contradictory, as was shown before. Of course, this leads to people messing with the way in which this "field" of minds is structured, and explains the radically different sophistries that have spread up relating to objective idealism, open individualism, closed individualism, reincarnation, eternality, etc.

>Since non-ideal objects are incoherent, then only the existence of ideas are possible.
Ideas and perceptions of reality are not the same thing. The idea I have of justice or the imaginal image of a manticore are not the same thing as my perception of my computer sitting in front of me.

Then please describe the difference between them. For it is useless to say there is a difference without also noting what is included in one and not in the other.

Moreover, this is merely a semantic issue and has no bearing on the argument being presented. For I stipulatively define ideas to be appearances (aka things of which we are conscious).

Also, I noticed (and yes, this is my third reply to you in a row) that you are using the word "perception". Now, I wonder, by perception, are you merely referring to something of which you are conscious? Or, are you referring to an appearance which is the effect of an object existing outside of you? Given it's the second, I have a few questions:
1. causality implicates time. But we have no idea of time other than that which is involved with ordering in the memory. So on what basis can you say there is any such objective time? Or that such a thing is even concievable? Isn't this a bit like positing "objective blue", to use Lichtenberg's term?
2. Perception, in this view, is not a perception of something in our consciousness, but something external to it. But what could you mean by external? For as I've said such a notion is completely inconcievable, and is merely an empty metaphor springing from our imaginings of space.
3. What could an object outside of us have as properties? For it cannot have any attributes pertaining to our appearance, for to extract away our seeing it from these attributes destroy them, and thus their positing without this support is merely a self-contradictory abstract idea. But... those are the only concievable attributes.

Ideas are imaginary, while perceptions of reality are sensory phenomena.

pre-emptively refuted

>For I stipulatively define ideas to be appearances (aka things of which we are conscious).
Yeah, it sounds like you're doing so because you want ideas to be more-or-less the same category as sensory perceptions.

The fact of something being a sensory perception or not is not knowable form within: you don't know which of your ideas are the result of some cause outside of you or aren't. See brain in a vat, descartes evil demon, hell any philosophy from the last 200 years.

Which shows, "from the inside", the two are indistinguishable. In fact, sensory perceptions aren't even a coherent idea, as is shown in

>perception, are you merely referring to something of which you are conscious? Or, are you referring to an appearance which is the effect of an object existing outside of you?
No to either, I'm referring to sensory phenomena. You're really overcomplicating this whole thing, lol.

>causality implicates time. But we have no idea of time other than that which is involved with ordering in the memory. So on what basis can you say there is any such objective time? Or that such a thing is even concievable? Isn't this a bit like positing "objective blue", to use Lichtenberg's term?
I never brought up time, and I don't see the relevance.

>Perception, in this view, is not a perception of something in our consciousness, but something external to it. But what could you mean by external? For as I've said such a notion is completely inconcievable, and is merely an empty metaphor springing from our imaginings of space.
You're moving the meaning of perception around. You don't need to have any notion of internal-external, it seems that you are conceptualizing perceptions as such and finding failings in the conceptualization, especially by linking it to a conceptualization of time.

>3. What could an object outside of us have as properties? For it cannot have any attributes pertaining to our appearance, for to extract away our seeing it from these attributes destroy them, and thus their positing without this support is merely a self-contradictory abstract idea. But... those are the only concievable attributes.
We perceive things as we perceive them.

I sense what I sense, I don't need to question if it fits a conceptualization of sensory perception.

>In fact, sensory perceptions aren't even a coherent idea
This is just a failure of an idea, i.e. your conceptualization.

>No to either, I'm referring to sensory phenomena. You're really overcomplicating this whole thing, lol.
I'm not overcomplicating it, you're undercomplicating it, which is why you don't see why time is relevant to causality is relevant to sensation is relevant to sensory phenomena. This is pretty basic analysis of concepts.
Moreover, to say sensory phenomena don't involve having objects cause your appearances via the senses flies in the face of basically every idea of what sensory perception is. In this case, I'll ask you to explicitly define what you mean by sensory phenomena.
>You don't need to have any notion of internal-external
Yes you do, in order to understand what a perception is, because perception obviously posits objects external to us.

This is naive realism (aka a philosophical position that has been refuted from 200 years). Read Kant.