If you only avoid reading but still consume media, the internet or socialize you won't be pure. If you don't intend to become a hermit it's better to balance those influences with older ones in the form of books.
If you do become a hermit it's still better to start out with some foundation you respect, the best foundations are found in books.
You won't get far if you're scared. When you're alone on the mountain and the demons show up will you piss your pants or does the idea of wrestling with them excite you? Do you enjoy your nightmares?
Yes, i do enjoy my nightmares.
Let me explain, i do intend to read people that came before me, but i think it would be worthwhile to build my own frame of reference from which i can test my ideas against theirs.
These ideas would be "mine" in the sense that its me that has recollected them from my surroundings, maybe without knowing i did in the first place.
if your aspiration is individual originality instead of truth, you have no business doing philosophy
I do not think that the philosophy of a random person like me is that important, i don't aspire to be an author or something, i just want to know if my current understanding of the world holds against any scrutiny.
>What do you think about this approach, IQfy?
Childish. Do you want to build ethical ideas, ontological ideas, other?
I can understand that it is childish, but it is fun too.
I barely understand what those concepts entail, but i would like to describe my understanding of both.
When Richard Feynman was young he would come up with new conclusions in math, and then check against textbooks to see where in history it was first conceived. But Feynman was Feynman and you are you.
My aspirations are not to be relevant at all, i just want to know if i am as smart as i think i am, or if i am instead a delirious dunning kruger.
What i really wanted to know if someone on here had tried this before.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I can understand where you're coming from. This is intellectual masturbation, in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others. If you're okay with spending that time in intellectual masturbation, then go for it.
Personally, I feel like my life is pointless and get depressed if I don't have at least some kind of meaning behind what I do, so I wouldn't be able to do that. But that's me and you are you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
"intellectual masturbation"? Come on now, you are being mean for the sake of being mean.
Why can't one do this sort of stuff? Some people try gardening on their own, some people try painting when there are machines than can do a better job. This is but a hobby, i do have a job and a goal in life besides this.
This made me irrationally angry. What is the name of the book?
Learn sciences first and engineering
That is mostly what i have been trying to do, i avoid a topic if it has obvious implications on society.
I have been studying mostly chemistry.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Niels Lyhne by Jens Peter Jacobsen. This excerpt takes place after his childhood, so skip it if you wanna get to this part quicker.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>"intellectual masturbation"? Come on now, you are being mean for the sake of being mean.
"in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others" >Why can't one do this sort of stuff?
Where did I say this? >Some people try gardening on their own, some people try painting when there are machines than can do a better job.
Yes, and I think it's fair to say that they mostly do it for their own pleasure, so it can be called masturbation, but also and more importantly they are free to do whatever they want. As I said, I use masturbation/intellectual masturbation as neutral here. If you have a negative view of masturbation, you should probably explore if it's coherent with your idea of wanting to do your own philosophy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>"in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others"
That is the only good way to use the intellect
2 years ago
Anonymous
>using your intellect >for your own pleasure >without caring for interactions
You understand most people consistently think of themselves, right? Everything we experience in our lives, we experience through our body. Our entire self-other structure prioritizes self-referential thinking. It's inherently selfish in nature and somewhat paradoxical once you get into cognitive science and the phonological loop. It seems the self doesn't actually exist. We all have mirror-neurons for empathy too. These can be activated, to make us feel pain, while observing another person (electric stimulation, or Mirror-Touch Synesthesia)
But yeah. I wouldn't put OP down for saying dumb shit like this. You're a self-referential loop just like him
2 years ago
Anonymous
Again, I'm not putting him down for it. In my post before: "Personally, I feel like my life is pointless and get depressed if I don't have at least some kind of meaning behind what I do, so I wouldn't be able to do that. But that's me and you are you.". If OP is happy with building his own philosophy, then all is well. I posted to make him consider stuff like that, to avoid the realization of "I've wasted X years on this" later (wasted as in this wasn't aligned with who I am).
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That is mostly what i have been trying to do, i avoid a topic if it has obvious implications on society. >I have been studying mostly chemistry.
Epic gamer move godspeed and blessèd be your soul
Usually the idea is to avoid getting stuck in established thinking including those categories.
When Richard Feynman was young he would come up with new conclusions in math, and then check against textbooks to see where in history it was first conceived. But Feynman was Feynman and you are you.
He would forget the names of all the physics ideas because he didn't think like a parrot. Using labels can both help and limit you.
Yes, i do enjoy my nightmares.
Let me explain, i do intend to read people that came before me, but i think it would be worthwhile to build my own frame of reference from which i can test my ideas against theirs.
These ideas would be "mine" in the sense that its me that has recollected them from my surroundings, maybe without knowing i did in the first place.
[...]
I do not think that the philosophy of a random person like me is that important, i don't aspire to be an author or something, i just want to know if my current understanding of the world holds against any scrutiny.
[...]
I can understand that it is childish, but it is fun too.
I barely understand what those concepts entail, but i would like to describe my understanding of both.
[...]
My aspirations are not to be relevant at all, i just want to know if i am as smart as i think i am, or if i am instead a delirious dunning kruger.
What i really wanted to know if someone on here had tried this before.
>What i really wanted to know if someone on here had tried this before.
Kind of. I read a lot and then consciously stopped for a while, just digested it and sort of tried to reconstruct anything I found interesting again myself. It may just be that my limited intelligence couldn't digest everything as fast as the people that are always reading.
When Richard Feynman was young he would come up with new conclusions in math, and then check against textbooks to see where in history it was first conceived. But Feynman was Feynman and you are you.
Pretty much everything that you could come up with has been explored by previous men greater than yourself. This makes sense when you realise philosophy was really just a 3000 year formalisation of the human discovery of thinking and self consciousness. The only thing left in the modern era is the technological singularity and cultural/political frameworks eg. It's da joos, it's da chuds, it's da climate, it's da onlyfans prostitutes, it's da white people. Philosophy is limited by the technology available at the time.
This, also science has caught up and nullified almost every concept in philosophy. Even ideas like qualia are completely obsolete now that we have solid medical phenomenology and neuroscience. You are basically just a slave and this is your fate. You are failing miserably at it.
This, also science has caught up and nullified almost every concept in philosophy. Even ideas like qualia are completely obsolete now that we have solid medical phenomenology and neuroscience. You are basically just a slave and this is your fate. You are failing miserably at it.
Wrong. I need empirical justification for your proof? Did you exist 3000 years ago or more? Do you have photographic evidence? How do we know those photographs or videos are real?
Practical tools about how you build up consistent, working worldviews which is what he's trying to do. History of astronomy is the arch-example and shows why people hecking love science so much but if you also understand logic you understand its inherent limitations.
Evolution by natural selection is the new thing that needs to be explored without preconceptions. Especially if you want to contribute to philosophy. The methods used to explain phenomena within the field like the idea of evolutionary stable strategies are also applicable when you're making things yourself. Like for programming and constructing abstract things like worldviews. The better grasp you have on these things the better you are at writing a few lines of code with large emergent consequences. Same with ideas, you want to construct simple models/descriptions that encompass as much as possible.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But programming is not a good way to learn logic, history of astronomy is history not astronomy and astronomy is not a good science and game theory and evolutionary theory are two different things. No offense just saying it's not what I meant, obviously you can propose your own ideas, and history of astronomy would be an entertaining topic and maybe useful if you wanted to get him interested in science, but I don't think it constitutes science. Again no offense all the disciplines you mentioned are good, I just don't get the overall message
2 years ago
Anonymous
>programming is not a good way to learn logic
It's the only way you can train it directly instead of waffling about abstracts like philosophers do, the abstracts are theoretical but what you can do with it is testable, using logic gates directly you can explore it without preconceptions. You can represent everything you can imagine with one logic gate as long as you have many instances of it. >history of astronomy is history not astronomy
It's how astronomy like most science is usually taught. The history puts the concepts into perspective, it explains why anyone would ever think of needing idea x and what premises make it reasonable. Astronomy is the definitive science that other fields modeled themselves on. Careful observations combined with logic slowly built up a map of reality. Like 4 different types of observations line up to estimate a similar distance to a star that was predicted by previous models. Using that as a premise you infer other distances and times. Using those inferences you model more things that can be observed etc. The claim is not that the model is the truth, it's just a map. I can use the map to predict things so it gives me power over the world. If you have a better map you're more powerful. We can also map more abstract things and it also gives us power. >game theory and evolutionary theory are two different things
ESS for example is from game theory. Game theory is abstract theory, biological evolution is observable. The abstract can limit you, the rules we can explore are what are relevant.
Also evolutionary theory is not new also: Lisp?
>evolutionary theory is not new
In philosophy it is. It's what made the walrus mad. The idea of evolutionary stable strategies can be thought of as a more refined version of platonic forms. The eye exists externally to any instance of the eye or its genes. The genes conform to an external form, partly expressed in the physical environment but not entirely.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It's the only way you can train it...
No, it's a specific field of logic, the programming is limited by engineering which is physics, not logic, and by the market. Just learn maths. >It's how astronomy like most science is usually taught. The history puts the concepts into perspective, it explains why anyone would ever think of needing idea x and what premises make it reasonable. Astronomy is the definitive science that other fields modeled themselves on. Careful observations combined with logic slowly built up a map of reality. Like 4 different types of observations line up to estimate a similar distance to a star that was predicted by previous models. Using that as a premise you infer other distances and times. Using those inferences you model more things that can be observed etc. The claim is not that the model is the truth, it's just a map. I can use the map to predict things so it gives me power over the world. If you have a better map you're more powerful. We can also map more abstract things and it also gives us power.
It's the link between astrology and science, the rest is just physics. > ESS for example is from game theory. Game theory is abstract theory, biological evolution is observable. The abstract can limit you, the rules we can explore are what are relevant.
But why mention game theory specifically and in relation to biology?? > In philosophy it is. It's what made the walrus mad
Yes but I was talking about science. Aquinas of course could use it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No, it's a specific field of logic
You don't want to know too much established abstract theory, it's precisely the thing you would be trying to get away from by isolating. You want a trained grasp on applied logic as you then see it applied in the history of astronomy. It's what you need for all the disciplines under science and engineering. >It's the link between astrology and science, the rest is just physics.
Physics emerges out of astronomy. Astronomy provides the information the physics models use. If I tell you to study physics you'll go into all kinds of abstract irrelevant stuff like quantum physics. The history of astronomy tells you things like why we would assume the world is as old as we do. >But why mention game theory specifically and in relation to biology??
I gave examples of why it's useful and gives you an edge over previous thinkers in independent pursuits. Game theory as it relates to biology has explanations for everything most people are confused about like morality. An explanation or description being provided doesn't mean you have the final answers but it's an example of a fresh approach to the problems philosophers have been dealing with, unencumbered by the baggage of their conceptualization of what's going on.
That's how someone isolated can contribute, other people can then try to synthesize something from the contribution and criticize it from more traditional perspectives.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Idk it seems to me you have a fixation on these subjects, free your mind.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're just bad at reading. If there is a hint of fixation it's on power as in the ability to navigate the world which is also happens to be what drives the evolution of life. My worldview is well tested adaptable and can synthesize with most ideas about the world, the ideas deliver results while philosophy Phds deliver me groceries.
2 years ago
Anonymous
ok...
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
meant to post this image before
2 years ago
Anonymous
The pursuit of power in this sense leads to morality and valuing virtue, things I rejected initially to not be constrained by convention. It cristophers, ferries Christ.
2 years ago
Anonymous
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also evolutionary theory is not new also: Lisp?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Evolution and astronomy have literally nothing to do with philosophy though
2 years ago
Anonymous
How can you, without studying philosophy, make such a claim of it? Preposterous.
>"intellectual masturbation"? Come on now, you are being mean for the sake of being mean.
"in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others" >Why can't one do this sort of stuff?
Where did I say this? >Some people try gardening on their own, some people try painting when there are machines than can do a better job.
Yes, and I think it's fair to say that they mostly do it for their own pleasure, so it can be called masturbation, but also and more importantly they are free to do whatever they want. As I said, I use masturbation/intellectual masturbation as neutral here. If you have a negative view of masturbation, you should probably explore if it's coherent with your idea of wanting to do your own philosophy.
The very fact that you are making preparations for having a philosophy means that the most we will ever hear of you is maybe a youtube video on how to make preparations for having a philosophy.
I will take your opinion into account anon, i might share the results with this board so someone reads the results besides me, maybe then it would have a point.
The very fact that you are making preparations for having a philosophy means that the most we will ever hear of you is maybe a youtube video on how to make preparations for having a philosophy.
Physics can't be lying but philosophy can.
More specifically, there are many opinions on philosophy, not one stream of canonized knowledge
2 years ago
Anonymous
However many opinions exist on a given subject matter, study requires taking seriously what has been thought and written on a given topic before one was born. Doctrines are worked out through the passage of time, trying to meat new difficulties that arise through discussion and the class of ideas. Obviously a single mind is not a sufficient replacement for an entire intellectual tradition.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It is a mind more focused on the time we are living now and on the current issues and problems
2 years ago
Anonymous
Without superfluous tribalism and outdated ideas
2 years ago
Anonymous
Unless the current times are somehow peculiarly philosophical living in the present gives you no advantageous angle from which to attack philosophical problems.
What do you think is the subject matter of philosophy?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It does give you an edge in writing philosophy that will speak to the minds of the people of now and the future
Awful idea. It's similar to "I wont read in my genre that I'm writing so I will do sonething original" which is a bad approach with no basis in reality. Don't do this, anon.
let me guess you're addicted to instant gratification have no objective in life can't stay focused on something for more than 1hr and have derealization because of your distance with society
if you want to write your perspective on shit without having any knowledge of it it's okay, before reading an essay / a philosophy book write everything you think about it somewhere and come back to it when you finish reading the actual work, that's actually a pretty good approach
Again, I'm not putting him down for it. In my post before: "Personally, I feel like my life is pointless and get depressed if I don't have at least some kind of meaning behind what I do, so I wouldn't be able to do that. But that's me and you are you.". If OP is happy with building his own philosophy, then all is well. I posted to make him consider stuff like that, to avoid the realization of "I've wasted X years on this" later (wasted as in this wasn't aligned with who I am).
Yeah, I agree. These types of threads are normal on this board now. Nobody here even reads
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes I have heard of that, GEB is moronic, especially that concept. I was schizoposting because it's mildly amusing
The words in this post were typed only to gently rustle the jimmies of an autistic man. All the classics were read by the writer of this post in comic book form.
This is like the glut of modern poets who can only write in free-verse, or artists from The New School, who want to break all the conventions of their craft before they even learn them. Pic related, it's an early sketch from Picasso. Feel free to show this to anyone who looks at his later works and says, "even I could do that!"
It's better than remedial, though he hadn't found his style. The point is that you should learn the fundamentals before trying to develop your own voice. That's not just gatekeeping.
Then your inference was incorrect, or you are just stupid and lashing out.
Thinking that writing a philosophy before reading will keep your ideas pure or what ever is just asinine. If you ever do start reading philosophy you will quickly realize (assuming your are not stupid) that you got all your ideas secondhand from them through everyday life since their ideas permeate our culture and get used and reused endlessly in everything from children's cartoons and sitcoms, music, theatre, film, art, advertising, everywhere; we are subliminally programmed from birth with this stuff and most never even realize. IQfy will corrupt far more than any philosopher, assuming you are not distracted by every shiny object you see.
[...]
What is this?
samegay
2 years ago
Anonymous
>
[...] # >
What is this?
(You) # >samegay
No?
2 years ago
Anonymous
If I already know it secondhand then I don't have to read it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because secondhand information is always accurate and complete? Do you think at all before posting?
2 years ago
Anonymous
The information is useless to you either way if you have no framework to judge it and the goal is to make some sort of progress. Either you have some methods to think in which case you can evaluate and integrate the secondhand information or you don't have any methods in which case the details are just list of statements you memorized for no reason than to feel like you know something when you know nothing.
The point of working more independently is to reduce errors from conditioning by previous assumptions like the ones that permeate all philosophy. If you think this idea is inherently useless with no merit you're a brainwashed moron. I understand my posts rest on many of those same assumptions but the principle still stands.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you think this idea is inherently useless with no merit you're a brainwashed moron.
I never said or implied that, just said that thinking this makes your ideas pure is idiotic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're dumber than OP by far. An illiterate pompous homosexual with nothing to say on any subject.
Hordes of morons like you flooded into this thread to just repeat "ackshually books r gud" with no thought added. You said nothing of value and never will. Now you're retreating into some bullshit about the semantics of "purity" because you know you have nothing to say on any subject.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's not semantics, his ideas won't be pure, but I agree he needs to have his own ideas before mindlessly reading a book people say is good, that's called critical thinking, critical reading
>too stupid to comprehend a single book >copes that he is "developing his own philosophy"
pathetic. stick a fork in your gums and leverage your teeth out.
Having your own "philosophy" is dumb. I read so I can learn from people who are smarter than me. Every idea I've had that I thought was a good idea either turned out to be moronic once I humbled myself and learned more about the world, or was expressed much better by someone else who was better able to work out all the implications better than I could.
Studying philosophy also showed me that there are ways of thinking about the world that I couldn't ever have imagined on my own. My ideas by comparison were very crude and simple.
It also saves time because your drawing upon the thoughts of many people much smarter than yourself. You don't have to come up with all these ideas yourself (really you'd just be reinventing a crudier version of the wheel).
Tl;dr it's better to just buy a car and drive it than to try to create your own from first principles. Whatever you come up with will not be as good as what you could buy and learn about by reading the manual.
you're advertising your laziness as an attempt at intellectual purity when you're just following the path of least resistance
i'll avoid reading any further posts so my conclusion that you are a pretentious twit is more "pure"
Early Greeks picked all the low hanging fruit, if you were in their situation you could do the same, because you're intelligent. But so what? Where does the confidence in your own ideas come from, what makes them more sophisticated than a rock that prevails in mere existence? Abandon the trust in yourself and immerse yourself in the surroundings. Philosophical works are by nature dense and succinct interpretations of reality of their respective authors perspectives who've Lived. Engaging with them is akin to living throughout eras and living more plentifully than anyone. Or will you instead jerk off in the Well with Logic that will only go as far as the outskirts of the Well itself?
moronic
rude
books about not reading books?
Sounds like a plan. The only problem is all the books that already influenced you without you reading them.
Yes, that is true, nevertheless, if i avoid reading as much as possible my philosophical conclusions will be more "pure" than otherwise.
If you only avoid reading but still consume media, the internet or socialize you won't be pure. If you don't intend to become a hermit it's better to balance those influences with older ones in the form of books.
If you do become a hermit it's still better to start out with some foundation you respect, the best foundations are found in books.
You won't get far if you're scared. When you're alone on the mountain and the demons show up will you piss your pants or does the idea of wrestling with them excite you? Do you enjoy your nightmares?
Yes, i do enjoy my nightmares.
Let me explain, i do intend to read people that came before me, but i think it would be worthwhile to build my own frame of reference from which i can test my ideas against theirs.
These ideas would be "mine" in the sense that its me that has recollected them from my surroundings, maybe without knowing i did in the first place.
I do not think that the philosophy of a random person like me is that important, i don't aspire to be an author or something, i just want to know if my current understanding of the world holds against any scrutiny.
I can understand that it is childish, but it is fun too.
I barely understand what those concepts entail, but i would like to describe my understanding of both.
My aspirations are not to be relevant at all, i just want to know if i am as smart as i think i am, or if i am instead a delirious dunning kruger.
What i really wanted to know if someone on here had tried this before.
I can understand where you're coming from. This is intellectual masturbation, in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others. If you're okay with spending that time in intellectual masturbation, then go for it.
Personally, I feel like my life is pointless and get depressed if I don't have at least some kind of meaning behind what I do, so I wouldn't be able to do that. But that's me and you are you.
"intellectual masturbation"? Come on now, you are being mean for the sake of being mean.
Why can't one do this sort of stuff? Some people try gardening on their own, some people try painting when there are machines than can do a better job. This is but a hobby, i do have a job and a goal in life besides this.
This made me irrationally angry. What is the name of the book?
That is mostly what i have been trying to do, i avoid a topic if it has obvious implications on society.
I have been studying mostly chemistry.
Niels Lyhne by Jens Peter Jacobsen. This excerpt takes place after his childhood, so skip it if you wanna get to this part quicker.
>"intellectual masturbation"? Come on now, you are being mean for the sake of being mean.
"in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others"
>Why can't one do this sort of stuff?
Where did I say this?
>Some people try gardening on their own, some people try painting when there are machines than can do a better job.
Yes, and I think it's fair to say that they mostly do it for their own pleasure, so it can be called masturbation, but also and more importantly they are free to do whatever they want. As I said, I use masturbation/intellectual masturbation as neutral here. If you have a negative view of masturbation, you should probably explore if it's coherent with your idea of wanting to do your own philosophy.
>"in the neutral sense of the term, you're using your intellect for your own pleasure with no interactions with others"
That is the only good way to use the intellect
>using your intellect
>for your own pleasure
>without caring for interactions
You understand most people consistently think of themselves, right? Everything we experience in our lives, we experience through our body. Our entire self-other structure prioritizes self-referential thinking. It's inherently selfish in nature and somewhat paradoxical once you get into cognitive science and the phonological loop. It seems the self doesn't actually exist. We all have mirror-neurons for empathy too. These can be activated, to make us feel pain, while observing another person (electric stimulation, or Mirror-Touch Synesthesia)
But yeah. I wouldn't put OP down for saying dumb shit like this. You're a self-referential loop just like him
Again, I'm not putting him down for it. In my post before: "Personally, I feel like my life is pointless and get depressed if I don't have at least some kind of meaning behind what I do, so I wouldn't be able to do that. But that's me and you are you.". If OP is happy with building his own philosophy, then all is well. I posted to make him consider stuff like that, to avoid the realization of "I've wasted X years on this" later (wasted as in this wasn't aligned with who I am).
>That is mostly what i have been trying to do, i avoid a topic if it has obvious implications on society.
>I have been studying mostly chemistry.
Epic gamer move godspeed and blessèd be your soul
They're going to be more raw. Reading will help you think about these things and move past them quicker.
You can 'do philosophy' while reading philosophy, rather than simply reading to consume
Sounds like you’ll produce a worthless philosophy that will only do you harm. good luck homosexual
you must be over 18 to use this board
if your aspiration is individual originality instead of truth, you have no business doing philosophy
noble effort but you will go through all the pitfalls they point out
>What do you think about this approach, IQfy?
Childish. Do you want to build ethical ideas, ontological ideas, other?
Usually the idea is to avoid getting stuck in established thinking including those categories.
He would forget the names of all the physics ideas because he didn't think like a parrot. Using labels can both help and limit you.
>What i really wanted to know if someone on here had tried this before.
Kind of. I read a lot and then consciously stopped for a while, just digested it and sort of tried to reconstruct anything I found interesting again myself. It may just be that my limited intelligence couldn't digest everything as fast as the people that are always reading.
When Richard Feynman was young he would come up with new conclusions in math, and then check against textbooks to see where in history it was first conceived. But Feynman was Feynman and you are you.
Pretty much everything that you could come up with has been explored by previous men greater than yourself. This makes sense when you realise philosophy was really just a 3000 year formalisation of the human discovery of thinking and self consciousness. The only thing left in the modern era is the technological singularity and cultural/political frameworks eg. It's da joos, it's da chuds, it's da climate, it's da onlyfans prostitutes, it's da white people. Philosophy is limited by the technology available at the time.
This, also science has caught up and nullified almost every concept in philosophy. Even ideas like qualia are completely obsolete now that we have solid medical phenomenology and neuroscience. You are basically just a slave and this is your fate. You are failing miserably at it.
Wrong. I need empirical justification for your proof? Did you exist 3000 years ago or more? Do you have photographic evidence? How do we know those photographs or videos are real?
I thought this when I was, like you currently are, sitting on top of the Dunning-Kruger 'Peak of Mount Stupid'. You're really just ignorant
my objection to this is you can get swept away by bad ideas as well as good ones.
Learn sciences first and engineering
Basic programming for the practical logic. History of astronomy. Then evolution with the game theory shit.
This is a joke? Explain
Practical tools about how you build up consistent, working worldviews which is what he's trying to do. History of astronomy is the arch-example and shows why people hecking love science so much but if you also understand logic you understand its inherent limitations.
Evolution by natural selection is the new thing that needs to be explored without preconceptions. Especially if you want to contribute to philosophy. The methods used to explain phenomena within the field like the idea of evolutionary stable strategies are also applicable when you're making things yourself. Like for programming and constructing abstract things like worldviews. The better grasp you have on these things the better you are at writing a few lines of code with large emergent consequences. Same with ideas, you want to construct simple models/descriptions that encompass as much as possible.
But programming is not a good way to learn logic, history of astronomy is history not astronomy and astronomy is not a good science and game theory and evolutionary theory are two different things. No offense just saying it's not what I meant, obviously you can propose your own ideas, and history of astronomy would be an entertaining topic and maybe useful if you wanted to get him interested in science, but I don't think it constitutes science. Again no offense all the disciplines you mentioned are good, I just don't get the overall message
>programming is not a good way to learn logic
It's the only way you can train it directly instead of waffling about abstracts like philosophers do, the abstracts are theoretical but what you can do with it is testable, using logic gates directly you can explore it without preconceptions. You can represent everything you can imagine with one logic gate as long as you have many instances of it.
>history of astronomy is history not astronomy
It's how astronomy like most science is usually taught. The history puts the concepts into perspective, it explains why anyone would ever think of needing idea x and what premises make it reasonable. Astronomy is the definitive science that other fields modeled themselves on. Careful observations combined with logic slowly built up a map of reality. Like 4 different types of observations line up to estimate a similar distance to a star that was predicted by previous models. Using that as a premise you infer other distances and times. Using those inferences you model more things that can be observed etc. The claim is not that the model is the truth, it's just a map. I can use the map to predict things so it gives me power over the world. If you have a better map you're more powerful. We can also map more abstract things and it also gives us power.
>game theory and evolutionary theory are two different things
ESS for example is from game theory. Game theory is abstract theory, biological evolution is observable. The abstract can limit you, the rules we can explore are what are relevant.
>evolutionary theory is not new
In philosophy it is. It's what made the walrus mad. The idea of evolutionary stable strategies can be thought of as a more refined version of platonic forms. The eye exists externally to any instance of the eye or its genes. The genes conform to an external form, partly expressed in the physical environment but not entirely.
>It's the only way you can train it...
No, it's a specific field of logic, the programming is limited by engineering which is physics, not logic, and by the market. Just learn maths.
>It's how astronomy like most science is usually taught. The history puts the concepts into perspective, it explains why anyone would ever think of needing idea x and what premises make it reasonable. Astronomy is the definitive science that other fields modeled themselves on. Careful observations combined with logic slowly built up a map of reality. Like 4 different types of observations line up to estimate a similar distance to a star that was predicted by previous models. Using that as a premise you infer other distances and times. Using those inferences you model more things that can be observed etc. The claim is not that the model is the truth, it's just a map. I can use the map to predict things so it gives me power over the world. If you have a better map you're more powerful. We can also map more abstract things and it also gives us power.
It's the link between astrology and science, the rest is just physics.
> ESS for example is from game theory. Game theory is abstract theory, biological evolution is observable. The abstract can limit you, the rules we can explore are what are relevant.
But why mention game theory specifically and in relation to biology??
> In philosophy it is. It's what made the walrus mad
Yes but I was talking about science. Aquinas of course could use it.
>No, it's a specific field of logic
You don't want to know too much established abstract theory, it's precisely the thing you would be trying to get away from by isolating. You want a trained grasp on applied logic as you then see it applied in the history of astronomy. It's what you need for all the disciplines under science and engineering.
>It's the link between astrology and science, the rest is just physics.
Physics emerges out of astronomy. Astronomy provides the information the physics models use. If I tell you to study physics you'll go into all kinds of abstract irrelevant stuff like quantum physics. The history of astronomy tells you things like why we would assume the world is as old as we do.
>But why mention game theory specifically and in relation to biology??
I gave examples of why it's useful and gives you an edge over previous thinkers in independent pursuits. Game theory as it relates to biology has explanations for everything most people are confused about like morality. An explanation or description being provided doesn't mean you have the final answers but it's an example of a fresh approach to the problems philosophers have been dealing with, unencumbered by the baggage of their conceptualization of what's going on.
That's how someone isolated can contribute, other people can then try to synthesize something from the contribution and criticize it from more traditional perspectives.
Idk it seems to me you have a fixation on these subjects, free your mind.
You're just bad at reading. If there is a hint of fixation it's on power as in the ability to navigate the world which is also happens to be what drives the evolution of life. My worldview is well tested adaptable and can synthesize with most ideas about the world, the ideas deliver results while philosophy Phds deliver me groceries.
ok...
meant to post this image before
The pursuit of power in this sense leads to morality and valuing virtue, things I rejected initially to not be constrained by convention. It cristophers, ferries Christ.
Also evolutionary theory is not new also: Lisp?
Evolution and astronomy have literally nothing to do with philosophy though
How can you, without studying philosophy, make such a claim of it? Preposterous.
They do
I will take your opinion into account anon, i might share the results with this board so someone reads the results besides me, maybe then it would have a point.
The very fact that you are making preparations for having a philosophy means that the most we will ever hear of you is maybe a youtube video on how to make preparations for having a philosophy.
Do you also avoid reading on physics before you develop your own physical theories? Any study is always study within a continuous tradition.
No. It has little to do with physics
Where is the disanalogy then. More precisely, why does physics requires study but philosopy doesn't.
Physics can't be lying but philosophy can.
More specifically, there are many opinions on philosophy, not one stream of canonized knowledge
However many opinions exist on a given subject matter, study requires taking seriously what has been thought and written on a given topic before one was born. Doctrines are worked out through the passage of time, trying to meat new difficulties that arise through discussion and the class of ideas. Obviously a single mind is not a sufficient replacement for an entire intellectual tradition.
It is a mind more focused on the time we are living now and on the current issues and problems
Without superfluous tribalism and outdated ideas
Unless the current times are somehow peculiarly philosophical living in the present gives you no advantageous angle from which to attack philosophical problems.
What do you think is the subject matter of philosophy?
It does give you an edge in writing philosophy that will speak to the minds of the people of now and the future
>I avoid reading
Welcome to IQfy
Awful idea. It's similar to "I wont read in my genre that I'm writing so I will do sonething original" which is a bad approach with no basis in reality. Don't do this, anon.
same
let me guess you're addicted to instant gratification have no objective in life can't stay focused on something for more than 1hr and have derealization because of your distance with society
if you want to write your perspective on shit without having any knowledge of it it's okay, before reading an essay / a philosophy book write everything you think about it somewhere and come back to it when you finish reading the actual work, that's actually a pretty good approach
are you projecting?
yes because the author is probably in the same situation as i was back when i was a teen
i used to have derealization and it was terrible
i used to have derealization and it was terrible (2)
+yes that wasn't an attack, if you need help to overcome derealization make a thread because i'm sure a shit ton of people on this board have it
i am op and i don't know wtf is a derealization, take your meds, or don't
How did you get such an accurate depiction
Why attack people with derealization? Sounds like a projection
I've read more books than you
I am a strange derealization of my own persona, I am a null object
>The post was read by the null object
All I read is a projection of myself, all my experiences are a loop of reference to my own nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop
Yeah, I agree. These types of threads are normal on this board now. Nobody here even reads
Yes I have heard of that, GEB is moronic, especially that concept. I was schizoposting because it's mildly amusing
In the present I am only myself however all I am can be traced back to something outside myself
My past experiences are only a projection of my present self
And all I am to become is nothing that belongs to me
Also stop typing in the passive voice, you stupid butthole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construal_level_theory
Also get more physical exercise for DP/DR
The words in this post were typed only to gently rustle the jimmies of an autistic man. All the classics were read by the writer of this post in comic book form.
stop being like this please
Conceding to autistic demands does not help autists.
We taught the post how to laugh at itself
I never read women
I think you’ll do about as well as a chef who doesn’t eat food except for Cup Noodle
This is like the glut of modern poets who can only write in free-verse, or artists from The New School, who want to break all the conventions of their craft before they even learn them. Pic related, it's an early sketch from Picasso. Feel free to show this to anyone who looks at his later works and says, "even I could do that!"
It's not that good
It's better than remedial, though he hadn't found his style. The point is that you should learn the fundamentals before trying to develop your own voice. That's not just gatekeeping.
Ok I guess... I don't agree though.
Don't agree that his work here is better than remedial, or that you should learn the fundamentals before developing your own style?
Without superfluous tribalism and outdated ideas
dilettante: a person who cultivates an area of interest, such as the arts, without real commitment or knowledge.
Thank you for that definition, it is clear you have a strong sense of identity
Just because you get distracted and follow every shiny object you see does not mean everyone does.
Never implied that
Then your inference was incorrect, or you are just stupid and lashing out.
Thinking that writing a philosophy before reading will keep your ideas pure or what ever is just asinine. If you ever do start reading philosophy you will quickly realize (assuming your are not stupid) that you got all your ideas secondhand from them through everyday life since their ideas permeate our culture and get used and reused endlessly in everything from children's cartoons and sitcoms, music, theatre, film, art, advertising, everywhere; we are subliminally programmed from birth with this stuff and most never even realize. IQfy will corrupt far more than any philosopher, assuming you are not distracted by every shiny object you see.
samegay
>
[...] #
>
(You) #
>samegay
No?
If I already know it secondhand then I don't have to read it.
Because secondhand information is always accurate and complete? Do you think at all before posting?
The information is useless to you either way if you have no framework to judge it and the goal is to make some sort of progress. Either you have some methods to think in which case you can evaluate and integrate the secondhand information or you don't have any methods in which case the details are just list of statements you memorized for no reason than to feel like you know something when you know nothing.
The point of working more independently is to reduce errors from conditioning by previous assumptions like the ones that permeate all philosophy. If you think this idea is inherently useless with no merit you're a brainwashed moron. I understand my posts rest on many of those same assumptions but the principle still stands.
>If you think this idea is inherently useless with no merit you're a brainwashed moron.
I never said or implied that, just said that thinking this makes your ideas pure is idiotic.
You're dumber than OP by far. An illiterate pompous homosexual with nothing to say on any subject.
Hordes of morons like you flooded into this thread to just repeat "ackshually books r gud" with no thought added. You said nothing of value and never will. Now you're retreating into some bullshit about the semantics of "purity" because you know you have nothing to say on any subject.
It's not semantics, his ideas won't be pure, but I agree he needs to have his own ideas before mindlessly reading a book people say is good, that's called critical thinking, critical reading
That's just stupid. even descartes that invent this ideas, has the politeness to atleast experience things in life before destroying it all together.
What is this?
How do you get it to show (you) when it's not me?
all the posts with (you) are mine, not yours, moron
FRICK I am moronic
Thanks for not trolling me
If your philosophy is so fragile that any author can influence it alone, then you have bigger problems.
>too stupid to comprehend a single book
>copes that he is "developing his own philosophy"
pathetic. stick a fork in your gums and leverage your teeth out.
Having your own "philosophy" is dumb. I read so I can learn from people who are smarter than me. Every idea I've had that I thought was a good idea either turned out to be moronic once I humbled myself and learned more about the world, or was expressed much better by someone else who was better able to work out all the implications better than I could.
Studying philosophy also showed me that there are ways of thinking about the world that I couldn't ever have imagined on my own. My ideas by comparison were very crude and simple.
It also saves time because your drawing upon the thoughts of many people much smarter than yourself. You don't have to come up with all these ideas yourself (really you'd just be reinventing a crudier version of the wheel).
Tl;dr it's better to just buy a car and drive it than to try to create your own from first principles. Whatever you come up with will not be as good as what you could buy and learn about by reading the manual.
you're advertising your laziness as an attempt at intellectual purity when you're just following the path of least resistance
i'll avoid reading any further posts so my conclusion that you are a pretentious twit is more "pure"
There's a reason philosophy spans centuries
take the help and get inspiration
Early Greeks picked all the low hanging fruit, if you were in their situation you could do the same, because you're intelligent. But so what? Where does the confidence in your own ideas come from, what makes them more sophisticated than a rock that prevails in mere existence? Abandon the trust in yourself and immerse yourself in the surroundings. Philosophical works are by nature dense and succinct interpretations of reality of their respective authors perspectives who've Lived. Engaging with them is akin to living throughout eras and living more plentifully than anyone. Or will you instead jerk off in the Well with Logic that will only go as far as the outskirts of the Well itself?
>what makes them more sophisticated than a rock that prevails in mere existence?
The greeks were dumber than a rock
incredible bait thread. imagine being ashamed of taking yourself more seriously than anything else