I've wasted five years of my life reading philosophy that, in the long run, is utterly worthless. I could've used that time enriching myself with real literature.
I've wasted five years of my life reading philosophy that, in the long run, is utterly worthless.
You look impressive to art hoes
The value of philosophy is to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophise, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
Good literature teaches you all the philosophy you'll ever need. The rest is homosexualry plain and simple.
You kinda ignored everything Russell said in that quote
I've now posted this a couple of times and find it hilarious how it gets ignored every time. It's the best answer to "what's the point of philosophy?" that I've ever seen but I guess it goes over people's heads here
He's saying nothing of value kek. Only coping. It deserves to be ignored.
Where is he wrong? Unless you can critique something specifically you are the one coping.
See
and cope, homosexual. you wasted your life studying philosophy kek.
Why didn't you answer? How are the claims in the post meaningless? Sounds like you're running away from an intellectual argument.
>Sounds like you're running away from an intellectual argument.
See why philosophy is for insufferable c**ts? you can't even respond to my retort
kek.
I did respond,
. Your non-response was "we're still bound by custom and everything else in that post is meaningless". 1) The post never claimed that philosophy frees one from all customs. 2) How are his other claims meaningless?
huh?
You sound confused
You didn't respond. Try again. Looks like someone is desperately trying to use a Russell quote as a bulwark kek.
How didn't I respond? Looks like you didn't respond to
.
Russell implies only philosophy "frees" us from "custom" and "tyranny", but one could equally argue that the literary pursuits of modernists like Joyce, Woolf and Faulkner also freed us from convention of expression. And better yet, their subversion of human expression, storytelling etc, opened up a far richer field of possible expression and spiritual fulfilment. Russell was too much of an uptight, bland, autist to appreciate this facet of art, however. Philosophy remains worthless in comparison to literature kek. Now respond to that, homosexual.
Why are you so fixated on the word "customs"? Russell explains what he is talking about: habitual beliefs of our time and prejudices derived from common sense. He is talking about ideas. And no, what literature does differs from discursive analytical thought. Unless you're imprisoned in comparative thinking ("literature is better than philosophy") it's irrelevant to the argument that literature has its own achievements.
> what literature does differs from discursive analytical thought.
No, analytical thought achieves only what compliments its own system. It bears no relation to the world and to humanity and expression. If anything is achieved it's only done to 'confirm' that the system is coherent in some way. It's an incestuous waste of time, unironically. Literature excels in this respect: it remains connected to the human aspect. Hence why Russell was too arrogant to even entertain the possibility.
You know, analytical thought calculated the trajectories which the Apollo 11 traversed to land on the moon. So I guess it does have some relation to the world. As does Plato's allegory of the cave. I doubt anyone ever claimed that philosophy can express all aspects of humanity or that it can describe the emotional side of life as well as literature. That's stated nowhere Russell's post.
You know Wittgenstein disowned his Tractatus, right? You know what prompted his 'Philosophical Investigations'? Some guy flicked the inside of his cheek and his thumb and said: "analyse that!". Wittgenstein realized that there was a dimension of human expression that couldn't be grasped by 'discursive analytical thought'. Literature, and the arts more generally, reach that place. It's richer, more fulfilling, and generally not a waste of time. Unless you're an autist, of course. That's why Russell seethed after the publication of 'Philosophical Investigations'. He'd been shown up.
>Wittgenstein realized that there was a dimension of human expression that couldn't be grasped by 'discursive analytical thought'.
No one claimed that philosophy can grasp all dimensions of existence. It obviously cannot. As Russell pointed out, you're under the tyranny of the idea "comparative thinking". You're thinking that you can compare philosophy and literature and construct a claim that "A is better than B". Philosophical thinking can free you from these kinds of mental habits. In this case by analyzing the concept of comparisons and its limitations. This is exactly the kind of thing Russell was talking about in the quote.
Philosophers are obsessed with claims of the form “A is better than B”. They always have been.
Plato quite literally said that philosophy is better than poetry.
Scholastic philosophy taught that acting in accordance with natural law and believing in God is better than not doing those things.
Modern analytic ethics is based on the assumption that we can rationally analyze which action is better to do in different situations.
Modern continental philosophy is based on the assumption that communism is better than capitalism.
True, because comparisons can be meaningul. But they are also extremly limited and can be used to obfuscate, as in this case the "philosophy vs. literature" claims. Like all comparisons, they tend too ignore the fundamental differences, that what makes them *incommensurable*. Comparative thinking tends to overlook differences in favour of similarities and then claim that "A is better than B", even though differences dictate that the comparisons are mostly meaningless.
Buddy nobody is saying a is better than b. You're being an insecure homosexual. But it is entirely legitimate to say literature is a far richer expression of human thought and general 'being' than philosophy. And it's because of the differences in mode and production that result in this imbalance. Art always contains a trace of the 'world', however far abstracted into its own medium, that philosophy can never hope to touch. It's why Hegel failed so miserably, by his own admission, at writing about Music, despite him being a big Rossini fanboy.
You're moronic if you think the claim:
>Art engages with a different plane of experience unreachable by philosophy
Is trying to be comparative. Brain rot right here. Looks like the philosophy was wasted on you kek. Time to branch out, no?
Is that you, buddy?
>Philosophy remains worthless in comparison to literature kek.
>And better yet, their subversion of human expression, storytelling etc, opened up a far richer field of possible expression and spiritual fulfilment
>Literature, and the arts more generally, reach that place. It's richer, more fulfilling
Arguing that art reaches a more authentic plane of human expression and existence is not comparative kek. You're the only treating it as comparative. The fact remains that different planes of expression produce richer results than others. And philosophy is stale compared to literature. Dilate?
You are living under the tyranny of comparative thinking and desperatly trying to deny it, lol. And better yet, you provide a nice example for what Russell described and what you claimed was meaningless. So yeah, keep comparing buddy. A is better than B, right?
You don't know what comparative thinking is holy shit. This is what reading the angloid analytics does to a mfer.
Is there nothing to be said for philosophy as an expression of some aspect of human expression and is thus, in itself, a kind of art? no one art form captures 100% of human expression, that is why there are multiple arts. One could argue that philosophy isnt a very good art form but then we are in the territory of subjective claims where it is hard for me to take seriously any statement concerning the value of ones time spent with any art form.
tldr There are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
almost. gotta add "philosophy makes you aware of known unknowns, simultaneously making you appreciate the unknown unknowns that could be staring you in the face in your every day life."
>is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts
This is all it does. It doesn't free you at all, because you're still bound by custom whether you like it or not. The whole post is meaningless apart from this one fact which is already obvious to anyone who knows approximately what philosophy is.
It's funny, what Russell describes is the mindset behind the intellectual awakening of ancient Greece, having lead to the birth of science and technological progress and to the computational device which morons now use to claim how meaningless it all really is
Yes, the awakening of yet another force which enslaves humanity in yet another layer of custom. Nothing most people aren't already aware of, and if your point was to praise science then you probably should've said so in the post instead of jerking off your supposed "freedom from custom."
So you're claiming "most people" are already aware of, say, Plato's political philosophy, Wittgenstein's views on language, Descartes' dream argument, and they don't need philosophy?
>you're still bound by custom whether you like it or not
This is a philosophical claim.
NO ONE can escape making philosophical claims about all sorts of things, it’s a part of living. So you can either engage in philosophy reflectively and critically, or you can engage in it unreflectively. Up to you.
>This is a philosophical claim.
So what? It's true and it contradicts the other claim.
Unironically if you spent 5 years reading philosophy and you got nothing out of it then just stop. It’s not for you. Most people’s minds aren’t a good fit for it but they get along fine anyway. It’s ok.
this
complaining about the time you spent with philosophy on an anonymous message board is an even bigger waste of your time. just move on. you arent saving anyone on IQfy from some pitfall by posting a wojak and b***hing.
Based and uncertaintypilled
Reading some philosophy is probably a good idea but studying it will turn you into an unbearable homosexual.
If you push through the gay phase and become an actual philosopher though then that's ok.
LOL. literature would have made much of a difference? Both don’t involve touching grass.
Should have just read the Wisdom books in the Bible and called it a day
>I could've used that time enriching myself with real literature.
that's worthless too. you could've gotten to platinum in league of legends or some shit and it would've been more useful than literature in this specific era
unless you're reading ungabunga awards to signal that you're woke, that's useful if you can stomach that
I doubt you made any actual effort reading philosophy anyway, so this is just a big cope to get away with.
Nice projection buddy. Read Plato; Penguin's collected fragments from the Pre-Soocratics; Descartes; Spinoza; Camus; Adorno; Benjamin; Gadamer; Hegel (his lectures on Aesthetics being the main one for me); and splatterings of Nietzsche. Oh and the Christian mystics like Meister Eckhart; Boehme and Nicholas of Cusa for good measure. I'm confident that I've read far more than you, gay.
>I've wasted five years of my life reading philosophy
>posting a two (at most) year-reading list
No wonder you didn't have time to read literature, buddy.
You definitely pulled the '2 year' timeframe out of your ass kek. Hegel alone is at least a year. Looks like someone rushed their reading or, more likely, hasn't read any philosophy. Oh no no no
>Looks like someone rushed their reading or, more likely, hasn't read any philosophy
Looks like someone is spending more time on IQfy than reading.
Outstanding retort, fellow IQfyner.
Classy cringe free compliment, noble newbie outsider.
Dang I remember when oldgays made me feel bad about le triforce.
I now feel bad about this place being the most civil place left in civilization.
Candor: Appreciated.
Self: reflected.
Place: dwelled mindfully.
Really makes ya think.
The year is 2007 and some pedophile goreposter on /b/ is impressing you with his technical knowledge about how the internet works and calling you a moralgay while trying to decipher his cryptic posts.
2017
You are scared shitless that said pedo gore technocrats are now ending the fun everywhere they go and for some reason IQfy became the moral highground watering hole.
Moralgays won here but out there we switched places.
>he's still fricking digging
You haven't even read Kant homie
>reading many philosophy book = putting forth effort
never gonna make it.
Fictional literature is a waste of time.
Videos/documentaries are wastes of time (generally).
Non-Fiction books are information dense and can be very useful for career, and self-development. You're just a manchild looking for entertainment. Cope, seethe, and fall down the stairs.
>He treats books as means and not ends in themselves.
Holy frick you must be the saddest person on this board. Something tells me you're 'indifferent' to music as well kek. Very sad.
Some good fiction might do your soul some good. The frick you doing on IQfy if all toy read is self help? Yes read How to make friends and influence people for thr 3rd time so you can finally after so much practice make your mom's friend like you
just came from the Ecclesiastes thread to this one
all pursuits are vanity, if you're an introspective person you will often look back at whatever you've been doing and feel it's a waste of time. just stop giving a shit and enjoy the present, also fear God or whatever
>Unironically being so wayward that you believe in God.
>if you're an introspective person you will often look back at whatever you've been doing and feel it's a waste of time. just stop giving a shit and enjoy the present
True.
You can either go the direction of reading beautiful writing like the Qur'an or Persian literature or you can continue doing philosophy for another 5 years until you get good.
This has been my general trajectory:
Literature > (Ancient) Philosophy > Religious Texts > Sociology/Psychology (of religion) > Existentialism > Phenomenology > Plays > Poetry
It all just comes back round to verse.
frick yeah. I knew it would. Im on the same path (in the theosophy and psychology part). have you started writing poems yet?
Did you only read it and give no input? No articles in any random place, even internet blogs or journal, no books published, just read for entertainment? Then yes, you wasted your time.
>nothing ever changes
>everything is always changing
That philosophy for you
>I could've used that time enriching myself with real literature.
>I've wasted five years of my life reading philosophy
Literature is when you take a philosophical theses, water it down and make it edible enough for cattle to consume.
Literature is how compel plebs. Greek myth (μῦθος) is literally translated as "story".
Philosophy is how one shares one's thoughts to one's intellectual equals.
>Literature is how compel plebs.
lol
Try logic fren.
this
That's what you get for reading Hegel.
Shoulda picked up a wrench instead
Captcha: y4G0D
Why?
Stop asking why you stupid philosopher!
The mighty magic captcha has spoken!
FOR GOD!
I spent 5 years studying philosophy to my hearts content completely free of remorse (and profit)
Wasted? Dumbass...
I feel the same way anon
I'm not going to shit on any anons who study philosophy since that's up to them but for me I've realised it's a waste of time and I should just read literature instead
It's hard because I often get the impulse to read philosophy but I usually am able to stop
You are more educated than you were before, don't worry. Philosophy is a supplement to literature anyway, they coexist.
all art is supplemental to human experience.
Alright ESL here? Realistically how long would it take me to get to the good stuff like Spinoza,Kant,Hegel and the like if I've never read philosophy in my life.
how do you measure worth? what are your values? please tell me you dont mean you could have more money by now. that would be a tragedy.
If philosophy is worthless, then what literature is worth reading? Do you think your time would have been better spent reading fiction, for example? What about self-help books, or tales of those who lived and died 1000 years ago?