What went wrong with our thoughts?

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/archive/stove/
The essay that destroyed IQfy.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Very strange essay. The guy presents some extracts from some notoriously abstruse philosophers, asserts that they’re self-evidently vapid and absurd, and then meanders for like 30 more smug paragraphs that are all some variation of: ‘Philosophers are all very vapid and absurd, aren’t they?’ His scope seems to be the entirety of philosophical history, which is perhaps why he can’t focus in on a specific criticism. This is what happens when your intellectual ambition outweighs your intellectual curiosity.

    (His Foucault extract is not even that difficult; it’s saying that a contradiction between different systems of knowledge is not between two abstract essences but between a whole range of specific ways of describing and categorising things. And then he lists the specific differences relevant to his case study, very compactly, in the space of the paragraph. Maybe the writer of this essay could have learnt something from that.)

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How is proposition 8 not a contradiction? If three is defined as an integer between 2 and 4, the successor of 2 and the predecessor of 4, then how can the proposition that there is an integer btn 2 and 4 and its not 3, not be a contradiction?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Saying the integer is not three only contradicts the law of identity. It could be the case that he is assuming a scenario where both 3 and that integer exist on the number line at the same time, but then again, that scenario also contradicts the definition of integer and the peano axioms of arithmetic. By his own admission, it reduces to either contingent falsity--true in another universe or mathematical framework--or a contradiction in this one Are there any mathgays with insight on this?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing went wrong with anybody's thoughts except for Stowe's, as far as I can tell. I stopped reading when he quoted a rather easy quote from Plotinus which barely requires Platonism 101 to understand. The author is an ignoramus who isn't even willing to put in the most basic of effort to understand a conversation that's been happening for 2500 years. We're talking about a homie who was filtered by the premise of the analogy of the Divided Line, forget about its full comprehension: intelligible and sensible worlds, unchanging and changing worlds, light and shadow, etc.

    He's just not cut out for philosophy, and that's okay. But he sure is awfully smug about his intellectual laziness.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He has been teaching for 35 yrs. Read the whole thing before you offer your subpar criticisms.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I feel bad for his students.

        https://i.imgur.com/VYy6Ttq.jpeg

        >He's just not cut out for philosophy, and that's okay.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stove
        >But he sure is awfully smug about his intellectual laziness.
        You couldn't even be bothered to learn his name and admit to not reading past the beginning.
        Apply yourself

        His name is not worth learning, and his work is not worth finishing. Again, look at the reason why I stopped. If a man can become a tenured philosophy professor or whatever and get filtered by Plato 101, then academia is finished.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >He's just not cut out for philosophy, and that's okay.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stove
      >But he sure is awfully smug about his intellectual laziness.
      You couldn't even be bothered to learn his name and admit to not reading past the beginning.
      Apply yourself

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    More like continentals btfod. He is somewhat right in deriding how they do philosophy, and is it any wonder we are discussing this in a literature and philosophy board full of chuds that think philosophy should be done the same way literary criticism is treated, with creative abandon that accepts everything as valid.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Moldbug
    Remember when Moldbug created crypto scam called Urbit, promising it's the future of web 3.0, while trying to manifest his delusions of grandeur with the idea of "digital feudalism"? And then he sold it to the venture investor dimwit Peter Thiel, because nobody cared about his stupid app and it didn't generate money, after which rugpulled and run away with money? I remember.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbit

    Moldbug is a midwit magnet, like Nick Land, a product of short lived political alt right grift they called "neoreactionary movement", emerged during trying times of the Reign of Le Orange Man, which is nothing but a vapid political fiction based solely on superfluous aesthetics instead of strong philosophical foundation.

    I do not take seriously anything he says or anyone who listens to him. ESPECIALLY after Urbit scam. You cannot comeback from this, not after trying to scam your own central audience. Unless you're gullible moron, of course. Then you can continue to drink his piss to your heart's content.

    Funny thing about digital feudalism, Moldbug was so blind (every altrightard is) he didn't knew it already existed, as described by Yanis Varoufakis's "Technofeudalism". Instead of the real thing, like Amazon, he was trying to create MMO equivalent. But we know he was intending to just crypto scam his own readers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks moldbot but it's not by moldbug, he just hosts a copy of it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't care who that it, he hosts his pseudophilosophical excrements on UR and that's all she wrote.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a chapter written by Stove, not moldbug, my god can't you butthurt morons just read it??

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For what purpose exactly should we read it? Instead of creating vapid bait threads with text like "le X that destroyed Y" try putting sone effort in your posts and deconstruct his ideas in a short and interesting pitch to the audience yourself. I dont have the time, I have Hegel (an actual philosopher, unlike Turdbug) to study.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't have the time to read it, I just have the time to shitpost about it!
          IQfy in a nutshell

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >posts 150 screens long essay
            >"you must read it in order to understand why it BTFOs you"
            Yeah, no.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he's still here
            Shouldn't you be reading Hegel's nonsense?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Hegel is nonsense but le Cathedral is...le real thing!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >that was a scam unlike the Marxism of this professor which created the exact utopias it promised

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >The crypto scam is...the same as Marxism scam!
        Brilliant idea, I agree.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bitcoin has more revolutionary potential for one thing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there are only 166,853 addresses worth more than $100,000.

            >In other words, 0.05% of Americans have slightly less than the average U.S. household income in bitcoin. Minus tax. Minus transaction costs. And with the recent slide in the price of bitcoin this small section of society may become less well-off.

            Such revolutionary potential! Sir don't redeem bitcoin you will rich and happy.

            https://www.investopedia.com/news/no-everyone-not-getting-rich-bitcoin/

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Still better than Marxism's legacy of tyrannical failed states and dysgenic current fan base.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Uh, all of that stuff was pre-Trump, by quite a few years.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Notice how homosexual OP quietly stopped posting after this post, waiting for this thread to silently go into archive. Pathetic moldbug wienersucker got completely BTFO'd.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why does he make people seethe so much?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In "Racial and Other Antagonisms" (1989) Stove asserted that racism is not a form of prejudice but common sense: "Almost everyone unites in declaring 'racism' false and detestable. Yet absolutely everyone knows it is true".[9]
    Lol based.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The essay is itself vapid and meaningless. If he is looking for a logical nosology, then he is either looking for a positive philosophical system, or just for the laws of logic. If he is looking for a psychological nosology, then his essay ceases to be interesting at all. Glad to see that he makes IQfy seethe over his comments on Plato.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No he is looking for nosology of thought, which might or might not include both logic and psychology. He is essentially asking why continental gays never seem to make any sense, and whether they know they don't make sense.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why did continental and analytical philosophy split anyway?

        The creation of a nosology of thought would actually be an extremely interesting project and I'd be surprised of it hasn't been attempted before.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This reminds me of the new atheists who can't stop talking about religion and the belief structures of theists.

    If you are so comfortable and intellectually well-fed within your own world-view, why the compulsive need to return, and with such evident emotion, to the territory you professed to reject? Such passionate attention and concern is not reciprocated.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Great rhetoric but why don't you try refuting it?

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Another positivist who ascends to such a lofty height in philosophy that all he can think to do is burn the ladders he used to climb up there.

    The whole reason terms like 'contingent falsity' makes sense is because of the collective fumbling of millenia of philosophers trying to make sense of the truth of abstract concepts and notions for which we made first contact with intuition and imagination. Do possible worlds exist? Would this be a pathological question in his nosology? Abstract, non-logical theorizing and discussion and writing are the foundation of philosophy and will continue to be so. Yes there's a lot of bullshit but that doesn't imply the whole thing is bullshit or worthless or needs fixing. Just because you are not interested in theology or Hegel or whatever doesn't make the subject matter meaningless.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You did not read the article did you, or if you did, you never understood a thing. Contingent falsity is not among the nosology, he says that very well and leaves the rest 38 propositions-- whose meaning is problematic--for you to figure out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Contingent falsity is not among the nosology

        Yes that's why I asked is " Do possible worlds exist?" a pathological proposition since he thinks contingent falsity is something we are absolutely clear on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No its not. It doesn't have to be a possible world, it could be a possible time or a possible scenario. A possible anything. For instance you could argue that there were three people named johnson that were presidents in the scenario that we don't discount the vice president or the amount of times he was elected for that proposition to be valid, lyndon was elected twice and was vice president once. The point that he is really making is that names are not necessary attributes of a person since people change them all the time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > For instance you could argue

            So analytic philosophers can have a debate about possible worlds and whether names are necessary or contingent attributes of an object, and a whole bunch of other stuff that can't be settled by an appeal just to logic or empirical observation. Even if they don't reach a consensus nobody thinks what they do is meaningless or pathological.

            Theologians can argue about the Trinity and the same criteria for meaningfulness and value applies. So there's no justification for:

            >It is obvious enough that these two opinions could not both be right, though both could be wrong. It is equally obvious that both opinions are wrong, or at least, that they each have got something dreadfully wrong with them, and the same thing. They both have some fatal congenital defect, whatever the exact nature of this defect may be. And it is equally obvious too, that this defect will also be shared by any other answer to the question, what or whom the Holy Ghost proceeds from. It does not matter much how you answer this question: something has already gone fatally wrong with your thoughts, once you find yourself so much as asking it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They can be settled by logic, modal logic in particular. The holy ghost question on the other hand does not depend on any logic since its an opinion based on belief, like the propositions he cites stating that number 3 is a lucky number, that statement has nothing to do with logic in any possible world you that you might think of.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They can be settled by logic, modal logic in particular

            modal logic, just like all logic, takes us from premises to conclusions. It doesn't settle if any premises are true, or what exists, or metaphysics, or anything like that.

            >since its an opinion based on belief

            You can talk to an expert but theology is not based on opinions. It's about objective, valid, deductive arguments starting from premises. The necessity of God in a contingent universe or infinite causal regress being impossible for instance. You can debate the truth of the premises just like any philosophical argument but not believing something is true is not the same as saying something is meaningless. You can look up theological arguments for the Trinity anytime and see if they are based on opinion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Opinions on god are beliefs, i don't know how you can deny this with a straight face. They are not facts like the sun rising everyday or definitions like a triangle having three sides. And the fact that you can debate these opinions or put them in logical premises does not refute that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Opinions on god are beliefs, i don't know how you can deny this with a straight face.

            People make arguments on the Resurrection of Jesus or the Trinity or the Gospels being legit or whatever and you can accept or reject them based on the evidence presented. There's nothing pathological or wrong with this area of human knowledge just because you aren't interested or are skeptical.

            >They are not facts like the sun rising everyday or definitions like a triangle having three sides

            What increases our knowledge is when we attempt to go beyond simple sense data or language conventions. We wouldn't have science or math or formal logic or pretty much any other knowledge without probing things with our intuition and imagination. What this dude is proposing is nothing less than the destruction of all knowledge.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I did not say there was anything wrong, I said they were beliefs, different from facts and hence can be categorized under this nosology, precisely because their meaning is problematic--because we can't agree on it, not because its bad or wrong or evil, etc.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >In the spirit the absolutely simple aether has returned to itself by way of the infinity of the Earth
    beautiful line from hegel. worth more than a million dorks bleating "real philosophy has never been tried". nerds like stove always die like dogs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >meaningless gibberish that would be right at home in a new age cult's pamphlet is beautiful
      lmfao

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Literally who

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I am not interested here (or anywhere else, much) in thoughts of primitive people, or of ignorant or stupid people, or of people of no importance for the history of thought, or of people who are, even by ordinary standards, mad.
      Interesting, and yet he thinks we should care about his thoughts.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >literally le who?
    >why should i listen to him?
    >hegel isn't nonsense, this guy is nonsense!
    >he's wrong because he just is okay?!?
    pseuds crawling out of the woodwork

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *