Have studied philosophy for years

how do we deal with the language question?

Attached: 1542767924144.jpg (720x428, 30K)

There is a big difference between religion used as a means of control and Christian philosophy that is researched out of one's own free will. If one chooses to study Christian philosophy and you don't recognize the merits of it and the fact that, by itself, it has no purpose of control, you're a fucking idiot. philosophers that are of merit will research Mysticism out of their own will because they realize that Metaphysics is just stale and almost dead.

Attached: st_jude_thaddeus_patron_saint_of_the_impossible_poster-r42bf76feffbb462c84583fc02e461f88_wvw_8byvr_5 (540x540, 76K)

You have not given me any fucking arguments , you huge fucking faggot.

You are correct in that I wasn't presenting one. I see all those fancy philosophy books are paying off. Would you like a gold star so that you can show your mommy?

>how do we deal with the language question?
Popper's view is right. Wittgenstein is right about a lot of things, but saying that ALL problems of philosophy are just linguistic problems is a little bit of an exageration, although, he's mostly right about the metaphysical ones and the "uselessness" of philosophy.

Attached: eugenia-a.png (216x301, 59K)

Fuck off brainlet, you haven't brought anything to the table and the fact remains that there is nothing yet that disproves what I said. Now move along and fuck off.

Did I hit a nerve? Call for your mom to bring you your hugbox. I don't want you hurting yourself or others.

Attached: papoose-board-image2.jpg (431x400, 22K)

>That name

Is this some fucking RP shit?

Fuck off brainlet. Don't post, you are not worth my time.

>Is this some fucking RP shit?
I don't know, is it?

Attached: 1534135533877.png (374x374, 137K)

Why? I have all the right to be here that you do.

>He's getting mad by realizing he's not wanted here
lol, go cry babyboy.

I find it funny how all of you come here arguing against my position of aknowledge the futility of philosophy, yet you yourselves lack even the most basic of philosophical knowledge.

Attached: Ihsous_Xristos.jpg (547x604, 63K)

>I know more things that I myself consider bullshit than he
>that will show him
Yeah, well I can underwater basket weave better than you! Take that!

I don't know much about philosophy, but who said that there needs to be a practical purpose for something to have value? There's nothing wrong with asking questions for the sake of it as long as you get out some enjoyment out of it. I ponder a lot in my free time, while it may not be formal or written philosophy, I find my thoughts to be entertaining to mess around with.

/thread
who's up for some urban contemporary philosphy

Lesson 7 from Tractatus Logico was the best I'd say.
All philosophy, religion and spiritual horse manure needs to go in the landfill.

>one's own free will.
Not a thing my dude.

what's the best argument against free will in your opinion?

Are you a moral nihilist?

Moral Nihilist: The Intellectually Honest Atheist

>There's nothing wrong with asking questions for the sake of it as long as you get out some enjoyment out of it. I ponder a lot in my free time. I find my thoughts to be entertaining to mess around with.
That's exactly what I do. I study philosophy for the heck of it and I have loved it since the beginning. But on the other hand my problem with robots is that most have the misconceptions that philosophy has a practical value or that it is in any way at all able to attain or reach certain conclusions or "truths". My problem is that people don't see philosophy as it really is, a sort of Hobby that is not scientific or even about discoveries at all, but as a creative form just like literature or sports are. They simply are not on the same level as Science and most robots are too presumptions to realize this truth about philosophy.

>Lesson 7 from Tractatus Logico was the best I'd say.
>All philosophy, religion and spiritual horse manure needs to go in the landfill.
You're wrong. Wittgenstein gave ample room for mystical and religious thought. He argued himself in the Tractatus that mystical thought is what's inportant and what Life is about

>>one's own free will.
I don't mean literal free will as in having a soul that's free in philosophical terms. I mean that it's something one does because he wants to, not because of the determinism that is inherent to humans.

Attached: downloadfile-12.jpg (192x192, 8K)

I too have read a lot about philosophy, the only ethical system that seems to make sense is moral nihilism. Everything else has gaping problems. Prove me wrong. That's not to say we should all be assholes, it's generally in peoples economic self-interest to have amiable relations with people.

>what's the best argument against free will in your opinion?
Physical Determinism. Kantian metaphysics. Psychology. Neuroscience.

>Are you a moral nihilist?
Of course not, you brainlet. I am arguing in favor of Christian thought, which is the absolute opposite of Nihilism.

Attached: Jesus.jpg (299x418, 22K)

>mystical thought is what's inportant and what Life is about
And where did that get you? Are you living a meaningful, fulfilling life?

So if the bible says it's ethical then it's ethical?

It's actually supposed to be "kikeguard" if you haven't seen the shit he constantly spams here.

I think you mean to say you are into "Rational Egoism", user.
At the end of the day it's not really that you have such a diverging opinion from us. It's like the hedonists claiming their philosophy is best and the stoics saying that it isn't. Actually it's not like they have such different opinions, it's just that they have different ways of trying to achieve their happiness. Hedonists will say that pleasure is the only good while stoics will say there's something higher than that and that pleasure is not the point of it. But at the end of the day what they do will be in order for them to have more "psychological well-being" (which is just a different form of pleasure) and it's the same as being an hedonist, only their pleasure comes from knowing that they're "serving" virtues or what the stoics argue for.

Attached: Jesus_Christ_Sacred_Heart_Hand-Painted_Roman_Catholic_Icon_2_2-1.jpg (672x1000, 80K)

why do people interested in philosophy always have shit taste in art?

>And where did that get you? Are you living a meaningful, fulfilling life?
Yes, it's the most that philosophy can help me with. It's the most useful and the most impactful philosophical form there is and it for sure has a deep influence on my life. While intellectual and purely speculative philosophy serves no purpose beyond intellectual masturbation, mystical philosophy can be effectively applied to my life and how it changes my mindset and psychological well-being.

Hey degenerate, how are you doing?
>So if the bible says it's ethical then it's ethical?
More or less. Things are not black and white. Even I aknowledge there are inconsistencies in the Bible and that's wholly to be expected considering the plethora of books that comprise it.

Attached: 151251_iisus-hristos-invatator.jpg (545x760, 130K)

The only reason you pretend to care about yeezus and all this shit is because your life lack any purpose at all. You're a complete and utter loser and this is your final cope. embrace despair faggot, in the end it will be your only true salvation.

>Philosophy beyond the mystical and religious is just useless plain and simple.

Ethics wants a word with you user.

>why do people interested in philosophy always have shit taste in art?
They don't. They use to have good taste in art lol

>It's actually supposed to be "kikeguard" if you haven't seen the shit he constantly spams here.
Is it because I'm against blatant anti-Semitism and racism?

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,nor is there male and female,for you are all one in Christ Jesus"
Galatians, 3:28

Attached: st-jerome-icon-432.jpg (357x450, 52K)

>I'm against blatant anti-Semitism
>not even a week ago he was saying "fuck off kike"
lmao at this shit, imagine being so spineless. But I guess that's what christkikery does to one.

>Ethics wants a word with you user.

Through the reading of mystical works and Christian philosophers you can easily attain he highest and noblest form of ethics without having to rely on any atheist or non-christian author desu.
If your was he entirety of the Summa Theologica, for example (a feat even I haven't yet accomplished) your philosophical ethical system is set for life.

Attached: downloadfile-10.jpg (214x274, 15K)

Take your bible somewhere else.
Religion was a mistake. Ethics based on religion are flawed.

>>not even a week ago he was saying "fuck off kike"
Hey that kike was an exception. He was offending my religion like a total pseud. On the other hand, that guy who posted moonman and Hitler I explicitly argued against and reprehended him.

Attached: Antonio_Rodríguez_-_Saint_Augustine_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (1716x2341, 1.38M)

>Ethics based on religion are flawed.
You are WRONG. The only ethical system that has any foundation is the religious one. Otherwise ALL ethical philosophies stand without any foundation. All of them have no basis because they don't stand on any other philosophical foundation like that of philosophical theism which has a metaphysical system of its own. Without that, there are objections and failings of every ethical system because they have no basis beyond themselves.

Attached: st-augustine-of-hippo-icon-703-6.jpg (356x450, 53K)

No, your foundation is that you're going to hell if you do anything wrong.

Which is actually WRONG.

I'll be right back guys. My mom has just called me for dinner!

You shouldn't have had to read so many books to realize that. It's obvious to anyone who is actually critical about what they're reading that nearly all of philosophy is just arguing about linguistic definitions rather than the structures they are trying to define.
Look at Kant. Everyone praises him for "revolutionizing philosophy" but in reality he was doing the exact same linguistic nonsense as everyone else. We are greatly limited by language.
Mathematics is the closest we'll ever have to truths int themselves, and that's only based on the assumptions we choose to start with.

Attached: 1536035520248.jpg (278x292, 15K)

Nice bait mate.
Fuck you.

Stop pretending to be me, imposter!
I do not live with my mother, and I haven't have any dinner today!

Attached: 1541546104684.jpg (324x400, 52K)

>Look at Kant. Everyone praises him for "revolutionizing philosophy" but in reality he was doing the exact same linguistic nonsense as everyone else. We are greatly limited by language.
>being this much of a brainlet.
You're objectively wrong, you fucking faggot. Kant's influence on Metaphysics has been so profound it can be considered earth-shattering. He was no charlatan, he actually did create an astouding reovlution in philosophy and Metaphysics. He was no charlatan like Derridas or Hegel or Alan Badiou.

>Mathematics is the closest we'll ever have to truths in themselves, and that's only based on the assumptions we choose to start with.
Mathematical propositions are simply propositions without meaning. They are not "truths" because they have no content.
You haven't read much now, have you?

Attached: 86c97c76e28836d0383cb585ac22c5bf--ludwig-investigations.jpg (236x223, 10K)

Stop it! Stop it!
Don't pretend to be me!

What astounding revelations did Kant bring unto the world. The fact that math (formal descriptions of relationships) can be known without prior experience?

>Mathematical propositions are simply propositions without meaning. They are not "truths" because they have no content.
They are necessarily true for a given set of axioms. If 1+1 didn't equal 2 then mathematics as a whole would not work, hence "closet we have to truth in itself" Not to mention the relationships described using mathematics happen to describe reality eerily well. Perhaps it's because the universe is mathematical, but it's probably because that's how our brains function. Says a hell of a lot more about us than the universe.

>You haven't read much now, have you?
Classical philosophy is mostly bullshit. Pre-Hume was religious bullshit. Hume and post Hume are also bullshit. Justified True Beliefs are so laughably stupid that I can't believe people this smart actually took the idea seriously. Why would I read obvious garbage?
Why don't you read Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, and others? Should their ideas be taken seriously just because they were philosophers?

Attached: 1523016830922.jpg (1280x720, 88K)

>come up to the same conclusion that Wittgenstein arrived
So, you concluded that your early work is retarded and wrong?

Why're you arguing with people on r9k? I assume that you're unable to convince any of your peers with your bullshit, so you go for easy targets online to feel powerful or something. If you're so obsessed with being useful go outside and do something useful for a change or pray in church and leave people alone you cunt

>What astounding revelations did Kant bring unto the world. The fact that math (formal descriptions of relationships) can be known without prior experience?
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. This was already known. The fact mathematical propositions are known a priori was a fact that even the Greeks knew already, but what Kant discovered was the analytic-synthetic disntinction and he discovered we can know these propositions a priori and synthetically, which was a problem that at the time philosophers couldn't figure out. Besides this discovery he created a coherent system of what became Transcendetal Idealism and established philosophy as a major subject of research in Germany at the time, and the ramifications were enormous on almost every filed of knowledge at the time, including the political landscape that would eventually turn Germany into what it is today and how Germans are understood culturally all around the World.
>They are necessarily true for a given set of axioms. If 1+1 didn't equal 2 then mathematics as a whole would not work, hence "closet we have to truth in itself" Not to mention the relationships described using mathematics happen to describe reality eerily well. Perhaps it's because the universe is mathematical.
Yeah, although you're right about this, them being truths, the fact remains that they say nothing about our World. These are tautological propositions that give us no new knowledge about the World. By using mathenatics ,you said yourself, they coincide eerily with the World, but that's not because it's giving us new knowledge but because the calculations are coinciding with what were seeing in the World. Basically it's not that math is the truth the World agrees with, but math agreed with the World, but the propositions it gives cannot give us anything new or that describes the World, it just agrees with it.

Attached: a08048b3-d7a9-42d0-8372-e2bb754d7b74.gif (265x265, 745K)

honestly I came here to test and make fun of this namefag but im too much of a brainlet to the point its like an alien trying to communicate with humans
have you considered getting a degree in philosophy or working in library like places OP?

>He's so dumb that he buys into the "Wittgenstein was a totally different philosopher after Tractatus" bullshit.
user, reading the Wikipedia article is not the same as reading philosophy

If you don't like the thread and you are just too fucking dumb to understand or argue, you can just fuck right off

>Classical philosophy is mostly bullshit. Pre-Hume was religious bullshit. Hume and post Hume are also bullshit.
Yeah, so you pretty much admit you know nothing. If you are gonna say that it's bullshit, that's fine, but thinking that you can come here and argue thinking you know more about this subject than me and failing miserably only shows your pretentiousness.

>Why don't you read Trotsky, Lenin, Marx, and others?
Because they deal with politics rather than purely philosophy. I'm not gonna argue whether they're right or not, only that they don't pertain to the discussion at hand right now

Attached: 0f1b05b6-cc2a-44c8-8214-497f7a56c154.gif (265x265, 1.09M)

>I came here to test and make fun of this namefag but im too much of a brainlet to the point its like an alien trying to communicate with humans
>have you considered getting a degree in philosophy or working in library like places OP?

Yes, honestly philosophy is my one and only passion, even though I fully recognize the fact that it is a non-advancing and fruitless field. Aknowledging this however, it's what interests me absolutely the most and that's why I've come to read more than a hundred books of philosophy. On the other hand I'm going to get a degree in Finance or Economics, there's absolutely nothing I can do with a philosophy degree career-wise that would be satisfying enough in financial terms to me.

Attached: 1542578869260.png (498x594, 122K)

>what Kant discovered was the analytic-synthetic disntinction and he discovered we can know these propositions a priori and synthetically, which was a problem that at the time philosophers couldn't figure out.
No one can agree what is and isn't analytic, synthetic, a priori, or a posterori. There are arguments against Kant's "5+7=12" 'proof'. You only have that knowledge because it is necessitated by knowledge you already experienced. Are predictions via necessity still a priori?
It's arguing semantics. That's the problem with Kant and philosophy in general. Language will always limit philosophy. People like Quine proved that.

Yes, Kant's transcendental idealism is hugely influential, even today, but that doesn't mean it's right. It tries to define structures and functions of the mind that are impossible to convey using language. The terminology you use will always lead to contradictions in whatever definitions you come up with. Physics has a similar issue with the measurement problem. Sure Kant pointed out that our knowledge of things in themselves are limited (as did Hume and a few others before them) but that doesn't make the rest of his thinking worth considering. Categories are not universal. It's silly to think the universe categorizes itself unless you believe in God, which Kant did.

>these are tautological propositions that give us no new knowledge about the World
That entirely depends on how you define "knowledge". Knowledge is quickly being forced to be defined as strong, repeatable correlations. That's it. Most "knowledge" is not based on rational thinking, good evidence, or even any evidence at all. You can't even prove to yourself that yesterday was "real".
Given that definition of "knowledge", mathematics absolutely has the potential to give us new knowledge. We can't confirm it's "knowledge" without extremely strong statistical correlations (observations), but we can still use it as an assumption to find ways to "confirm" it.

Attached: 1515842211968.jpg (1280x720, 134K)

>No one can agree what is and isn't analytic, synthetic, a priori, or a posterori.
Yes, and that's due to the nature of philosophy, because these things are up to debate and being rethought. There are no real truths in philosophy because these are unfalsifiable, doesn't mean though that what Kant invented was meaningless, and the simple fact that right now we're discussing what these terms mean, what is analytic, synthetic etc. means that Kant actually brought something new and was able to create this new thought which cannot simply be brought down to linguistics. Sure, you may say that this is all a trouble of terminology, and that's a philosophical position itself, but it doesn't change the fact that Kant created a new system of thought and that he was not simply bringing shit up from his ass. The further developments in philosophy were brought to existence only due to his work and cannot simply be said to have arrived out of a problem of linguistics like you say, as if he wrote a full book about nothing and saying nothing at all. That is just false.

>You only have that knowledge because it is necessitated by what you already experienced. Are predictions via necessity still a priori?

This is falling into a fallacy of idealism, my dear friend. In the "Transcendetal Aesthetics" section of Kant's work he deals with exactly this and he shows that it's not a good position to hold. I'm not saying that what you say is easy to refute, on the contrary, but believing that truths come from experience and a priori propositions are "predictons" are simply things I cannot defend. I'm not saying and will neither try to argue you're definitely wrong though, because an idealist position or empiricism like this can always be defended however you want. At the end of the day this can even be said to be "irrefutable", but not because it is a good position to hold but simply because it's so unfalsifiable.

Attached: 74d4dbc6-dac5-4825-9ad0-f2df9b07b18c.gif (265x265, 933K)

Hume killed philosophy, not your mystical musings. Stick to the facts boy, Kant was a charlatan with poor instincts who built his system on top of a pile of dogshit.

You're right. I bashing philosophers like Kant too hard. If It wasn't for Hume and Kant I wouldn't have the beliefs I do after all. So they have utility, but people seem to treat philosophy in a dogmatic way, as if Kant is some kind of prophet of truth or something. It's annoying and harmful.

>In the "Transcendetal Aesthetics" section of Kant's work he deals with exactly this and he shows that it's not a good position to hold.
Which book/essay specifically? I'd like to read a bit more into it. You're right that I haven't read much, but only because I didn't have a reason to. Now I do.

Well, I disagree. Throughout my studies I've found that I really like to be fucked in the ass and my philosophy is built around that notion. Canada is a great place to get fucked in the ass because there's lots of gay zoomers with big cocks.

>The terminology you use will always lead to contradictions in whatever definitions you come up with.
Yeah, but what can you really expect? Every system and every terminology can lead to contradictions or truths by which they cannot be confirmed by that set of first axioms. This is true with the system of arithmetics but also with language. I understand there are tons of misunderstandings with Godel's incompleteness Theorems around here, but I expect you to comprehend at least the gist of it. The fact remains (Godel was as much of a philosopher as he was a mathematician) that every language will also lead to some contradictions and truths the first set of axioms cannot sustain. That happens with language just as much with numbers, and so what you're saying is unsustainable. If you hold that Godel's Theorems are true, then it also holds that the same problems you have with language are those that arithmetics may suffer from. Doesn't change the fact that calculations like 1+1=2 are real, and doesn't change the fact that philosophical problems have meanings that are understood and "true", even though language suffers from the same problem as arithmetics. Arithmetics suffers from the same problem as linguistics, yet even you must admit that they have meaning and are "real".

>unless you believe in God, which Kant did.
Well, I believe in God. Nothing wrong with it. It's a philosophical position and that's it.

>That entirely depends on how you define "knowledge"... quickly being forced to be defined as strong, repeatable correlations. That's it. Most "knowledge" is not based on rational thinking, good evidence, or even any evidence at all.
That's just bordering on anti-rationalism, user. Come on. Give me sources on what you're saying.
Cont.

Attached: 31be1803-9824-416f-bb94-ff19dc9a825a.gif (500x281, 1.6M)

>Hume killed philosophy, not your mystical musings.
No, Wittgenstein was the one who killed philosophy.

>Kant was a charlatan with poor instincts who built his system on top of a pile of dogshit.
The only reason Kant (from his own words) "woke up from his dogmatic slumber" was because he read Hume and made a compromise between full idealism and rationalism, so you're basically saying that Hume was shit.

>You're right. I bashing philosophers like Kant too hard.
It's ok fren. I think that a ton of philosophy (and the fun of it) is basically that, bashing each other. In the words of Wirtgenstein:
>The philosopher who doesn't get into discussions is like the boxer who never goes into the fighting ring."

>If It wasn't for Hume and Kant I wouldn't have the beliefs I do after all.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they are right. Even I disagree with Kant on a few points, and so do many philosophers, including Schopenhauer, after Kant. Actually it's not that I argue that Kant is infallible and completely right at all, but that he brings some extremely interesting and worthwhile "thought experiments" about reality. In actuality we have absolutely no way to verify if what he says is true, because philosophical propositions are all unfalsifiable.

>So they have utility, but people seem to treat philosophy in a dogmatic way, as if Kant is some kind of prophet of truth or something.
I agree. People who do this are just the fucking worst.

>In the "Transcendetal Aesthetics" section of Kant's work .
>Which book/essay specifically? I'd like to read a bit more into it.
The Critique of Pure Reason, it's the first section, closer to the end.

Attached: 6785324'.gif (288x377, 1.83M)

Nice bait mate.
Get out.

My understanding of Godel's theorems is that you can't PROVE a system of arithmetic is consistent using the system itself, and that regardless of what system you use, you will always have conjecture that cannot possibly be proven. I'm not certain either way though. I just remember believing it was a sort of proof against consistently, and realizing I was wrong.
That's a bit beside the point though. I understand philosophy tries to convey ideas that cannot be put well into words, and accept that it's the best we can hope to do, however I think when things like "Justified True Beliefs" get taken seriously, it's a sign that there are huge problems.

>Well, I believe in God. Nothing wrong with it. It's a philosophical position and that's it.
I tried to word it neutrally. I don't believe in God, but arguing about whether or not God exists is pointless seeing as it's something that's very personal and based entirely in faith.

>That's just bordering on anti-rationalism, user. Come on. Give me sources on what you're saying.
Hume. We can't prove cause and effect. It's an assumption with no way out. If you admit that's true, then you must accept that the only "knowledge" is a priori, because sensory experience is inevitably based on cause and effect. That would make all our experiences based on an assumption, and are therefore not true knowledge.
Quantum mechanics has a problem where no one knows what is "actually" going on despite understanding the mechanics to an absurdly accurate correspondence with observation. Physicists are being forced to give up the idea that things in themselves have some definite existence in itself. Physics seems to suggest that systems don't exist in any definite state until they become entangled with the quantum system that's measuring it (you and your experiment). If that's actually the case, then the most you can possibly know about anything is based in probability. Observations keep pushing this idea harder and harder.

Attached: 1514210204368.jpg (600x576, 226K)

do you believe trump will complete the system of german idealism?

>arguing about whether or not God exists is pointless seeing as it's something that's very personal and based entirely in faith.
this guy gets it. lmao at all of the pages upon pages of text futilely attempting to prove God's existence. I can't help think that maybe they were not so sure in their faith after all. Good thing my boy Kant knew what was up.

Attached: 1475695426590.jpg (386x493, 56K)

well no shit op. think about yourself.
through reading all of this philosophy what have you gained? what do you think anyone would gain out of it?

while there are some truths to be had from philosophy, the journey to find them is arguably not worth it.

Attached: 1529264615334.jpg (300x300, 23K)

Would I benefit in reading either Popper or Wittgenstein having no previous knowledge of philosophy besides wikipedia skimming? If not what's a good place to start? I just feel there's a lot misunderstanding due to semantics. I don't want to prove or disprove existence of God or the meaning of life, I just want to learn radically different worldviews from mine.

>Physicists are being forced to give up the idea that things in themselves have some definite existence in itself. Physics seems to suggest that systems don't exist in any definite state until they become entangled with the quantum system that's measuring it (you and your experiment). If that's actually the case, then the most you can possibly know about anything is based in probability. Observations keep pushing this idea harder and harder.
That's a very interesting and intriguing idea, user. I had just some interesting though I think you'd enjoy discussing and that would put a counter-argument to Hume's position whilst recognizing that there is merit to it and even the possibility that he might be right. But something happened right now that made me really anxious and I don't know if I can develop it well enough today.

Either way, it's very much appreciated that you have expounded this idea by Hume and now I've got interested in reading some by him. Will do!

>Would I benefit in reading either Popper or Wittgenstein having no previous knowledge of philosophy besides wikipedia skimming?
Probably not. I started with Wittgenstein out of the blue, knew nothing about the guy, just picked up his Tractatus. Read some, and forgot about it. Then picked it up again and went to the more interesting propositions by him. Some of his thoughts agreed so much with mine that I was absolutely astounded by it, but I was only able to understand anything at all because I had similar thoughts to his that I came about by my own. If you haven't, then you probably won't understand anything without at first having a good understanding of prior philosophy and even his time and the philosophical "air" and tendencies of his time and place.
>Popper
You probably won't understand anything.

Attached: 0defbd354914010a60d5378e9b346ca8.jpg (540x721, 41K)

W-where do I start then?

Attached: 1539867924366.jpg (512x438, 43K)

kant already solved it with the categorical imperative.

>W-where do I start then?
Idk. Wherever you like. I think that the best thing you can do is just go around wikipedia and try finding the philosopher that interests you the most. Then you go on from there, having a ton of books also helps a lot. Basically I am saying that the best way to start philosophy is like i have: have a ton of books of all sorts of different philosophies, and then pick up what you like and what feels interesting. I think that's the best way to go on about doing it. Popper and Wittgenstein are really difficult to start. You could start with some work by the Stoics though. I'd really recommend the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and The Discourses by Epictetus.

Attached: Kierk.png (461x459, 403K)

hegel, marx, sk, hume, luther, but not in that order.

>Stoics though. I'd really recommend the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and The Discourses by Epictetus.
>hegel, marx, sk, hume, luther, but not in that order.
Thank you both and sorry for hijacking the thread, just thought since you were actually well versed in philosophy your recommendations would be valuable. Also checked.

Attached: 1539542863237.png (581x701, 449K)

Cute girl!
Why do you not care for religious philosophy though, user? I think that it'd do you little good to be knowledgeable on much philosophy, but it'd do you wonders to have faith and read the philosophy according to it.

Attached: 41keb224ooL._SX317_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (319x499, 25K)

How have the jannies not banned this kike for spamming the same shitty threads already.

I've done nothing wrong. That's why. I have the same right to be here as everybody else, and you getting salty won't change that fact.

Attached: 470442.jpg (702x1200, 487K)

I actually feel religious philosophy is way above my level and don't want to get too invested in any for the moment. I have next to zero knowledge about religions and it clashes with my personal belief that the eternal jew is behind it all. And yes I'm aware that's an extremely retarded position, to say organized religion is bad knowing shit about religion is as stupid as it gets, it's just a feeling I have. But I don't deny the usefulness of it, just don't think I'm up to the job right now, nor that I need it right now. I don't have faith in any particular God but I believe "there is something out there", just think since it's omnipotent everyone and all religions are missing the mark here due to our peasant human nature. Just scared of going off the mark too much I guess.

>I think that it'd do you little good to be knowledgeable on much philosophy
True, it's just curiosity to be honest even if the ideas are pretty much useless irl. I'm not seeking answers as I've moved past my mid 20s existential crisis, whatever I just resolved to take it easy and try to live a virtuous life within my possibilities. I'm sure I'll need answers and more advanced-useful stuff later though, when that happens I'll probably try religious philosophy.

Attached: 1533382390102.jpg (480x480, 46K)

>I actually feel religious philosophy is way above my level and don't want to get too invested in any for the moment.
It isn't. It's not that hard unless you count Soren Kierkegaard or some particularly scholarly theological books, but for the most part, the mystical works aren't a matter of entertaining ideas of a higher intellectual level but of a more personal and faithful one. In this sense, mystical works are the only that can be considered truly genuine, they are not about trying to sound smart or achieving a level of intellectual groundwork for ideas few people are able to, but to improve and actualize the spiritual aspect of us that needs to be addressed. It's about our improvement and growth rather than philosophy which has only the purpose of the entertainment of ideas for the sake of it, and it creates genuine meaning in our lives.
>Nothing can be gained by extensive study and wide reading. Give these up immediately.
-Dogen

Attached: 465616.jpg (904x1200, 720K)