Pick your favorite book, /b/
Trips and I burn it
I mostly studied the history of American involvement in other countries—for better or for worse. Not as knowledgeable about internal history, but you've got a case there. The north ain't all good
Yes. It's a shame how most of the students and professors that I've met simply disregard him as some kind of weirdo. I first took interest in philosophy through Nietszche and French existentialists. I studied some Eastern Philosophy for the past couple of years and I found that there were many similarities between them. (I live in East Asia, by the way.) Just out of curiosity, do they also teach much of non-western philosophy in the US?
1960's US involvement in South/Central America was bonkers. loved that stuff for BA.
i think it's wild that he wrote three books while leaving sanity. that's why a lot of academics disregard him and those who utilize his works. and it's sad, but eastern philosophy gets almost no exposure over here. one of my favorite professors—the only one who taught a class on eastern philosophy—was fired to fund a campus construction project. There's a lot of provincialism in schools here.
In my opinion, the strict distinction between rationality and irrationality(=sanity) is something that's deeply rooted in traditional western philosophy. So it's hard to find any serious 'professional' philosopher who doesn't think of Nietzsche as a second-rate or third-rate thinker. The irony is that at least half of the stuff that's being taught here is western philosophy. Even Asians are somewhat forced to leave behind their traditional ways of thinking.
not that other guy, but back in the day, before the interwebs, I was jammed up for a topic over winter break
All I had to do was spend 3 days at the New York Public Library (as opposed to my Uni's collection), pull resources from books I knew weren't available at school and nigger-rigged a total BS compare/contrast of "The Prince" and "Discourses of Livy". 100/100 garbage.
Ran into advisor a few years later, and he called me out on my analysis. Said he knew something was hinky, but couldn't prove it/didn't have the time at the time.
I basically said, "well, at least I eventually made you look it up ."
Nothing beats a lazy/overworked advisor.
how knowledge is accepted has a lot to do with, i think, the disproportional power dynamic of the international community. definitely don't wanna get into all of it, but it seems that people are in a sense compelled to learn or come to the knowledge of more powerful groups in order to achieve individual success (classic foucauldian interpretation). I'm lucky to be in an academic environment that at least recognizes the relevance and importance of Nietzsche.
My birthday is April 29, so I was extra interested in Chilean coup d'état of Allende. For extra lulz, my Aunt's birthday is April 20, so guess what I did for High School's AP History class paper... I even put a sidebar of how having the same birthday affected her
because it's interesting (at least to me) how other people see the world and rationalize their actions/beliefs.
do you guys really think that philosophy is about wisdom? i studied a bit myself but i can't help but agree with kant's view that philosophy is simply a battlefield of dogmatics.
Well, I think that's what happens when it's done in bad faith, in a sort of way. The same way some people can use science as a means to further drive their favorite narrative, even if the narrative doesn't agree with the science.
But, eventually, science finds them out in the end, so I suppose the act of having to "do battle" with the various views, including your own, eventually keeps you "true" or "objective" enough to never default, if not at least keep you doubting the veracity of your own beliefs. Like another anon already said, it all centers around refining and defending dogmas. To do that most likely will require you to think in ways you haven't, or in ways you don't believe are sound. And, then it becomes less about the specific values, morals, ethics, or states of being, and more about the framework and interactions within the framework/between other frameworks.
Questions like "Why?" or "Why not?" gradually replace statements like "Wrong" or "Correct".
lolno. especially using Kant's myopic view.
everything is relative, everything is subjective to experience and exposure.
Philosophy is merely a tool, predicated upon that which can be imagined - one school is not above superior or more/less sophisticated than what is needed to describe what is perceived.
Sure, there are a bunch of Sophomore retards running around with their favorites, spewing their monolithic edicts of how the world works. Heinleinism, Foundationism, Duneisms abound within the crevasses too.
I still find that I know more about a person by what school they ascribe to than the actual tenets of the system.
I used to be one of those, am still mortified of some of the shit I used to say. And will probably feel the same 20 years from now.
That's almost exactly the conclusion that Hume and Moore came to with their is-ought and naturalistic fallacies. What one ought to do can't be derived from what empirically is and what is cannot be equated with the metaphysical universals "good" or "bad." I mostly study phenomenology and epistemology so I know all too well the outcomes of strongly adhering to a dogma or theory, at least in individual knowledge production.
Truth isn't plural, and God didn't stutter
with a posthumous "fuck you" to Prof. Linger* who crucified me in class because I was on a limb, talking out of my ass.