Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: IMG_0024.jpg (38KB, 250x358px) Image search:
[Google]
38KB, 250x358px
I think philosophy is interesting and I'd like to learn more, but how do I know what to think when philosophers 10x smarter than me and with more interest and depth of knowledge than I'll realistically ever have can't agree on anything?
>>
>>2068615
It means
A) certain people are deluded
B)Certain people won't go back on an opinion after they know it's wrong
C) There are multiple contradicting truths in the universe
>>
>>2068615
start with the greeks.
>>
>>2068615
It's called nature and nurture.
>>
>>2068615
>I'm in an epistemic position.
>I've concluded that my epistemic position is bad.
>I'll trust my judgement about my epistemic position and act on it sven though that conclusion is that my own ability to reach conclusions is bad.
>>
>>2068939
So..... I shouldn't trust my judgment, because in fact my epistemic position is actually good? I guess I'll take that as a compliment
>>
>>2068615
Wittgenstein looks a lot like that guy from Die Antwoord
>>
Don't fall for the meme that all the philosophers of history literally read everyone that came before them.
You can read many biographies of these people admitting they never did or calling people of the past unreadable.
Most people who hype up philosophers as being geniuses (although many of them certainly were) are people who want to look intelligent themselves for having read someone. Many philosophers are easily accessible to anyone who has read a little or is confident in speech.
Generally, you should select some prominent epistemological thinkers and move on from there.
I advise starting this way:
Descartes>Hume>Schopenhauer>Nietzsche>Go where you like (Back to the Greeks for greater knowledge or forward to the analytics of the 20th century)
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3