Sorry to be grouchy, but I just started coming to this board.

Why do you want to impose your frankly meaningless views on others?

Eat shit.

>>8398778
It isn't meaningless, tho.

>>8398781
>animegirllookingdubiouslyatcamerawithquestionmarksaboveherhead.png

A board for "literature" id have to assume is for the discussion of almost any topic, provided it relates to literary aesthetics, or the lack thereof, or whether aestbetic and value mean the same, which is a Pandora's box of discussion. But the intrinsic reasoning behind particular philosophies ? I can see how that creeps up, but I literally saw the other day almost 5 different threads, some about pre Socratic philosophy, of which there is scant actual literature from the time, and one or two about Descartes. It just seems like a confusion of intellectual province here.

>>8398774
Somebody needs to validate the time those OPs put into skimming those wikipedia pages

>>8398774
>>8398774
>I just started coming to this board.
>This is a literary discussion board, not a philosophy one
if it's in a book, it's fair game for discussion. lurk more, newfag
>a thread about Zenos paradox? Maybe if Sarte wrote a novel about it, sure lol
That thread literally starts with "so I read something by Borges"

>>8398791
Fuman.rar

>>8398781
>>8398791
Op from Zenos paradox thread detected

>>8398774
An actual answer is that there was no separate board for humanities until several months ago so people got used to posting philosophy here. As for why they still don't use the board that was made for them, I guess they think it's too cancerous.

>>8398812
Lol if it's in a book it's fair game? You're not allowing for the division between literary value and philosophical value. They're different. Philosophers don't need to write anything down, neccessarily. The point I'm making is that the value of a philosophical argument isn't measured on a literary scale of values; if they were, I guess we'd be Sophists. But all too often I see core philosophical ideas being discussed in philosophical terms. All fine and good, except that this is a literature board. That doesn't seem a little off to you ?

>>8398827
Thank you, a concise and informed response.

>>8398827
/his/ is really no place to talk about philosophy. Too many people, not enough reading. /lit/ is clearly a bunch of manchildren, but once in awhile you'll have a manchild with an unhealthy obsession with Baudrillard, whereas in /his/ the only experts you'll find have degrees from Oral Roberts U with a major in How God is Great.

>>8398845
This is correct, but I will say there is more room for the casual discussion of philosophy there than here. There is strong debate about teaching philosophy as a "history of ideas" Vs teaching people to actually think philosophically. But here, there is less room I think. But people just do it. And I find it a curious thing.

>>8398836
you are brand fucking new

I think what actually confuses people is that some of the best known philosophy had very strong literary value, while some of the least know, although in no way less important, philosophy had little literary value. Wittgenstein comes to mind. Quite esoteric to the uninitiated. But compare that to Platos Republic or the writing of Nietzsche, and you see the difference. Having studies philosophy, I can tell you it's rather sad how some philosophies don't reach a household understanding among people because of a lack of literary artistry.

>>8398884
>this board is brand fucking new

Also thanks for the lesson in redundancy. I already stated I just started coming here.

Browsed for ages here, you're completely right. It's just an aspect of the intellectual posturing on here that they get lumped together. You should have seen the amounts of shitposting that disappeared when philosophy was temporarily diverted to /his/

maybe philosophy really is that curious crossroad where reasoning, which is timeless, meets human expression which is conditioned by time and circumstance. I'm not waxing, either. It's just how I think at the moment. Don't know another way of expressing it. Socrates would have used terms in his syllogism which are quite different that'll ours, but the logic contained in its structure is the same then as it is now. But in literature as an art form, i cannot find a rule which expresses a need for such consistency or logical uniformity. I might risk sounding like a philosophical purist, but you have to bear in mind that there is an kernel of scientific thought within its discipline. Not so for literature, I'm afraid.

>>8398774
Zeno's shit was written down in a book, in response to another book, defending another book. All philosophy worth discussing has been written down, and as such it is literature

>>8398926
What I saw the other day was pretty bad. Not as bad today. Its interesting though, to see the varied interests of people here and how to categorize those interests. Trust me, this is the same kind of debate you'd hear in a philosophy course. It's often self-scrutinizing.

>>8398932
Try "intro to ancient philosophy"

And call us in the morning.

Philosophy usually terminates, when you trace its origins, in oral traditions handed down either teacher/disciple relationships, or within schools of philosophy in which there was a shared tenet

>>8398932
Socrates never wrote anything
Buddha never wrote anything
Jesus never wrote anything

I will acknowledge that Jesus is a stretch, the Buddha slightly. You can't argue Socrates.

>>8398939
And by schools I mean literally: groups of people that met to discuss, reason, and search for truth.

Ok, challenge this:
A wonderfully written book could exist wherein the intricacies of 18th century stove construction are accounted. I would expect, from the logic I've heard here, that it is then justifiable to create threads on a literary board about stove construction; ins and outs: material, labor, resources, efficiency.

???

>>8398998
i'd read that thread, sounds pretty interesting desu

no one wrote a book about u being a big faggot neither, but here we are

>>8399010
Summer is so cash. I wish my mom didn't take my rollerblades away, though.

>>8398898
>>this board is brand fucking new
??

>>8398774
What book was written on the subject of this thread?

Pretending to grasp philosophy when you actually know nothing of it is a structural tenet of pseudointellectualism, thus it's a subject very near and dear to /lit/.