Is there anyone else who cant take most of the shit talked about

>>8606827

Someone didn't fucking start with the greeks.

>>8606835
This. Plato literally has a dialogue just for people who think like you

>>8606838

Which one? Ive read only a small amount of Plato, just the first 6 dialogues in a big book of plato.

Plato, along with all the other Greats, is used as a pseudo intellectual posturing ornament to be placed throughout articles to try to gain more authority.

I cant be bothered going in to detail but everything the Greeks say can be disregarded as soon as you see the munchhausen trilemma.

>>8606827
>I won't bother to read all of these books because I already think I know everything and have the whole world "figured out"

How's it feel to be 15, OP?

>>8606857
You remind me of Thrasymachus, quick to state your fact and even quicker to leave the room. But I don't see why, since you're obviously more intelligent than Thrasymachus's opponent.
Please enlighten us, Don't tell us you're able to BTFO the greatest minds in history and not go into further detail! Only a complete pseud would think to do such a thing, but since you've declared otherwise it shouldn't be hard for you to tell us what makes you such an intellectual powerhouse that you can disregard the entire western canon!

>>8606945

Im still here m80.

I cant be assed to go in to detail but i intend to write down my thoughts coherently and comprehensively one day.

In short: Apart from infinte regression and circular reasoning, all knowledge is ultimately deduced from axioms. The criteria for choosing these axioms consist of more axioms (and so on). Morality, what consittutes a good life, and other less important questions are ultimately completely dependent on the axioms that are initially chosen. Nobody can refute the axioms so morality etc. is simply a matter of "feels". You can start by saying murder is bad or you can start by saying murder is good. Then you simply use deduction to conclude new things ("murder with a knife counts as murder so murder wiht a knife is bad") or new axioms ("the human foetus does not count as life at 1 week of age so abortion at the point is not murder") to make new conclusions.

Thats literally fucking it.

So why do people masturbate over Platos description of what he considers the ideal state? Social posturing desu.

>>8606968
The point of Plato is that you are SUPPOSED to contradict his axioms in forming your own worldview. You are supposed to find fault in his arguments and disagree with him. You don't seem to have grasped this concept well.

>>8606899
That, or he is a STEMfag (an ideological one, I mean. You can be STEMlord and not retarded I hope.).

>>8607261
>EECS major
>hear classmates complaining about poor grades
>"Why do we even have to take English and Humanities courses? They're useless to society."
God fucking damnit

>>8607313
>They're useless to society

To be fair, they pretty much are.

>>8607313
You're lucky man. At least you have that courses: in my country, if you choose let's say mathematics, you only do mathematics.

I have only do mathematics. I didn't even could see my classmates complaining about being retarded. That sucks.

Luckily enough we made a book club with the one who read and it was awesome. But the rest? Autistic or retarded.

>>8607322
s p o o k e d
p
o
o
k
e
d

>>8607322
>fair
>society
>use
>even they

that's why u need them
but probably u can't see that
because
u don't care
or u can't

I guess being an heteronormative white scum middle-class allows you to don't care about humanities problems, don't worry

>>8607330
>thinking "humanities problems" exclude heteronormative middle-class white scum

>>8607339
I didn't say that: I meant that I understand that some heteronormative middle-class white scum doesn't worry about them.
Of course he has problems, but he can not work on them and it would not be such a great deal. Not so much violence will be confronted to him. So he will be able to think "wow, such a difference between thinking about the cosmos and Truth and dealing with poor niggers or social theory. social worker? more like i-dont-understand-physics worker ahahahah"

>>8607322
Good luck being fooled by sophistic politicians and demagogues your whole life.

>>8607350
Wew lad - there's a lot of implying going on here.
First off, is English your primary language? I thought you were making some stylistic choices at first but now I'm not so sure. Second, you do realize that the humanities encompass more than social work, right? Literature, art, philosophy, music, linguistics, history, law, and many more are all considered topics of the humanities - "thinking about the cosmos and Truth" would fall under the umbrella of humanities. I have to ask, why do you believe an understanding or appreciation of the humanities isn't necessary simply because of someone's background? Why have a majority of the greatest advances in the humanities been at the hands of White men? Would the supposed underclass eschew the works of these "privileged" individuals simply because they weren't created by the underclass?

>>8606945
greatest minds have been btfo by buddhists even before being born. too bad buddhists also btfo themselves and obscured their knowledge (and became too 'religious') like all other religions

>>8607243
>in forming your own worldview.
but that's not getting you closer to any truth

>>8607421
Define "truth", and your reference to "any" as if there are many.

>>8607425
I suppose it would be absence of any man-made concepts/models and just seeing in 'naked reality'.

> "any" as if there are many.
That's just the way I worded it. You can see 'parts' of it though. Hard to explain I guess

>>8606945
>hating on Thrasymachus
epic bro

>>8607442
But all concepts are man-made, whether it's through introduction to humanity (through linguistic development) or direct creation.

>>8607425
>>8607442
Also, I want to ask - isn't it a function of the mind to separate you from reality? If searching for truth means getting as close as possible to reality, isn't rationalizing the word the worst thing you can do?

>>8607453
Didn't see this post before I posted my reply btw. not sure what to say to it though >>8607458

I bet you're one of those "curtains are blue" faggots

>>8607458
As for the rationalization, it really depends on whether you're approaching it from the continental or analytic viewpoint on metaphysics. The continentals will grab much more to something that isn't necessarily tangible, while the analytics will try to rationalize existence for the purpose of reaching a logical conclusion on its basis. Also, the mind can't separate you from reality when it is your only connection to it - without the mind you would have no concept of reality.

>>8607473
But concepts is what we're trying to avoid. We want to experience reality as it is. "This is a box", "This is a water bottle" is what the mind does to think about the world. This is good and useful, I mean, technology and shiet. But can we get to the bottom of existence that way or are we only building up, going farther and farther

And yes, you would be unaware of reality but reality would still be there >>8607473