How do you deal with the feeling when you read a philosopher

>>8684220
dumb weeb

it's because you are a product of the culture which that philosopher helped to create

you thought what you thought only because some guys had thought it long before you were born and they wrote some works and those works affected countless writers and artists and then you were born and read/watched/listened to something which was affected by the great thinkers of the past and it led to you developing the same ideas, and then, when you actually read their works you feel like it was they who stole your shit when it was they who made it possible for you to have those ideas to begin with

similar threads like yours appear on /lit/ from time to time

>>8684224
Congratulations on being wrong about two things in exactly two words. I have the awards right here.

>>8684237
Yes but how do you deal with it :(

Actually what you said has a lot to do with macintyre, since that book is largely about how we inherit moral functions from those who came before us.

I feel happy and interested because I like seeing an elaboration on my own beliefs. I don't feel like anything has been stolen from me. I don't think I'm some god-given genius with the most original and perfect ideas ever, and therefore don't mind other people thinking the same as me.

>>8684220
Everything everyone is saying is obvious. There was not a single fundamental thing I ever read that would surprise me.

Of course tripfag >>8684237 is right, but the feeling is still there. It doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading philosophy, the argumentation is still worth it. It's just that when I was starting reading I thought there was some secret level of deep knowledge and understanding that I will discover after reading enough. Now I feel like I don't know anything more than I did at the beginning, maybe I can just explain some things better.

Not that I have a stick in my ass and think I'm smarter than anyone else. The point is that philosophy is not magic, it's what anybody could think, but put in order that allows better and less messy discussion.

>>8684237

In other words, you got literally meme'd by a dude who lived hundreds of years ago. I understand the buttdevastation.

File: a53.jpg (32KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x333px

>>8684263
>OP identifies idea expressed in previous work as one he has also arrived at
>"got memed"
>"buttdevastation"

goddamn it, I fucking lost it

>>8684220
I'm sure someone before the first suspension bridge was made someone looked out over the river (or whatever it was) and said we could build a bridge over that. That persons little thought is to the engineer to conceived and built the first suspension bridge as your thought is the the philosophers. Perhaps a better example would be saying you are as good as Magnus Carlsen at chess because the first six moves of your last game are the same as one of his.

When a philosopher has an idea he has that idea in relation to everything he knows about philosophy which is far more than a laymen will ever has. When he comes up with a new idea he knows what the current world of philosophy is like, he knows what sorts of things the idea has to do, what sort of criticisms the idea will face. You have no idea about any of those things. If you do share a thought with a philosopher it is because of sheer luck. He will also think out the idea far more than a laymen ever will. The amount of thought required to say "I think we could use steel cables to make a bridge longer" and actually designing a suspension bridge gives you an idea about the gulf in the amount of effort and intelligence required.

>>8684263
>MacIntyre
>Lived hundreds of years ago