[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] [FAQ] 3 104 / 8 / 27 / 1 

/lit/ - Literature
Reply to Thread

[Original Form]

08/21/20 New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/

05/04/17 New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16 New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

 Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your
spam box!

[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]

philosophyvspsychology.jpg  (155 KB, 770x462) google yandex iqdb wait

Where does Philosophy end and Psychology begin?
Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)12:40:03 No.19133750  >>19133756
>>19133771 >>19134016 >>19134017 >>19134829 >>19134845
>>19135420

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)12:41:37 No.19133756  >>19133995 >>19135094

>>19133750 (OP)
when you start making money

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)13:54:06 No.19133995 

>>19133756
Do you mean in research? Or in terms of psychotherapy? Because philosophy has been
enormously influential, in fact indispensable to both.
Thus, the question continues.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:18:34 No.19135094 

le monad.jpg  (25 KB, 474x266) google yandex iqdb wait

>>19133756
nice

the ideal philosopher persuades people who read with the least amount of
rhetoric
the ideal psychologist persuades people who don't read with every rhetoric trick imaginable

a philosopher approaches the psychologist when he abuses the oratory art

a psychologist approaches the philosopher as his clients become more erudite

>Antiphon had been banished and was living in Corinth where he set up a “consolation booth” with
 a sign that
[ + ] [Index Catalog he could
Expired heal the
Archive] sad and distressed just by talking to them.3 When
[FAQ] 104 / 8 people came
/ 27 / 1   to
him 
he listened to their tales of grief and affliction and by his soothing eloquence healed their sorrow.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)12:46:43 No.19133771  >>19133778 >>19134205

>>19133750 (OP)
Freud is a materialist, you shouldn't rely on him to have an adequate definition of psychology, or
understanding of philosophy. In Neither Freud nor Heidegger is there an understanding of where one
'ends', that is why you should read Jung. Furthermore Jung has many similarities with Heidegger.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)12:47:45 No.19133778  >>19133782 >>19134205 >>19134811

Jung.jpg  (76 KB, 737x506) google yandex iqdb wait

>>19133771
>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this
“inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has
an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is
quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for
that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world.
The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like
every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever
“originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is
something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother,
the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
>In former times, despite some dissenting opinion and the influence of Aristotle, it was not too
difficult to understand Plato's conception of the Idea as supraordinate and pre-existent to all
phenomena. "Archetype," far from being a modern term, was already in use before the time of St.
Augustine, and was synonymous with "Idea" in the Platonic usage. When the Corpus Hermeticum,
which probably dates from the third century, describes God as το άρχίτνπ-ον φώς, the 'archetypal
light,' it expresses the idea that he is the prototype of all light; that is to say, pre-existent and
supraordinate to the phenomenon "light." Were I a philosopher, I should continue in this Platonic
strain and say: somewhere, in “a place beyond the skies,” there is a prototype or primordial image
of the mother that is pre-existent and supraordinate to all phenomena in which the “maternal,” in
the broadest sense of the term, is manifest. But I am an empiricist, not a philosopher; I cannot let
myself presuppose that my peculiar temperament, my own attitude to intellectual problems, is
universally valid. Apparently this is an assumption in which only the philosopher may indulge, who
always takes it for granted that his own disposition and attitude are universal, and will not
recognize the fact, if he can avoid it, that his “personal equation” conditions his philosophy. As an
empiricist, I must point out that there is a temperament which regards ideas as real entities and
not merely as nomina. It so happens—by the merest accident, one might say—that for the past
two hundred years we have been living in an age in which it has become unpopular or even
unintelligible to suppose that ideas could be anything but nomina. Anyone who continues to think
as Plato did must pay for his anachronism by seeing the “supracelestial,” i.e., metaphysical,
essence of the Idea relegated to the unverifiable realm of faith and superstition, or charitably left to
the poet.

CONT

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)12:49:19 No.19133782  >>19134205

>>19133778
>Once again, in the age-old controversy over universals, the nominalistic standpoint has
triumphed over the realistic, and the Idea has evaporated into a mere flatus vocis. This change
was accompanied—and, indeed, to a considerable degree caused—by the marked rise of
empiricism, the advantages of which were only too obvious to the intellect. Since that time the
Idea is no longer something a priori, but is secondary and derived. Naturally, the new
nominalism promptly claimed universal validity for itself in spite of the fact that it, too, is based
on a definite and limited thesis coloured by temperament. This thesis runs as follows: we
accept as valid anything that comes from outside and can be verified. The ideal instance is
verification by experiment. The antithesis is: we accept as valid anything that comes from
inside and cannot be verified. The hopelessness of this position is obvious. Greek natural
philosophy with its interest in matter, together with Aristotelian reasoning, has achieved a
belated but overwhelming victory over Plato. Yet every victory contains the germ of future
defeat. In our own day signs foreshadowing a change of attitude are rapidly increasing.
Significantly enough, it is Kant’s doctrine of categories, more than anything else, that destroys
in embryo every attempt to revive metaphysics in the old sense of the word, but at the same
time paves the way for a rebirth of the Platonic spirit. If it be true that there can be no
 metaphysics
[ + ] [Index Catalog transcending
Expired Archive] [FAQ]human reason, it is no less true that there can/ 8be/ 27
3 104 no/ empirical
1     
knowledge that is not already caught and limited by the a priori structure of cognition. During
the century and a half that have elapsed since the appearance of the Critique of Pure Reason,
the conviction has gradually gained ground that thinking, understanding, and reasoning cannot
be regarded as independent processes subject only to the eternal laws of logic, but that they
are psychic functions co-ordinated with the personality and subordinate to it.

END.

Taken from The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious and Psychological Aspects of the
Mother Archetype.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)14:43:33 No.19134205  >>19134215 >>19134736 >>19134976

>>19133771
>>19133778
>>19133782
Jung was literally btfo by Freud, friend.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)14:45:01 No.19134215  >>19135018

>>19134205
It's the other way around. Freud was forced to change his sex-obsessed model of the
psyche because of Jung but just became death-obsessed instead.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:01:58 No.19134736  >>19134862 >>19135018

Freud or Fraud.jpg  (34 KB, 640x414) google yandex iqdb wait

>>19134205
Imagine believing this, read "The Culture of Critique", and "Freud:
The Making of an Illusion". He was a sick pervert, and addicted to
cocaine.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:29:09 No.19134862 

>>19134736
>epic polmeme image
The rat man wasn't just afraid of rats but had vivid fantasies about rats gnawing
their way into his family's arseholes.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:53:01 No.19134976  >>19135018

mfwreadingthisshit.jpg  (18 KB, 400x499) google yandex iqdb wait

>>19134205
And Freud was btfo by Brentano and Husserl while he was still in
university, so what's your fucking point, retard?

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:18:46 No.19134811  >>19134942

>>19133778
>It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter,
anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world.
No it isnt. it occurs in that same world. there is no "outside"

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:44:41 No.19134942  >>19134968 >>19135039

>>19134811
How do you not grasp the idea of experience? You're not an inanimate object.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:50:03 No.19134968  >>19135026

 >>19134942
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] [FAQ] 3 104 / 8 / 27 / 1      
Though the phenomenologist would say that in experience there is also no inner/outer
dichotomy.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:03:37 No.19135026  >>19135060 >>19135082

>>19134968
What inner/outer can metaphysically be defined as doesn't matter, how Jung is
using the term 'inner' here is simply to mean life itself. We can look at the brain on
the minutest level, but no explanation of consciousness is possible, this is what
Jung means by outer.

He speaks in commonly understood lucid terminology, he's not a metaphysician and

isn't trying to be. So don't judge his words metaphysically.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:13:33 No.19135060  >>19135096

>>19135026
>We can look at the brain on the minutest level, but no explanation of
consciousness is possible
You're confusing our current inability to fully describe the mechanics of a
complex system with an inability to recognize the domain of that system.
Consciousness is clearly a downstream product of the nervous system which is
obvious because its affects are dependent on it. I hit you on the head, you go
unconscious; you go hungry, your mood changes. All too obviously material

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:16:42 No.19135082  >>19135123

>>19135026
I'm not but, as noted by other, he dismissed Heideggerian ontology and adopted
the dying husk of Cartesian ontology despite the fact that his own approach was
poorly suited to the latter.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:23:54 No.19135123 

>>19135082
>dying husk of Cartesian ontology
It's certainly not dead anon.

But again, Jung spoke in lucid terms to be understood. The fact that you can
understand that he was 'poorly suited to the latter' while he wrote within it
shows he was correct in his common sense approach.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:09:11 No.19135039  >>19135059 >>19135085 >>19135113

>>19134942
Your experience is an epiphenomenon of brain activity

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:13:33 No.19135059  >>19135071

>>19135039
>yeah bro let's just take a look at the consciousness cells here in the brain!

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:14:58 No.19135071  >>19135088 >>19135096

>>19135059
Evidence that consciousness arises in the brain: Abundant
Evidence that you are an immaterial soul: Zero

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:17:44 No.19135088  >>19135100 >>19135118

>>19135071
Lol these aren't the only two options. Undergrad take.
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] [FAQ]
Anonymous 3 104
09/28/21(Tue)18:22:51 No.19135118 8 / 27 / 1      
 />>19135128

>>19135088
Go ahead and state your postgrad opinion, we're all breathlessly
anticipating it

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:25:19 No.19135128 

>>19135118
I fleshed it out a little underneath.
The other elephant in the room is the undefined nature of
consciousness.
You might find the work of Varela interesting here.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:17:12 No.19135085  >>19135100 >>19135110

>>19135039
No. Brain activity (and matter) is an epiphenomenon of experience.
Suck on it.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:22:02 No.19135113 

>>19135039
>yeah so basically evolution evolved this giant fucking energy sink, conscious
experience, that does literally nothing

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)13:57:55 No.19134016 

>>19133750 (OP) (OP)

>Es = Sein
>Ich = Seiend
>Über-Ich = das Man

Woah!

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)13:58:11 No.19134017 

>>19133750 (OP)
Humanist, Jungian and Gestalt psychology are the closest branches to philosophy.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:05:07 No.19134752  >>19134772 >>19134777

The legions of the antichrist follow Jung and will continue to do so, while those of us who understand
Freud will remain unneurotic and blessed. Any objection to this truth is pure cope.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:07:49 No.19134772 

>>19134752
jung is the anti-cope

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:09:06 No.19134777 

>>19134752
holy fuck, you are retarded

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:14:58 No.19134798  >>19134802 >>19134805 >>19134984 >>19135101

1632341761967.gif  (2.16 MB, 224x224) google yandex iqdb wait

Unironically if you've ever been an atheist you're beyond saving as a

human being.

Both Psychology and Philosophy are reddit tier beyond the greeks with rare
exception.
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] [FAQ] 3 104 / 8 / 27 / 1 
You're missing the point of it all

Read Evola

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:15:57 No.19134802  >>19134804 >>19134805

>>19134798
>Read Evola
Arete, but you should also read Jung

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:16:49 No.19134804 

>>19134802
>only psychologist who didn't deny metaphysics is the only psychologist worth a damn.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:17:21 No.19134805 

>>19134798
>>19134802
Go back to /sig/ 90 IQ NPCs.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:54:47 No.19134984 

>>19134798
>Evola
this is what happnes when your parents are hicks and have a 5'7 fat faggot kid that is now at least
40 and wont leave the house

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:19:26 No.19135101 

>>19134798
Most cringe post I have read in my entire life, holy fuck. Do you also read Jünger because you're a
totally badass warrior? Christ alive.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:23:37 No.19134829  >>19134847 >>19134992

>>19133750 (OP)
Philosophy is transcendental or it is not philosophy at all. It does not study any empirical appearances
but rather the conditions on the basis of which things may appear at all. Husserl, Kant, Heidegger and
Wittgenstein all follow this method. Psychology meanwhile is just another empirical science that
studies what appears rather than appearing itself.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:26:28 No.19134847  >>19134852

>>19134829
Philosophy doesn't study anything. Philosophy is just mental masturbation.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:27:52 No.19134852  >>19134870

>>19134847
Wrong, it’s the queen of all sciences.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:30:33 No.19134870  >>19134923 >>19134959

>>19134852
That's math. But then you unironically consider Witty a thinker worth something, so it's
obvious how you'd be booty bothered by it.
 
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive]
Anonymous [FAQ]
09/28/21(Tue)17:39:15 3 104 / 8 / 27 / 1      
No.19134923  >>19134955

>>19134870
>mathematics
>with no transcendental-ontological grounding
Oh no no no no

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:47:13 No.19134955  >>19134979

8fc34ab4b8768dfb756df595d(...).jpg  (49 KB, 720x707) google yandex iqdb wait

>>19134923
>oh no no no what are you doing anon we haven't even
sufficiently established the apriori aposteriori knowledge
dichotomy stop multiplicating numbers this thing is gonna
blow!
Every time. Dilate.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:53:42 No.19134979 

>>19134955
Bro… you just multiplied 6 times 9 with first doing a fundamental ontological
analysis of the question of being… bro…

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:48:17 No.19134959  >>19135010

>>19134870
>That's math.
I would see math is the much-needed butler of the sciences, not the regnant.

Plus the pyschologism debate was huge in mathematics, especially during the early
20th century. For example, the Frege/Husserl debates.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:59:52 No.19135010  >>19135073

>>19134959
>pyschologism debate was huge in mathematics
>the Frege/Husserl debates
Most mathematicians wouldn't know who Husserl was. The big debate was chiefly
among Hilbert/Goedel/Russel/Brouwer.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:15:20 No.19135073 

>>19135010
Independently of that, the debate as to whether when we do mathematics we
discover the nature of the human mind or of real things 'out there' continued/s.
Frege convinced Husserl of the latter, which Husserl then applied to
consciousness. Today, both quantification and phenomenology are applied to
the study of the brain.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:56:22 No.19134992  >>19135007

>>19134829
To be fair, Husserl considers that the empirical constitutes multiple higher stratas of our
experience, and are fully recuperable at diverse points of his research (either at first when you
practice eidetic reductions or toward the end once you've managed to envision the
phenomenological monad.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:59:17 No.19135007  >>19135180

>>19134992
I may have been misled but isn’t what is fundamentally being investigated still the
phenomenality of the phenomenon?
[ + ] [Index 
Catalog Expired Archive]
Anonymous [FAQ]
09/28/21(Tue)18:33:04 No.19135180  >>191352143 >>19135227 
104 / 8 / 27 / 1 >>19135228

>>19135007
>I may have been misled
Probably not. Husserl is by far the most profound thinker I've come across. I've been
reading him for about 17 years now, and my conception of his phenomenology has
changed immensely over the time.
If you can find Gaston Berger's "Le Cogito Chez Husserl" (and speak French), it is by far
the best introduction to Husserl I have found. Sadly, I found it only a year ago, a 1950
edition that had never been opened (the pages were still uncut). Really wish I would have
found it earlier. I did my Phenomenology course paper on the Cogito in Husserl and it
would have been a tremendous help.
>what is fundamentally being investigated still the phenomenality of the phenomenon?
Yes, it is what you direct your view toward, but the aim is to create a valid foundation to all
sciences through transcendental explicitation. Ultimately, the process of reduction and
bracketing leads you to around on itself and let you contemplate your complete being,
(Husserl used the term monad early, but eventually switched to the term transcendental
subject or ego), as the ultimate seat your historical formation (which is where
Phenomenology shows itself as a potential valid foundation to social sciences, something
which has not been exploited much).
This is in part why I find the whole debate about the naturalization of phenomenology so
fucking infuriating. Husserl's phenomenology was already plenty "naturalized", it definitely
allows us to explore the stratas of experience that the naturalists wants us to focus on, so
the anti-naturalists are wrong, however WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT THE
PHENOMENOLOGY OF YOGA?!? They always end up focusing on retarded shit like that.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:37:02 No.19135214  >>19135742

>>19135180
Husserl bro, what do you think of Sartre’s critique of Husserl’s Trancendental Ego in
Trancendence of the Ego

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:39:11 No.19135227  >>19135742

>>19135180
>I've been reading him for about 17 years now, and my conception of his
phenomenology has changed immensely over the time.

How do you now see Heidegger's departure from Husserl's phenomenological

approach?

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:39:12 No.19135228  >>19135742

>>19135180
Question about naturalizing phenomenology, do you think Heidegger’s World vs
Present-at-hand ‘World’ is comparable to Sellar’s space of reason vs space of causes if
we read Heidegger as a scientific realist like Dreyfus does?

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)17:26:21 No.19134845 

>>19133750 (OP)
It comes down to what your anthropological presuppositions are. Most (modern) psychology
presupposes some kind of Cartesian mind, dependent on the function and form of a particular
arrangement of meat and nerve. Health is managing these functions and relationships. Some
philosophy is perfectly compatible with this, but others like Heidegger and Husserl, wouldn't recognize
this starting anthropology as valid.

Also Jung was miles ahead of Freud.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:01:18 No.19135018  >>19135035

>>19134215
>>19134736
The only two mistakes Freud made was to ignore the inorganic ground of impulse canalizing all of
man’s exasperation into a libidinal force, which happens to be only one expression of those impulses
and to give pleasure principle prominence rather than the power principle (that is, he ignored the fact
[ + ] [Indexthat pleasure
Catalog is just Archive]
Expired the consciousness
[FAQ] of a secondary interior sensation). 3Jung
104 /has never
8 / 27 /1written
  a  
single important thing in his miserable life instead had to turn to botched interpretation of esotetic
symbola.

>>19134976
Brentano couldn’t even interpret Aristotle in the right way lmao. His theory of history is one of the most
retarded things ever conceived in the history of human mind.
Husserl is cool but works with a rationalistic paradigm, it is ironic how in his works there is nothing
contradicting people like Nietzsche, Freud, Sade, that is, people who recognized that the ontological
ground is not intellectualistic.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:06:56 No.19135035  >>19135076 >>19135189

>>19135018
Woah anon, you sure do have some hot takes! But you let something fairly obvious slip here:

>usserl is cool but works with a rationalistic paradigm, it is ironic how in his works there is nothing
contradicting people like Nietzsche, Freud, Sade, that is, people who recognized that the
ontological ground is not intellectualistic.
This is the most broad retarded connection possible. Do you know how many thinkers didn't
recognise the ontological ground to be intellectualistic, and do you know on how many things
these thinkers disagree on past that? Do you know how much Freud would hate Husserl?

You haven't read a jot of whom you speak, but have homespun philosophy is spades.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:15:37 No.19135076  >>19135173

>>19135035
So your contestation to everything I said is: there are more proponents of
materialist/voluntarist philosophies and how come you like Freud and Husserl??
Yes, of course there are more. Schopenhauer is one but one who had not as deep an intuition
as those cited had. Most materialists are not aware of what materialism itself entails. I won’t
waste time with such retarded trifles, say something pertinent or fuck off.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:32:14 No.19135173  >>19135412 >>19135429

>>19135076
>So your contestation to everything I said is: there are more proponents of
materialist/voluntarist philosophies and how come you like Freud and Husserl??
No anon, I'm saying you can't say there is nothing in Husserl contradicting Freud or
Nietzsche (or Sade LMAO). It's also wrong to say Nietzsche or Schopenhauer were
materialists unless you have some epic definition of your own.

I said nothing about there being 'more proponents of materialist philosophies', nor am I
saying there are more components of these apparently 'materialist philosophies' which
differentiates them, since it is wrong to even group them together under 'materialist
philosophies'. They are wildly different philosophers with wildly different metaphysics.

Your attempt to unify them under a 'non-intellectualistic ontological ground' just shows very
plainly philosophical dilettantism. Whatever that phrase exactly means, you'd do better to
identify it as a very vague but progressively growing philosophical current in modernity,
rather than anything which could be unified over philosophers. However it is completely
wrong to introduce the word 'materialistic' in there.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:11:17 No.19135412  >>19135429 >>19135444

>>19135173
You can make an anti-intellectualistic interpretation of phenomenology, that is what I
implied (eg. Intentionality). Of course Husserl will think in one way and Freud in
another.
I didn't say Schopenhauer was a materialist (included in voluntarist as opposed to
intellectualist). Nietzsche can be read materially but in a way that will end up distorting
the core of his philosophy, his philosophy of power. Yes, I have an epic definition but
not of my own but I won't disclose it to you. About Sade, pfff. You have no idea about
anything concerning him, right? For example... does the revelation that he was closer to
Catholicism rather than Enlightenment hypoccrites shock you?
 Metaphysics
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive]means
[FAQ]nothing, it is just a methodology. Once 3you 104grasp the
/ 8 / 27 / 1reality
  of the

Absolute you'll see that it is not a pedantic attempt at unification but a revelation.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:14:55 No.19135429 

>>19135412
>>19135173
Ah another good one: did you know Freud was a platonist?

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:18:10 No.19135444  >>19135451

>>19135412
>Once you grasp the reality of the Absolute you'll see that it is not a pedantic
attempt at unification but a revelation

Pagan greek philosophers could not wrap their heads around the contradiction that
The Absolute is this ultimate reality from which all reality stems from but that this
reality is nothing but their own imaginary creation and making.

This contradiction was solved by theologists like St.Athanasius but have fun
engaging in mental sophist wankery over definitions and language

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:19:46 No.19135451 

>>19135444
kek

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:34:05 No.19135189  >>19135225

>>19135035
>Do you know how much Freud would hate Husserl?
They knew each other, they attended the same class under Brentano. And yes, they absolutely
hated each other.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:39:08 No.19135225 

>>19135189
It's a manner of speech. In other words, their worldviews are irreconcilable. I wouldn't be
surprised if Freud would go on to consider Husserl's philosophy as 'occult'.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:18:36 No.19135096  >>19135148

>>19135060
>we will explain it.. because we will!
Great explanation.

>Consciousness is clearly a downstream product of the nervous system which is obvious because its
affects are dependent on it. I hit you on the head, you go unconscious; you go hungry, your mood
changes. All too obviously material
None of this is contradictory to what Jung said. Do you really think everyone who argues for the
inability of consciousness to be explained materially is saying consciousness isn't dependant on the
brain?

>>19135071
>he thinks Jung believed in a metaphysical soul
How fucking stupid do you have to be to continue this misunderstanding?

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:27:57 No.19135148  >>19135201

>>19135096
>Do you really think everyone who argues for the inability of consciousness to be explained
materially is saying consciousness isn't dependant on the brain?
We can easily demonstrate that it's an epiphenomenon of the brain, whereas your a priori
assumption that something immaterial is also involved has no evidence, and really cannot ever
 have evidence
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired because
Archive]evidence
[FAQ] would have to be material. You have3nothing
104 / 8 / to
27go
/ 1 on
except

how captivated you are by your own subjectivity.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:35:56 No.19135201  >>19135226

>>19135148
>We can easily demonstrate that it's an epiphenomenon of the brain,
Sure, demonstrate it for me anon. How does the dependency of consciousness on the brain
materially explain consciousness? I'll speak in your materialistic dialect: there's nothing in
nature which cannot be empirically explained like consciousness. It should be a provable
result, but it's not. You don't know shit, and that's why radical materialists like Dennett have to
deny consciousness altogether.

>assumption that something immaterial is also involved

That wasn't claimed either.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:39:08 No.19135226  >>19135241 >>19135244

>>19135201
On my side: the fact that by changing the matter of the brain you change whether or not
consciousness is present as well as the affect of that consciousness, all of which
evidences consciousness being an epiphenomenon of the brain.

On your side: ??

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:41:09 No.19135241  >>19135265

>>19135226
Neuroplasticity refers to organic matter which is changed by experience. It might all be
material, but there isn't a one-way causal direction from
brain ----> consciousness

The story is more complex than that.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:45:55 No.19135265 

>>19135241
I didn't say it was one way, I specifically said it was a conplex system with a
feedback loop. Brain produces consciousness, consciousness processes
experience, changes brain. No immaterial gaps required here

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:41:24 No.19135244  >>19135254 >>19135269 >>19135376

>>19135226
LEARN BASIC PHILOSOPHY YOU SMOOTH BRAIN.

You just repeated yourself: consciousness is dependant on the brain therefore it's just
an epiphenomenon of it.

You already said that, just with another example. I've already replied to it, so reply to
that and stop repeating yourself. Or if you insist on not replying, stop repeating yourself.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:44:21 No.19135254  >>19135270

>>19135244
I see you've reached the tantrum stage where your frustration at your own inability
to argue turns into outwardly directed anger.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:47:01 No.19135270  >>19135310 >>19135376

>>19135254
So instead of replying to what I said or repeating yourself, you've chosen to
insult me.

That just seems like YOU'VE reached the tantrum stage 'where your frustration
 at your own
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] inability to argue turns into outwardly directed
[FAQ] 3 104 /anger.'
8 / 27 / 1      

Pure projection.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:52:54 No.19135310  >>19135335

>>19135270
You're using insults, capslock, etc because your argument is dead in the
water. It's really all too obvious. Just stop posting and hide the thread, better
for your mental health.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:56:33 No.19135335  >>19135376

>>19135310
Enormous cope. Repeating yourself is what ended this argument.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:46:56 No.19135269  >>19135297

>>19135244
I haven’t read the rest of this thread but physical brain states affecting
consciousness doesn’t make consciousness an epiphenomenon. It’s only an
epiphenomenon if consciousness also doesn’t have any causal power of its own.
There’s no way to know whether a p-zombie would act differently from a person with
consciousness.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:51:15 No.19135297  >>19135315 >>19135338

>>19135269
As you said, there's no evidence for it; just faith, the feeling it must be so.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:53:31 No.19135315  >>19135331

>>19135297
Ok, my contention that you've just discovered Richard Dawkins has further
evidence.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:55:56 No.19135331 

>>19135315
Nah. You're just trying to go at my intellectual pedigree to spare yourself
having to show that I'm wrong, because you can't, because I'm not.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:56:41 No.19135338 

>>19135297
The inability to be empirically tested is what makes it a problem of
philosophy. I think there are good reasons to believe consciousness isn’t an
epiphenomenon, even if those reasons aren’t empirically grounded.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:19:17 No.19135100  >>19135110

>>19135085
>>19135088
And I forgot to add that this is also only somewhat the case. In the case of neuroplasticity, experience
does indeed refigure the brain even at the material level.

This is why the notion of 'world' is important.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:21:29 No.19135110  >>19135124

>>19135085
>>19135100
[ + ] [IndexThe brain develops
Catalog Expired according to feedback but consciousness only exists because
Archive] [FAQ] 3 104 / 8 of the
/ 27 / 1brain
 and

while it is functional. Obvious enough

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:24:07 No.19135124  >>19135164

>>19135110
>The brain develops according to feedback
'Feedback' covers over the important point, in which a physical organ is moulded by that which is
not material in the most stringent sense - it is not quantifiable or measurable.

> Obvious enough

Yes I agree, obvious enough that it can be assumed to be taken for granted.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:30:56 No.19135164  >>19135212

>>19135124
>Feedback' covers over the important point, in which a physical organ is moulded by that
which is not material in the most stringent sense
And what exactly is this non material aspect of experience that you are positing? You're going
in circles here. The brain produces consciousness materially and the brain materially changes
over time. It is a complex system, meaning it has a feedback loop. Zero mysticism required.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:36:56 No.19135212  >>19135249

>>19135164
> The brain produces consciousness
Ok, first define consciousness in material terms.

> the brain materially changes over time

Yes, but through 'experience' which is not objective or quantifiable. Therein lies the rub.

>
Dynamic, complex systems are not just 'a feedback loop'.

> Zero mysticism required.

Have you just been watching 2002 Dawkins for the first time? No one is inserting
'mysticism' by pointing out remaining paradoxes in scientific understanding.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:42:24 No.19135249  >>19135288 >>19135935

>>19135212
Anon, you're just confusing yourself. I'm not breaking out a multiple greentext point
response here. Your brain is material and it changes based on things that materially
happen to it. Your thoughts arise from your brain and are not magically disconnected
from it. Try to understand just that point.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:50:20 No.19135288  >>19135320

>>19135249
>Your thoughts arise from your brain and are not magically disconnected from it. Try
to understand just that point.

The problem in communication here is that you lack knowledge of the huge amount
of literature across neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy that this debate
pertains to.

The simplest way I can put things is:

There are materialists who are not epiphenomanlists.

You are absolutely incapable of acknowledging the spectrum of investigation. You

believe that they are two positions available:
> Epiphenomenalism
> Magic

This is not the case.

 
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] [FAQ]
Anonymous /1     
3 104 / 8 / 27 >>19135367
09/28/21(Tue)18:54:03 No.19135320  >>19135344

>>19135288
Perhaps I'll reply to you again if you decide to actually articulate what you think.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:57:51 No.19135344  >>19135365

>>19135320
I have and I pointed out the fatal flaw in your entire framework which renders
debate impossible.
You are committed to the idea that the only alternative to epiphen. is magic.
This means that instead of defending your position against
counterarguments, you bring in the idea of magic and souls and claim that
magic and souls don't exist.

What would you say, for example, to the neuroscientists who argue against
epiphen. and use empirical findings to support their claims?

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:02:58 No.19135365  >>19135377

>>19135344
So you have nothing then.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:05:05 No.19135377 

>>19135365
See the arguments posted above, which you did not reply to aside
from talking about magic again.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:03:20 No.19135367  >>19135376

>>19135320
Sub-90 iq.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)20:43:42 No.19135935 

>>19135249
>Your brain is material and it changes based on things that materially happen to it.
Your thoughts arise from your brain and are not magically disconnected from it. Try
to understand just that point.
This only goes so far.
Sure we'll probably find some very broad cognitive justification to why our visual
experience is such and such, and these might explain things which Husserl called
empirical quasi-essences, such as why our vision implies a field (which I believe is
currently being explained by a conservation of pattern between the input of the
visual cells in the eye and on the "surface" area of the main visual brain (hilariously
bringing back the Cartesian Theater theory on the table, in a way)).
However the process of valuation of rationality in terms of the actual value of
thought? That is, so to speak, entirely done within language itself. Your brain selects
a specific subvocalizations amongst multiple candidates on the basis of warning
triggers along behavioural paths, but those warning triggers are very generalized.
Think of a child being denied cookies by his mom. His brain, unconsciously (and
therefore completely beyond the reach of phenomenology, just to be clear)
generates multiple verbal responses and eliminates them on the basis of set values.
For example, the sentence "give me a cookie or I'm gonna kill you and rape your
corpse", *if* it happened to be generated for any reason, would very likely be
shuffled away pretty much immediately, unless the kid is a fucking psycho. The
trigger is not associated (necessarily) to the use of the terms 'kill' or 'rape', but with
the behavioural path that it took. Once all but one candidate has run through without
hitting any triggers (or not hitting the ones that are loud enough), if the behavioural
path included an element of subvocalization, you will end up "thinking" the
sentence.
However the sentence holds more content than what the path could analyze, and
therefore can lead to another event of ratiocination. This cascade keeps happening
throughout our every conscious moments (as we are linguistically obsessed beings)
and leads to a constant overvalue of the linguistic content in relation to the cognitive
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expiredcontent.
Archive](This
[FAQ]is as per PPM theory). 3 104 / 8 / 27 / 1      
As such Husserl's psychologism critic is ultimately proven right a second time by
cognitive psychology itself. Psychology may be of help to study how our specific
condition helps or inhibits coming in contact with certain essences, but those
conditions will never determine these essences themselves.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)18:48:28 No.19135281 

Where my Stekhel niggas at?

Combines philosophy and psychology quite well

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:04:40 No.19135376  >>19135397

>>19135244
>>19135270
>>19135335
>>19135367
big mad

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:07:32 No.19135397 

>>19135376
Projection.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:12:24 No.19135420 

>>19133750 (OP)
sigmued freud was abatch.

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:16:01 No.19135434  >>19135484 >>19135517

455868094.png  (1.09 MB, 1080x1339) google yandex iqdb wait

What philosophy will give me a PAWG GF?

 « Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS 09/28/21(Tue)19:24:04 No.19135484  >>19135512 >>19136005 (You)

>>19135434
Depends on her tastes.
Try Oscar Wilde and some other poets of the sort. Memorize witty and romantic poetry

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:27:58 No.19135512 

>>19135484
fuck you cocksucker

 Anonymous (27) 09/28/21(Tue)20:58:38 No.19136005 

>>19135484
>What philosophy..
>Try Oscar Wilde
Kys

 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)19:28:47 No.19135517 

>>19135434
Comtean positivism
[ + ] [Index Catalog Expired Archive] [FAQ] 3 104 / 8 / 27 / 1 
 Anonymous 09/28/21(Tue)20:05:55 No.19135742 

>>19135214
>what do you think of Sartre’s critique of Husserl’s Trancendental Ego in Trancendence of the Ego
Based on the common misconception of a Husserlian betrayal of his own program and a multiplicity of
phases to his philosophy. This is not the case. Husserl was always consistent to his initial intuition,
was never at no point a realist in general (he was however always a realist about truth, which is were
the misconception came from).
In the end it falls under the very same argument I presented earlier about the monad/subject/ego in
Husserl past ~1910. Bracketing only affects you momentarily throughout the phenomenological
reduction. Obviously this moment can be quite long (in the case of Husserl, at least 15~20 years).
I know Husserl already talks about the subject as a monad in Ideas II, but I think he expanded his
view on it more in On the Passive Synthesis, which I am 99% sure Sartre never read.
>>19135227
>How do you now see Heidegger's departure from Husserl's phenomenological approach?
I am infinitely less hostile to it than I was in my university years. I still think the hermeneutic turn was
essentially a mistake, but I understand much better now how Husserl's was also at fault. Considering
he wanted Heidegger to follow up on his philosophy, he should have been more involved in his
development. Husserl wrote or dictated *every* single morning up until noon, but took years before
reading B&T.
The way I see it, even if Heidegger and Sartre were in the end wrong, they were exploring different
avenues offered by Husserl in his earlier books. Ignoring the later developments, or arguing on the
basis of incomplete readings is not ideal, but honestly, if you were to avoid trying forming an opinion
on Husserl before completely reading him, you'd die before doing so.
I can reproach them the insistence on characterizing their phenomenology as a correction of Husserl's
instead of a variation on it. I can't reproach them wanting to start again from the beginning; that is
exactly what phenomenology is supposed to make you do.
>>19135228
I am not that familiar with Sellar, or Dreyfus for that matter. I guess it would depend if Dreyfus's
reading implies something else than Sellar's psychological nominalism, which seems like it would...?

[Return] [Catalog] [Top] [Update] [Reply to Thread]

Delete Post: [ File Only] Delete Report Style: Yotsuba B

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned
by the Poster.
About • Feedback • Legal • Contact