Can black people go into philosophy?

Can black people go into philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/roots/marsh.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

I cannot understand what this statement is attempting to convey no matter how I warp my brain.

Why is he assuming our eyes aren't real?

At least Neil Degrass Tyson's "you can only kiss your reflection on the lips" tweet made sense although I feel it misses whatever profundity physics nigger was shooting for... here is an idea, ask these niggers to define reality, I'll wait.

Actually, Tyson's statement that "if a debate lasts longer than 5 minutes, both parties are wrong" might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard, unless it's some way he has evaded rape charges.

fucking woke

D U D E

It's because the image that is projected through our eyes when we see is not considered a real image. It's actually pretty funny if you understand refraction and shit.

he clarified that he meant we all live in a computer simulation in one of his tweets

Please don't associate us with that faggot

...

What are you on about? The image on our retina is considered to be an optically real image.

OI STRAYA CAHNT, YE FACKEN CAHNT WUO'S GOWIN ON CAHNT, G'DAY YE FACKEN DRUGGO CAHNT

DEEP THOUGHTS

Considered real by who lmao

Sensory perception is the most real thing by definition, its the following interpretation of perception as either things-in-themselves or things-as-idea that is the debate in philosophy, realism vs. Idealism

How about I show you a picture of you decapitated sister and we will have a laugh at how a real picture isn't real as an optical image

LOL!!! i agree

i forgot who it was in philosophy in college...Descartes? talked about if you see something is it actually there or just a image in your brain and its not there or something..matrix type stuff... was kinda cool when i got into it, but i forgot it all

My bad dude forget i said anything here smoke this bowl and watch some rick and morty

I'll be in the other room speed reading evola on meth

How these mutha fuggin cheken wangs get so crispay

How dis watermelon get so watery


>yes

Defining reality as outside sensory experience is abstracting away your ability to know anything

Rationalists claim a priori knowledge is possible prior to experience but experience overrides a priori determinations every time

huge mistake....coke is better then that garbage...coke a cola of course

What makes a nigga real? Jahdens? Hustlin'? Or fuckin' bitches?

does this mean i get hot pussy and cold beer?

No.
Contrary to common belief, philosophy requires abstract intelligence and is a difficult major for most people.
This is why investment banks and graduate schools prioritize strict philosophy majors.
Not that the information they learned is jack shit but simply because they are able to reconcile abstract concepts and delimas.
This shows that they can learn well and likely adapt better.

Contrast that to an accounting major. They could get through with hard work.
However, it doesn't reflect anything about verbal reasoning.

I have not met a single black philosophy major that graduated with a decent GPA.

no bs aside i forgot which philosopher it was ..would state theres a chair in front of me...but is their really a chair in front of me... forgot who it was.. i was in basic philosophy

Sure thing broski

its called getting high

I agree, I dual majored in financial theory and philosophy. Accounting is manual database compliance, that'll be automated by blockchain soon enough.

Problem with philosophy is they pass students with zero grasp of the core concepts, since it's really difficult to test abstract comprehension. Thus all the armchair Aristotles who have made the degree meme tier, I despise them

Same types who think existentialism is profound and never learned proper epistemology or ontology

No. Niggers arent able to think abstractly. There is a ton of data on this.

Are you sure you weren't just high at the furniture store

>Problem with philosophy is they pass students with zero grasp of the core concepts, since it's really difficult to test abstract comprehension. Thus all the armchair Aristotles who have made the degree meme tier, I despise them

How do you know you aren't one of them?

curious user..not being a smart ass... you would word rape me... what was your major? what made you get into philosophy? like i said just curious not attacking you

Maybe I am, then I would be even more pissed at these fucktard professors for cheating me out of tuition

Kantian ethics were over the head of some of these people

That's actually a pretty good written adaptation of the accent. I'm impressed.

I have always enjoyed reading philosophy. It's foundational to ethics, moral theory, politics, and enabled our civilization to become the scientific and technological marvel we see today.

I suppose I enjoy searching for what I consider to be truths transcendent of the physical sciences, and free as possible of dogma.

Bloodletting was once "settled science."

Standards were more rigorous back in the day and the scenarios described were difficult (6+ answer multiple choices!) and there were a lot of essay questions.
I don't think the testing abstract comprehension is the problem, but rather leniency on part of the professor. Standards have fallen.
The most profound is Kant. It has been said the Kantian framework changes the way the brain thinks.

so from what im kinda trying to understand due to your high vocabulary...what are your thoughts on religion compared to philosophy?

Quads of truth

i forgot who it was...like i said i took basic philosophy for needed credits in college..remeber reading about one guy who was attacked by religious nuts for his preachings...forgot who

Kantian's conceptual framework can be a paradigm shift, depending on your prior worldview. Some of his critics within idealism later on are excellent reads as well. I believe standards are dropping because in conceptually dense material there shouldn't be more than 10 students to a professor, in my opinion. Too much work for these guys.

I think of religion is applied metaphysics with cultural flair. I believe if religion had shifted away from materialist realist interpretations of the last 200 years, and more toward metaphysical idealism, it wouldn't have been so easily targeted by the leftist academic institutions.

We evolved part of our brain to normalize, religion is the best vehicle. Otherwise you get consensus based ethical systems.

*moralize, not normalize.

>James Marsh and Transcendentalism

>Common sense realism satisfied the head, but required no heart; and Marsh, like Edwards, tied moral behavior to a regenerative heart; "the man must become what he knows; he must make his knowledge one with his own being; and in his power to do this, joined with the infinite capacity of his spirit, lies the possibility of his endless progress" (Torrey 115). Further, Marsh believed that as a philosopher and a Christian, that the "ultimate ground of truth must also be a living ground. The soul, as a living and life-giving principle, could not be satisfied with abstractions, nor its hollow cravings be stilled with unsubstantial shadows and barren formulas. The great question with him as not alone what is truth? but, what is that which imparts to truth its living reality; which connects knowing with being; and in the clear perception and contemplation of which, the whole aggregate of our knowledge begins to reduce itself to the form, not merely of a systematic, but of an organic unity?"

>The scheme of Christianity, though not discoverable by human reason, is yet in accordance with it; that link follows link by necessary consequence; that Religion passes out of the ken of Reason only where the eye of Reason has reached its own horizon-and that Faith is then but its continuation." Instead of adopting, like the popular metaphysicians of the day, a system of philosophy at war with religion, and which tends inevitably to undermine our belief in the reality of any thing spiritual in the only proper sense of that word, and then coldly and ambiguously referring us for the support of our faith to the authority of Revelation, he boldly asserts the reality of something distinctively spiritual in man, and the futility of all those modes of philosophizing, in which this is not recognized, or which are compatible with it. He considers it the highest and most rational purpose of any system of philosophy, at least of one professing to be Christian, to investigate those higher and peculiar attributes, which distinguish us from the brutes that perish-which are the image of God in us, and constitute our proper humanity. It is in his view the proper business and the duty of the Christian philosopher to remove all appearance of contradiction between the several manifestations of the one Divine Word, to reconcile reason with revelation, and thus to justify the ways of God to man."

...

>Another consideration of importance here is, that while terms are vague and fluctuating, they lead much more unavoidably to indistinctness and misapprehension in our views of the facts designated by them, than in the study of physical science. Chemists may employ different terms to the same substance, and yet perfectly understand each other in regard to it…In other words, our language here is nearly inseparable from the theory which we adopt; and we cannot speak of facts of our inward consciousness, without betraying by our language, the system by which we express our views of their nature and relations….Yet with all the difficulties which attend the pursuit of this study, the interest and importance of it are such as amply repay the labor which it imposes. As an introduction to logic and metaphysics, a knowledge of psychology is indispensable. It lays open to us, and teaches us to observe and contemplate with ever growing admiration, that inner world of our own consciousness, which, rightly understood, is far more wonderful than all the phenomena of the world without. It reveals to us, in a word, our own being, the power by which we are actuated, and the laws of nature by which we are governed. (243-247)

>For Marsh, the act of reflection is a way to "view" scientifically and metaphysically, the activities of the soul on an external and internal level.

>Unlike Locke, who thinks that there are "things in themselves" we cannot know, Marsh, by comparing the human soul to a plant in order to describe the soul on a physical external level both humans and plants are affected by external circumstances: the human thirsts, the plant thirsts; plants and humans need food in order to grow. The second meaning of "soul" to Marsh is when he describes what separates the human "soul" from the plant-the plant has no knowledge of morality; it must do as it was created to do according to the laws of nature; whereas the human has the ability to make decisions contrary to nature, we have a state of consciousness about self, and we have the faculty of the will to make determinations about our life and goals

archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/roots/marsh.html

Why do philosophers shun laconism.

Sure they can. If they can stay out of jail long enough.

Language is an imperfect system. Brevity and precision are for spreadsheets.

Perfect!

>unless it's some way he has evaded rape charges.
my sides