/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 13112
1,2 MB, 854 × 480
201 kB, 1178 × 1500
108 kB, 453 × 640
31 kB, 421 × 453
What do you think is a good philosophy that just simply accepts Man for how he is and actually accepts the world for what it is without actually imposing its own rules and laws and observations upon the observed? Do you think that there is any philosophy which is actually objectively truthful and neither attempts to change the nature of the Man or that envisions some "answer" like Salvation to the actual state of affairs, but quite simply observes the natural order of things without necessarily any judgment or cloudiness of vision from personal biases, assumptions, principles, and conclusions? Do you think such a thing is possible?

Do you think that there is any actual philosophy that truly can tell you not to change the nature of a man, or offers some utopian ideal or grim pessimism, but quite clearly sees things for how they are?

And yes I am aware of Sartre though admittedly don't actually know a whole lot about existentialist thought. And I don't just mean Mankind and the self centeredness of much philosophical conjecture but an accurate depiction of simply the world/universe/reality devoid of hopes expectations or fears, and quite simply in utter naked boldness declares "this is how things are" without biased flaws?
>>
No. 13115
84 kB, 435 × 552
If you define anything, which you are doing merely by seeing something as an object, you are imposing biased perceptions upon it. Anybody claiming that they can see the universe 'objectively' is a hack.

Anything thought up by a human is inherently biased by their life experience and it's only compounded by the fact that 'objectivity' is a failed concept when one realises that we exist in our own perceived universe meme bubbles and are incapable of meaningfully interacting with anything outside of said meme bubble.
>>
No. 13120
>>13112
>simply accepts Man for how he is
>accepts the world for what it is
I'd say buddhism.
>>
No. 13121
Charles Darwin
Sure it's not the final answer, at least yet, but any philosophy trying to get to the bottom of human nature will have to go through it.
>>
No. 13122
>>13120
Agreed.

In western philisophy I'd say Camus comes closest.
>>
No. 13124
No.

Man is trapped in itself. He can only speculate on the outside.
You could take a ride on the posthumanism train traveling the world right now. Man is an object between other objects. Yet it's speculative and therefore does not meet up to your standards.

A method of philosophy or science always implies a bias already, therefore >>13121 is not a valid answer, you cannot choose a method without having a bias to choose exactly the method you choose.

Btw. science and constructivism aka bias https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KnPBg-tanE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

might be something interesting, but I never read him and apparently his books are not known in the anglosphere

>Like his one-time mentor Talcott Parsons, Luhmann is an advocate of "grand theory," although neither in the sense of philosophical foundationalism nor in the sense of "meta-narrative" as often invoked in the critical works of post-modernist writers. Rather, Luhmann's work tracks closer to complexity theory broadly speaking, in that it aims to address any aspect of social life within a universal theoretical framework - of which the diversity of subjects he wrote about is an indication. Luhmann's theory is sometimes dismissed as highly abstract and complex, particularly within the Anglophone world, whereas his work has had a more lasting influence on scholars from German-speaking countries, Scandinavia and Italy
>>
No. 13131
>>13112
>>13120

I'd opt for Stoicism.
>>
No. 13137
Buddhism, if you remove the metaphysical BS.
>>
No. 13140
>>13137
Rude. I enjoy it.
Pure land buddhism is confusing to me however. Tibetan symbolism and mantra practices are nice I think.
>>
No. 13142
20 kB, 474 × 528
>>13131
Stoicism is just nihilism in disguise.

A life denying philosophy for cowards who want to avoid suffering, and thus hide from life.

t. nietzche
>>
No. 13151
>>13140
Pure Land might as well be an Abrahamic religion.
But Mahayana in general is good for promoting compassion and interaction with the world. Demotic elements that resemble lesser faiths can be forgiven due the relatively benign form that Bodhisattva devotion tends to take.
Tibetan Buddhism is too prone to the worst excesses of monasticism that have plagued all Buddhist countries to some extent.
Theravada is pure but boring.
>>
No. 13194
Any philosophy holds terminology and categorization thus simplifying and limitizing the world and the man. Only pure animal mind is free from dogmatism and structuralization.
>>
No. 13196 Kontra
>What do you think is a good philosophy
you are searching for a religion or ideology to follow, mr. burger. philosophy might be able to help you in that quest, however you are not looking for a "good philosophy".
>>
No. 13198
>>13142
Nietzsche is totally overrated.
>>
No. 13200
>>13196
>you are searching for a religion or ideology to follow,
No, I am vaguely disputing the very idea of there being a philosophy to follow or moreover whether it is even possible to form one/arrive at one without the taint of biases and general blindness. Or in other words, is it even possible to perceive a thing as it is without merely attempting to ascribe some "thingness" to it and attempt to categorize and order it within the universe as accord's one's personal beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, perceptions, and obsessions. What I am actually much closer at asking is, can it even be possible for any human being to ever truly know "Truth" or God?
>>
No. 13201
Cioran is basically everything OP said.
>>
No. 13202 Kontra
>>13201
>wikipedia
>the famous triangle of nietzsche - postmodernism and endless deconstruction

The "there is no truth" truth?

treda can be glosed :DDD
>>
No. 13211
>>13200
I'd say these are more questions of biological limits to perception than about philosophy?
You'd end with a machine or mechanism that counts all molecues, electrons, positrons, photons and writes a log about their positions in the universe at a given time if you want this kind of "objectivity".

Your best bet as a human for seing (at least some) things "as they are" is probably some form of meditative praxis.
>>
No. 13215
>>13200
>of there being a philosophy to follow
will you anglos ever learn what philosophy is? it is, like math, a SCIENCE. you can't "follow" "a math". neither can you "follow" "a philosophy". you may agree or disagree with statements and theories different philosophers have issued. however, the fact that individual philosophers also deal with matters within the usual domain(s) of religion and/or ideology doesn't mean that religious or ideological beliefs or politics become "a philosopy of x". philosophers are neither priests nor politicians nor yoga mentors. philosophers are scientists and philosophy itself is simply the most universal science. which does not, unlike other sciences, seek to assess, describe and predict rather specific sets of phenomena such as numbers, quantum mechanics or sociology, but basically everything. richard david precht said it basically links all sciences together - i do basically agree with this, however i'm more with the old greeks here, i'd describe it more as an umbrella for all sciences, in mathematical terms that would be a set of (yet?) unknown cardinality.