The faculty of thought

[Wolfstorm]

It is kind of amazing that we have the faculty of thought, and by thinking, can reach the same conclusions from philosophers from the past, even without reading their books. This is done by just activating your neural pathways, ie thinking. You can also combine thinking with instincts as well, the so-called "gut thinking".
Still, for the internet midwit, thinking does not exist. Because every time one thinking, rational being reach philosophical conclusions, the midwit asks for FUCKING SOURCES, EVERY FUCKING TIME. He wants the QUOTE from a book written by philosopher X from the 19th century who reached the same conclusions. The midwit can only memorize quotes, he cant internalize and analyze anything he have read in a philosophical work, he only QUOTES, he is just a library PARROT.
Some weeks ago I was thinking about modes and categories, about how it is easy to hold contradictions depending on the point of view, and decided to read Hartmann. I remember his name mentioned when reading about Heidegger in the 2000s, but no mention of modal thought. Since I was reading Heidegger again, I decided to try Hartmann.
So I open the pdf and read it. Lo and behold, he is reaching conclusions similar to mine. It is like there is a entire philosophical egregore in the ether and when you reach some conclusion, the right philosopher pops up in your mind to read more about it. This synchronicity does not happen to the library parrot, hence why he always asks for SOURCES.

 

[cosmicx16]

Still, for the internet midwit, thinking does not exist. Because every time one thinking, rational being reach philosophical conclusions, the midwit asks for FUCKING SOURCES, EVERY FUCKING TIME. He wants the QUOTE from a book written by philosopher X from the 19th century who reached the same conclusions. The midwit can only memorize quotes, he cant internalize and analyze anything he have read in a philosophical work, he only QUOTES, he is just a library PARROT.

Just the average person and their way of mental process. I made a thread on it before

 

[Depresso]

It is kind of amazing that we have the faculty of thought, and by thinking, can reach the same conclusions from philosophers from the past, even without reading their books. This is done by just activating your neural pathways, ie thinking. You can also combine thinking with instincts as well, the so-called "gut thinking".
Still, for the internet midwit, thinking does not exist. Because every time one thinking, rational being reach philosophical conclusions, the midwit asks for FUCKING SOURCES, EVERY FUCKING TIME. He wants the QUOTE from a book written by philosopher X from the 19th century who reached the same conclusions. The midwit can only memorize quotes, he cant internalize and analyze anything he have read in a philosophical work, he only QUOTES, he is just a library PARROT.
Some weeks ago I was thinking about modes and categories, about how it is easy to hold contradictions depending on the point of view, and decided to read Hartmann. I remember his name mentioned when reading about Heidegger in the 2000s, but no mention of modal thought. Since I was reading Heidegger again, I decided to try Hartmann.
So I open the pdf and read it. Lo and behold, he is reaching conclusions similar to mine. It is like there is a entire philosophical egregore in the ether and when you reach some conclusion, the right philosopher pops up in your mind to read more about it. This synchronicity does not happen to the library parrot, hence why he always asks for SOURCES.

Sources and quotes are important. They lead you to even more philosophy.

 

[cosmicx16]

Sources and quotes are important. They lead you to even more philosophy.

Yes as part of a structured presentation, not just a tidbit that people throw out here and there in basically irrelevant contexts. Everyone loves quotes for sure.

 

[cosmicx16]

H @Harrier Du Bois how did it feel reaching the border of state induced by heavy content absorption where you started noticing repetition in user memes, argument structures on certain core topics, quotes and the rest? Has it detracted from your experience or does the irony add to the humour of browsing? I guess it would depend on your original perception of other’s thinking skills. Personally when I read a post and reach a statement I know has been ‘regurgitated’ from elsewhere I lose the will to process that post wholeheartedly regardless of whether it provides meat to the discussion or not. Regurgitated topics, less so because we mostly have no deviance in realms of discussion simply by virtue of shared marks for content quality and original topics require a conscious effort to extract which isn’t an obligation of anyone. Still bothers me a bit though seeing more than 4 or 5 people talk about the same thing in differing threads over less than a week, especially if it happens on the same website(rare but it does!)

 

[porco-dddio]

I don't think I have invented much new at all. I have copied Aristotle and nobody noticed

 

[Harrier Du Bois]

H @Harrier Du Bois how did it feel reaching the border of state induced by heavy content absorption where you started noticing repetition in user memes, argument structures on certain core topics, quotes and the rest? Has it detracted from your experience or does the irony add to the humour of browsing? I guess it would depend on your original perception of other’s thinking skills. Personally when I read a post and reach a statement I know has been ‘regurgitated’ from elsewhere I lose the will to process that post wholeheartedly regardless of whether it provides meat to the discussion or not. Regurgitated topics, less so because we mostly have no deviance in realms of discussion simply by virtue of shared marks for content quality and original topics require a conscious effort to extract which isn’t an obligation of anyone. Still bothers me a bit though seeing more than 4 or 5 people talk about the same thing in differing threads over less than a week, especially if it happens on the same website(rare but it does!)

I would say I dont expect constant originality or any unique insights from every interaction. It hasn't detracted from the "experience" (such as it is for me). Instead, it has made me appreciate the people who are kind of like an exception to the average repetitive output. I can understand losing the will to engage deeply once you spot the regurgitated as well.
Overall im used to the repetition in itself as ive been heavily consuming content my entire life, im basically indifferent towards it

 

[Wolfstorm]

Yes as part of a structured presentation, not just a tidbit that people throw out here and there in basically irrelevant contexts. Everyone loves quotes for sure.

Arthur Schopenhauer talked about it, but I'm not going to quote him.
I think quoting is lazy, it stops the other from thinking about the subject, or from searching about it.

 

[cosmicx16]

Arthur Schopenhauer talked about it, but I'm not going to quote him.
I think quoting is lazy, it stops the other from thinking about the subject, or from searching about it.

Its only lazy because internet users lean towards being lazy. Lack of commitment to ensuring the product (a post to interject in other’s discussions) is satisfactory to an exceptional level, for most bored-out topics, is the only reason arguments online ever happen anymore. And i would guess applies to IRL as well.