I've been thinking about philosophy for a long time, and I really want to start getting SERIOUSLY into it. Can you recommend anything where to start, any books or movies, something interesting and not boring? I want to start learning about it.
Thanks!

I have been reading the gay science and one idea keeps stuck in my head.

nietzsche asks you to imagine a demon sneaking up on you in your loneliest moment and telling you that you have to live this exact life again and again, forever. Every joy, every mistake, every boring Tuesday, in the same order, with nothing changed.

His question is whether you would collapse and curse the demon, or whether you’d call it the best thing you ever heard.

What I find interesting is that he’s not really talking about reincarnation. It works more like a test. If the thought of repeating your life fills you with dread, maybe something in how you’re living needs to change. If you could say “yes, again,” you’ve found a way to truly affirm your life, flaws and all.

A few things I’d love to hear from you:

• What’s your honest first reaction? Yes, no, or “depends which year”?
• Is it more about accepting the past or about changing how you live now?
• Does it still hit the same way if you don’t take it literally?

Has anyone read this alongside Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where he revisits the idea? I’m curious whether it gets clearer or more confusing.

Just a Little thought tonight, feel free to expres how u feel about it.

••••

Life has no meaning,
and this is beautiful because it allows every individual to explore within themselves what meaning they want to give to life.
So, because it has no meaning, everyone can paint life with their own particular colors

In approximately 1979 I read a compilation of essays or pieces which included authors Kant, Hegel, and Plato (I think but am not certain it was the piece about shadows).
Being a teen then, I recall being very impressed by the ideas, and noting my own (comparative, think I thought) facility with the readings.
The book, a hardcover, was on a shelf in my home, so it must’ve been one of my parents’.
The cover color was faded orange, and had that scratchy rough texture.
I’m thinking it was published in the first few decades of 20th c possibly as late as 1960s.
I would love to read it again but cannot remember its name. Anyone have any idea?

In everything I have seen, read, and heard, I believe that the use of philosophy and logic has deviated from its original purpose, which is to arrive at the truth and to learn how to ask questions to reach it. But on the contrary, I see this period as merely a show of being the smartest, and even most issues are no longer as strong as before or are repetitive. This is my point of view.

Is this a good order to tackle these philosophers? (I like having an order of prerequisites so i can go into each one with good prior knowledge and background)
What prerequisites/philosophers would you add?

Plato
Aristotle
Sextus Empiricus
Anselm of Canterbury
Thomas Aquinas
René Descartes
John Locke
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
David Hume
Immanuel Kant
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling
Johann Gottlieb Fichte
Arthur Schopenhauer
Søren Kierkegaard
Friedrich Nietzsche
Baruch Spinoza
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Jean-Paul Sartre
Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Nicolas Malebranche
Edmund Burke
Wilfrid Sellars
Albert Camus
Martin Heidegger
Bertrand Russell
Michel Foucault
Emil Cioran
G. E. Moore
Thomas Henry Huxley
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Alvin Plantinga
Saul Kripke
Brian F. Chellas
George Hughes
Ernest Nagel
James Newman
Graham Oppy
William Lane Craig
Clifford Williams

Even after knowing about bondages, rebellion and choice for freedom cannot happen because there is lack of love for the freedom.

Without love knowledge is dry.

We all know the constraints in life that prevent us from living freely. The reason why life remains the same even after gaining knowledge is because there is no love. An outsider can only impart knowledge. No one can awaken love for freedom within anyone.

I have read this concept from Acharya Prashant (Indian Philosopher and Author) in his philosophical framework (AP framework) he explains:

Knowledge + Intent = Liberation from suffering

It helped to reduce my suffering. So I wrote this post.

Currently reading this book I am 1/6 of the way done. I am debating if I should keep reading. It’s about the evolution around the concept of madness throughout the western ages. I understand the general points and idea but it’s so in depth that I most feel that I am doing a disservice by not analyzing/note taking and reading it as deeply as I should.

How did you guys read this book?

I'm considering two books: Mark Sinclair's Bergson and William G. Barnard's Living Consciousness: The Metaphysical Vision of Henri Bergson. But I'm skeptical of the authors because they're not widely read. And, of course, there's Deleuze's Bergsonism, but I'm afraid it might have the added complexity of Deleuze's own analysis. I'd appreciate any recommendations.

Does anyone have this book? I really wanna read it!
It's not available on Anna's Archive or Z-library, unfortunately.
Would appreciate any help possible!
Regards

Here's the link to the server for anyone interested: https://discord.gg/kpvXKzDaX

Hey, all. I graduated with a philosophy BA in May. I won’t be going to graduate school anytime soon, so I’m craving to read/talk philosophy with other people.

I have a wide range of interests. Strong background in ethics, Kant, and political philosophy. Good grasp of classical logic/formal semantics, modal logic. So can grapple with logic-heavy works.

Some topics/thinkers I’d be especially interested in exploring with other people:

- Plato; Middle/Neo-Platonism

- German idealism; Hegel esp.

- Philosophy of language; meaning, truth, names, translation

- Epistemology, esp. stuff by Sellars, McDowell

- Feminist philosophy; philosophy of gender

- Reasons/justification/normativity

- Philosophy of science; realism/anti-realism

- Metaphysics; universals, identity, substance, causation

- Texts/traditions outside of the western canon (western esotericism, eastern schools of thought)

Schedule is flexible. I read on the slower side, but love in-depth discussion. Love love LOVE to pick texts apart. It would be a dream if some people with graduate school education joined. But I would love for anyone enthusiastic about philosophy to join.

If interested, please comment below, or PM me on Reddit. I want to see how many people would be interested in doing this.

i started really liking her and want to know more.are there any books or resources where i could read about her?

Modelo mecánico para la doble rendija y el arrastre de marco: fluctuaciones del tiempo de tránsito en medios confinados

Lee este documento: 'Dinámica de Medios Confinados'. Aquí no hay magia . Para probar que el medio se modifica sin caer en discusiones filosóficas, la vía es la medición ultraprecisa del tiempo de tránsito. Si el sensor perturba el vacío local, la velocidad de fase efectiva cambia y el tiempo de llegada a la pantalla fluctuará. Ahí tendran la demostración física."

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/B28EW

El mecanismo físico: Interferencia de ondas constructivas

​Campo de fondo: El vacío se trata como un medio electromagnético continuo y elástico en lugar de un espacio vacío pasivo.

​Inyección de energía: Al activar el sensor, este emite una onda electromagnética hacia el medio local.

​Formación del canal de fase: La superposición entre la onda del sensor y el campo de fondo genera patrones de interferencia constructiva. Esto altera el gradiente energético local, abriendo un camino de menor resistencia (canal de fase forzado).

​Trayectoria de la partícula: La partícula conserva su estructura de manera integral. Simplemente transita a través del gradiente de mínima acción recién formado, lo que rompe la coherencia de fase original y suprime el patrón de interferencia en la pantalla.

QUEDO ABIERTO AL DEBATE