>Unironically liking Nietzsche
Whenever I see some edgy nigger talking about him and how nihilist they are because life makes no sense and nothing matter, I crack up.
#notAllNietzscheFans are fucking edgy teenagers misinterpreting the super men like those faggots that murdered a kid in the 40's because they were stronger.
Nietzsche was a radical twist in the cathegoric imperative, that all the actions have to serve as example of perfection, but only the perfect men born like that could do that.
Just focus on the idiots that like ayn rand mmm'kay?
Yeah, Nietzsche was vehemently anti-nihilism
The man himself was a genius but I hate the legions of teenagers who skim his Wikipedia page and then go around saying they're the Übermensch (see /v/'s very own Icycalm)
Do people above the age of 12 seriously use this ancient trash meme?
I guess people call him nihilist because he said stuff about god being dead and stuff, which rustles a lot of jimmies since Descartes made some bullshit formal logic to demonstrate he existed and anyone saying the contrary is technically wrong. If God doesn't exist, then nothing makes sense because of faulty assumed logic, therefore why I guess they name him "nihilist".
I didn't exactly like his ideas, but I actually hate anything that has to do with Nietzsche because it is used by edgy self-called nihilist teenagers that want to look deep who didn't read a bit about him. Not the man's fault, though.
>like I said in the previous sentence
>like I said in the previous sentence
Thing is, Descartes demonstrated correctly everything until that point. He literally questioned everything and the "cogito, ergo sum" deduction is pretty flawless. However, he fucked up from there. The whole evil spirit shit is just a quick way to demonstrate the existence of God, since it is an unnecessary check (nobody can trick you into thinking you exist while you don't, that's stupid).
Also, he assumed ideas like infinite are fully understood by the human mind, and not just emulated. I don't think humans can grasp infinity, just indefinite loops and big-ass numbers.
i can grasp infinite
once a calculus teacher told us that thinking and visualizing a n-dimensional space was easy, just think about a 3 dimensional space and then extrapolate to n
so i did it when n tends to infinite and im sill processing
So in my Soc 111 book right after my author finishes getting done sucking marx's dick he then talks about this dude named Max Weber for like a paragraph. He was basically a critic of people like Marx that said "Hey why dont we all try to be objective, and, yknow, sane."
Dont know if he counts but hes my favorite person ive learned about in Sociology.
Also Banjo Kazooie for the favorite
For his time era he was un fucking touchable. His logic was sound, and at the time there was a rift between science and the Church. By him using rational logic (even if it gets loopy by today's standards) for the proof of God, he basically gave the literate world the equivalent of "Christians 1, Others 0."
It was interesting being in Philosophy 101 and seeing college kids from all spectrums trying to attack Descartes's shit and getting frustrated trying to go around his logic.
>It was interesting being in Philosophy 101
I tried doing this too. The only rebuttal I got from the teacher was along the lines of "he is a philosopher, you aren't".
Seriously tho, it isn't hard to demolish his logic when all he says is "if God is perfect, he has to exist". I have seen troll religion threads bringing up better points.
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.
I've recently become something of a Kantian. Although, even though he may not count, my favorite by far would be Dostoevsky.
Actually Diogenes has nothing to do with people with Diogenes's syndrome. He just lived like a hobo with as less properties as possible, totally the opposite of a garbage collecting person.
Yes, but in Philosophy, you have to use actual logic. Speaking from Meditations, all of "if x then y" logic he uses in it is sound. Shouting YEAH WELL EXPLAIN DINOSAURS may seem like it's making a point against intelligent design, but it's not using Descartes's logic. If x then y is not demolished by saying Well y sometimes z.
Immanuel Kant. Leibniz is a close second.
Shit dude, read some Voltaire. He really was a shitposter. His encyclopedia is easy to digest, and it's basically just
>giant wall of sarcastic text
>idea is shit
All of the men of letters are like OMG DEMOCRACY and SELF DETERMINATION. They're all writing letters to each other, worshipping Voltaire and Voltaire is like
>lol I'm a monarchist, fags
And then he assblasted Rousseau. Other philosophes like Diderot, d'Holbach, and d'Alembert in particular were criticizing Emile and Rousseau being a sperg and Voltaire is again basically like
>not a hypocritical fag
And then all the other philosophes collectively shouted BTFO at Rousseau citing Voltaire's wisdom.
He doesn't have to defend it he has to state it.
Jesus believed in a life of material poverty, that the world was corrupt and worthless, and that true happiness would be found in receding from it and to God. Happiness to him was not of this earth. Given the influence this aesthetic philosophy had on the world, i'd say he definitely belongs on there.
I don't think he was a philosopher. He didn't study the world, he came here to save us. From a fundamentally christian standpoint Jesus is less of a Philosopher more of a religious teacher or guide.
However my stance may be stupid and I may be classifying philosophy all wrong.
One day you will die, even if there weren't an afterlife he would be correct in assuming one should be compassionate and charitable to others-- as it is a matter of survival; or else the world would eventually fall to entropy due to war and greed.
>not useless trivia
Nah, it's just something people build egotism for knowing. Sort of like talking to a hipster about music, but more intelligent. I love philosophy to death, but I'll also admit it's useless in a utilitarian mindset and is basically sports talk banter for people who like it.
90% of Philosophy conversations go as follows
>hey, do you x book from x author?
>no, but have you read y book from y author?
>no, but x author said x
>oh, that's cool, but y author said y
>/v/ knows this much about pholosophy aka total wankery that's not useful
no wonder this place is shit, call me back when all of you philosofags can into logic and reason.
who /STEM/ masterrace here?
Nietzche is basically "Anti-Nihilist"
>in b4 TV tropes
Basically, life is devoid of meaning but helping others not for reward or moral responsibility but because it's in your nature to do so is the ultimate human being.
Favorite video game would probably be Ocarina of Time
Favorite Philosopher is probably Nietzche although Wittgenstein and Popper are close seconds.
your point is fucking shit, m8.
Not thinking about philosophy essentially means not thinking about how you act beyond "does it feel good and will I get in trouble for it," and that's a big no no.
But isn't "our nature" too tied up in biology for Nietzsche to be valid?
We can't will our nature to be different, it's tied to our status as humans. Kant says "be good because you're supposed to" and that makes much more sense to me.
Like I said, I do love philosophy, but my point of it being a lot of egotism is made pretty clear by your sperg out. Utilitarianism was simply brought up because the guy I was replying to felt insecure about being ignorant of a lot of philosophy, but it really isn't needed or approached formally by a huge majority of humans, and yet society still functions.
That's why he was saying it is a being beyond our will and comprehension, basically to be an Ubermensch, you can't be Human. Your instinctual drive to help others is the same as our drive to eat, breathe, and sleep. Basically Nietzche is looking at the next philosophical evolution of humans, not humans themselves.
Oh jesus, you're asking for a shitstorm now.
>it's a lot of egotism because you expressed disagreement in a philosophy discussion
Fuck you, Kant's my dog.
Then how are we supposed to act?
Kant is probably the most dangerous man to ever exist. He's a wrecking ball of culture and civilization and he did more damage to humanity than all of the world's greatest dictators combined.
>Kant is probably the most dangerous man to ever exist. He's a wrecking ball of culture and civilization and he did more damage to humanity than all of the world's greatest dictators combined.
Mind explaining that a little bit?
>Then how are we supposed to act?
Multiple ways to look at it. 1 is just do whatever because you're flawed and that flaw is always present, 2 is try to emulate the Ubermensch as close as possible, but again, it's impossible to completely be that due to our own nature. The second one is basically a response to how do we live in a post-religious world devoid of meaning.
What the fuck is wrong with Kant? I don't agree with everything he wrote but he had noble ideals.
I think people overestimate the importance of the Übermensch in Nietzsche's philosophy.
It was only in one book.
I'm not actually sure, it's been awhile since I read Beyond Good and Evil, there's a reason a lot of people consider Nietzche to be more of a prophesier rather than a philosopher.
>no mention of schoopy doopy doo
Look at this flippant son of a bitch and his contempt for your bullshit
Arthur should be the patron saint of /v/irgins
Personally I've never read Kant beyond Thus Spake Zarathustra when I was still in high school - that's why I was curious.
I gotta read more philosophy in general, really. I've got The Sickness Unto Death lined up, but I'm reading a book my grill gave me about vikings right now.
Morrowind and Schopenhauer superior race reporting in. You guys can't even conceive how well pessimism and CHIM go together.
Yeah, but the OP image already has Darwin, Jesus, Machiavelli and Augustine and none of them are strictly philosophers.
Augustine was great by the way, best christfag ever aside from Kookyguard
He ham stringed reason more than any other man in history. He told us that our "phenomenal" world was not reality, but a twisted distortion of it. He told us that we we are incapable of knowing or understanding reality, because our consciousness is limited to a specific nature, and that consciousness perceives by specific means that are not capable of perceiving the "noumenal", that which has to be believed, rather than observed or understood.
Therefore, our consciousness is not valid by virtue of the fact that we cannot observe reality. We are blind because we have eyes. We are deaf because we have ears. And the things we perceive do not exist, because we perceive them.
His virtues are based not on value, but on the negation of such. A man who volunteers or donates to charity cannot claim morality if he enjoys doing so, because the act benefits him through his happiness. Morality can ONLY exist in the man who sacrifices his own well being/happiness. In order to be moral, it is not enough that others gain, but you must lose.
I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.”
Well, he's right. You can't be 100% sure of the things you perceive. No one today believes you can.
>Morality can ONLY exist in the man who sacrifices his own well being/happiness.
You don't agree that a man who takes no pleasure in doing good, yet only does good, is a more "moral" man than one who enjoys every good act he does?
> No one today believes you can.
You proved my point. No sane person on earth would believe this if Kant hadn't come along and closed the door on reason. Kant is the reason we aren't flying through space and fucking robots. He cut our legs off right as humanity was about to transcend the constraints of faith.
Existence exists. I see a poster infront of me, it is framed in glass. That poster and that frame exists. They have value, they are made of atoms. If every living being in the universe died tomorrow, that poster would still be there. Observation and perception are what allow us to experience reality, but reality goes on existing without us. Every single philosophy that purports to be able to prove that you, or anything else you perceive doesn't exist stems from Kant and his poisonous fucking metaphysicality.
And no, I don't agree. At the very least, they can claim the same moral credit. And I would argue the man who enjoys what he is doing is more moral because he is creating value for both others and himself. But I'm not going into that argument here.
Einstein sited Kant as one of his inspirations for being able to think outside the box.
Kant didn't shut the door end all be all on reason. he shut the door on the final word of reason, and "faith" for Kant is not your colloquial peasant's faith; rather its what you are left with after you logically give up pure reason.
Kant is not alone in coming to this conclusion its not the "excuse for faith in god" or the excuse for post modern bullshit people often think it is.
Kant is too misunderstood to read a wiki page on his work and get it. thats not an insult its a general statement.
Dont think im not recognizing that this is a thinly veiled /lit/ thread OP.
Ill play along
> Fallout new vegas
> Adam Smith
I like the idea of leaving the market the fuck alone. Surprised the picture doesnt have keynes, as there is both Lenin and Marx.
>Existence exists. I see a poster infront of me, it is framed in glass. That poster and that frame exists
Kant doesn't say that the poster doesn't exist. He says since we're only able to perceive it through our sense of sight, we can't be sure we necessarily know everything there is to know about it - at least, that's been my understanding of it.
As for the "man who likes doing good v. man who hates doing good" thing, I'd argue that, as long as the man who enjoys doing good is intending to do good for good's sake and not for his own enjoyment, they're both good.
I've read his shit and it disturbed the hell out of me.
I hear a lot of people defending it by saying "oh, that's not what he meant" or "He's just misunderstood, he didn't really mean it like that."
He absolutely did.
Are you arguing that Kant's thought boils down to solipsism?
>tfw /v/ discusses philosophy with more civility than /lit/
You guys never stop surprising me
>Psychology as a field
Neuroscience or bust, faggot.
No, I'm arguing that Kant's thought boils down to the single most insidious, destructive, and knowingly perpetrated façade ever conceived. He's a James Bond villain, except he actually won.
He stopped us.
He stopped mankind.
And he laughed at us on his deathbed.
Beauvoir and Sartre. They were classy people.
I've actually had a grill straight up tell me that Beauvoir is a respectable philosopher and an important feminist.
I couldn't stop laughing.
I always wanted a toph version of whatever this meme is called
Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door
Milton Friedman (special mention: Hayek, Mises)
>People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
B T F O