Could I have some more essential "I'm 18 and think

Sartre, Camus, Schopenhauer

All kinda dope desu

there is literally nothing wrong with stirner's observations. your own assertion that he is for children reflects nothing but your ignorance of his works and philosophical history in general.

>>1811025
It's funny that the only people who seem to think that Stirner is edgy are the people who have never read a word of his works in their lives.

>>1812455
>>1812462
t. 14 year olds from /r/atheism

All of them basically.

>>1812477
>m-muh spooks
There is nothing wrong with being able to spot a spook.

>>1812506
>dude everything is a spook lmao just like kill everyone lmao im so smart

>>1812519
Why would I kill everyone and by what means would I kill everyone? How does it serve myself and what might do I have to do it?

>>1812477
even if that were true, it's irrelevant to stirner's work, reflecting your lack of basic logical understanding.

File: spooks.png (3MB, 1468x5376px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1468x5376px

>>1812519
stop being an uneducated retard and actually read a book instead of pretending to be superior to a hypothetical group of people you invent. you don't have the slightest idea what a "spook" is.

>>1812519
>14 y/o kid thinks spooks are whats holding him back from killing everyone and being smart
I got news for ya kiddo

>>1811025
>It's the "lol Nietzsche is for edgy kidz" thread

Nietzsche isn't pessimistic or edgy. You either didn't understand him or you haven't read him.

File: 2016_05_15_18.27.30.jpg (134KB, 653x1024px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 653x1024px

I'm a historian (at least that's what my BA says) working on my MA in Analytic Philosophy and I HIGHLY recommend reading by subject before reading by philosopher.

Historical context and perspective plays a pretty big role in a lot of cases (ontology, for example), and it helps you gain a better sense of how and why philosophers drew their conclusions.

Pic related. The most devilishly handsome thinker of his time.

>>1811025
If you want to be intelectually superior start with ignoring philosphy.

>>1812779
how do you get a BA in Historian?

>>1811025
I think you already have the "I'm 18 and think I'm intellectually superior" thing down OP.

>>1812882

>intellectually superior

>skip philosophy

You triggered me, good work

>>1813247
Philosophy has no value nor is it a scientific discipline.

You faggots are jerking around in your meaningless ivory tower without coming to a sultion.

Deal with it you are worthless scum.

>>1814624
>defining value without philosophy

>>1814628
Yeah I won't take the bait.

God it's good to be a real scientist while you fags just debate debate without even knowing about what.

Hurr I am smart that's why I talk so much about non important stuff.

Yes no value in reality, the only value philosphy has is inside it's ivory tower.

You don't come up with solutions you don't invent stuff you just jerk each other off.

>>1814640
>""""scientist""""
>does natural philosophy
>calls it science

>>1814646
Does physics, numbers and stuff you remember them?

The stuff you ignore since you dropped out of school.

Keep jerking around and tell yourself that you are intellectual.

>>1814652
Dude, I'm a STEM graduate because it's easy money, not because it's intellectually more challenging that philosophy.

You know Descartes, Leibniz, Russell, etc. famous philosophers? Of course you don't you just look at a math book and learn methods without comprehension. Hurr, look at me, I'm so smart, I just methodologically copy the text book, I'm so much smarter than those dumb philosophers.

>>1814624
>science
>intellectual
Not by design, friend. In fact the whole thing was pretty much designed to remove the human element as much as possible. The only role humans play is coming up with new things to test and understanding the results of a test in terms of what things to test next.