ITT:

Nietzsche.

>>2037414
t. buttmad Christfag

File: 1470206984355.jpg (64KB, 435x592px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 435x592px

>>2038095
t. buttmad Stormcuck

>>2038100
god is ded dude, get over it

>>2038107
Nietzsche is dead and wrong, get over it.

>>2038095
he's right, though. nietzsche made cognitivist claims and derived ought from is. literally 99% of philosophers in history have done one or both of these things, though.

niertzche, schopenhauer, stirner the list goes on..

>>2037411
Marx

File: 1480669369475.jpg (1MB, 1942x1998px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1942x1998px

Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche and Freud.
The "four horsemen" of atheism.

Although the first 2 aren't really philosophers.

>>2038129
Didn't Darwin convert on his deathbed [and secretly was a Christian]?
I thought I also recalled Freud helping set up Israeli institutions when the nation was independent?

>>2038120
technically stirner wasn't wrong because he made no claims that were apt to wrongness, only phenomenologically reinforced observations.

>>2038120
In what way?

>>2038135
>Didn't Darwin convert on his deathbed [and secretly was a Christian]?

That's a myth. The deathbed conversion that is. As I recall he never actually stopped being Christian, he just seriously doubted the claims of Biblical creation.

>>2038129
>>2038135
He wasn't secretly a Christian, he was one.
He didn't invent evolution that theory was already there he just determined that breeding and mutation converted species to one another instead of the previous theory of "they just wished it and it came true." (basically fusing the theory with one that came from a Christian Abbot).

and the reason he has problems with the church was concerning intelligent design. See: the teleological theory one why

also no one believes in Creationism except inbred rednecks from Burgerland.

>>2038113
He remained pretty consistent in that his philosophy was only opinion. It stems from "if you want to value what I value, here's how to go about it." He had pretty uncommon self-awareness for a philosopher.

File: Marx_old.jpg (205KB, 444x593px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 444x593px

>>2037411

>>2038172
>dude, what if we like, work together and stuff!

Why does /his/ and /lit/ hate Continental Philosophy so fraking muck?

>>2038156
>in what way
the way of the heart

>>2038183
It's just navel gazing without any seriousness of finding a real answer.

>>2038192
God is not a philosopher, He is God.

>>2038129
>nietzsche and marx belong in the same category
but
y tho

>>2037411
All of them

>>2038188
Well that's uselessly vague.

>>2038227
nah he was right about everything

>>2038201
Jesus isn't God. Paul made that shit up.

>>2038183
they don't. this thread is bait.

>>2038237
Jesus said he is God.

Why do you think the Jews tried to stone him? He was committing blasphemy according to them.

>>2038249
Nah. Paul said that.

>>2038249
>Jesus said he is God.
According to his false apostles
>Why do you think the Jews tried to stone him? He was committing blasphemy according to them.
Blasphemous part of a thing doesn't make true

>>2038237
So, who's God?

File: book-of-mormon.jpg (116KB, 944x993px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 944x993px

>>2038201
that isn't god.

>>2038286
There is no "who" to God.

>>2038241
name one thing he was wrong about

>>2038305
Well, first off, F is not for friends who do stuff together.

>>2038305
Well, his entire teaching is based on readiness, going so far that his whole life he follows the maxim 'I am ready'. Yet if we assume that life is pretty empty and meaningless, which can be seen over and over again with the aid of his so called adventures, he come quite fast to the conclusion that there is nothing to be ready for, that life is just a nightmarish torture that repeats itself like his episodes on TV.

Whats the concensus on Kierkegaard?

>>2038378
Christian existentialism is contradictory and stupid, but he was none the less an important figure in existentialism.

>>2038235
they reached the end of reason deconstructing reality enough so it doesn't have any meaning left other then the one created by yourself, neglecting that even though the fact that meaning is a product of the self and isn't by itself objective is of course true and known to philosophers ever since the Greeks, the true beauty of philosophy is the fact that even though we are limited beings who cannot comprehend knowledge without the potential of the reality being different than our conception, we can still examine the nature of the reality we experience to a certain extent, what man defines as good and bad is a purely instinctual feeling he projects to different ideas, but the instinct is derived from natural laws, and by examining those laws just as you would any other mechanical phenomenona, reaching objective conclusions and behaving in accordance to those conclusions man is in his best form, live harmoniously with nature and you would find harmony within you, as that is what you are just another interpretation and prospect of nature.
I'm sure you are going to reply something along the lines of "there is no such thing as the nature of man! one behaves in a certain way because of his environmental conditioning and physical artibutes!" to which I will reply "but of course! are the factors determining one's physical artibutes not objective? aren't we all at our most honest and innocent state experience love as a good and hate as bad? are we not all lovers of affection? compliments? calm voices? and are we not all haters of violence? berating and screaming?"
if you start thinking "but these aren't objective some people enjoy cutting themselves and getting screamed at" then you went to your mind and lost my point, of course people can influence the way they perceive their own experience, but again in the most honest, purest and innocent state we will all react instinctively the same.

that is the fallacy of most post-modern thinkers, denying objectivity.

>>2038456
>aren't we all at our most honest and innocent state experience love as a good and hate as bad?

What we love and what we hate are not objective good and evil. What you love can destroy you, what you hate can make you great. A cloying mother can destroy their children, grueling exercise can make them stronger.

>that is the fallacy of most post-modern thinkers, denying objectivity.

There is no such thing, and asserting it really hard wont change that.

>>2038456
Also objectivity has been pretty much completely destroyed by psychology. We're not objective beings, our senses fill in our understanding of reality constantly, and even the sanest of us is still ruled by a bunch of fundamentally irrational desires that shape reality as we understand it. We're phenomenologically trapped behind a wall of our own senses, and even our understanding of anything as well anything (say the distinction between two objects) Is fundamentally just an idealistic construction. We have to take a leap of faith in assuming that reality exists at all, and from there how we choose to evaluate it or interact with it is fundamentally arbitrary; your stopping point for what is or is not is no more or less valid than any other.

>>2038576
>We have to take a leap of faith in assuming that reality exists at all

Seems a little far fetched, reality is simply the things we observe. How can you argue reality does not exist?

>>2038615
Your senses can and do deceive you. In fact it's happening right now (your brain covering up the blind spots in your vision, olfactory fatigue preventing you from constantly noticing the odors in your surroundings, your brain filtering out meaningless background noise) so how do you know that your senses aren't in a constant state of deception? Why do you trust your senses at all? This is where the leap of faith comes in.

>>2038615
This.

Defining objectivity ist impossible. Negating it it's stupidity. The mere notion of ''objectivity'' proves it's existence.

>>2038576
you're trying to find an ethical view point with the singular prospect of logic to a reality which isn't made singularly of logic, the only logical perspective to look at reality is the one which encompasses its fullest range of elements, and that includes an infinite number of feelings, if you ignore subjectivity and tells me that it's arbitrary then you are ridiculously wrong, as that is exactly what created a lifeless world devoid of love and compassion for one another, a world soon to destroy its own environment, a world which thrives on hate, exploitation and murder.

>>2038667
>The mere notion of ''objectivity'' proves it's existence.

In what way? It's a logically consistent concept, but we're still not able to get around the fact that our senses are fallible and our understanding of reality driven by irrational impulses outside of our control.

>>2038669
I don't deny feelings. I just acknowledge that they're all baseless. In absence of some sort of objective external standard, there's no power that can say one set of feelings is more right than another.

>>2038698
It doesn't matter if our feelings are 'right', the reality is that they affect us, so we shouldn't discard them

>>2038706
I didn't suggest discarding them either.

>>2038698
what standard do you need other then your own?
what ever you are feeling is exactly what any other healthy human being is feeling, you're unwillingness to take a leap of faith in objectivity hinders you from reaching valid conclusions, what if Newton never tried to reach some sort of objective truth? saying "every conclusion I'll reach now will be disproven eventually.. why even bother" that is what we humans do, determine to what extent things exist, always making our little leaps of faith more precise with accordance to the reality we perceive, it's better to be relatively wrong then denying the validity of something which exists.

>>2037411
Dumb Kant thought all humans are with reason.

>>2037414
Nietzsche isn't wrong.
He would change his mind when he sees what individualism led to today tho.

>>2038754
I think you're assuming a lot about me. My philosophy can basically be summed up as "arbitrary is OK." I agree very strongly with Freud in that being able to handle feelings of ambivalence and uncertainty is indicative of a healthy mind. I just don't want to forget that these positions are indeed baseless, rather than self-evident moral facts that I should regard others as crazy people for not holding the same as I do.

>>2038776
I need to go to sleep but read some Huxley, preferably his post Brave New World books, he is the perfect example of morality done right, night anon.

>>2038839
Why post Brave New World? Didn't you like Brave New World?

>>2038093
underrated

>>2037414
First person that comes to mind.

Maybe if he had remained sane long enough he would have had a chance to polish his turd of a philosophy to some reasonable degree.

>>2038135
Literally the opposite. He gradually became less religious as his life progressed.

>>2038129
There is so much misrepresentation of communism in that picture I don't know where to begin.

>>2038645
Senses wouldn't exist if there was no reality to harbor them. Debating whether reality is real is typically just a tedious misdirection made by presuppositionalists.

>>2038286
That would be me. How's it going?

File: 1471219297914.jpg (39KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x380px

>>2037414
/thread

>>2037414
fpbp

File: download (3).jpg (4KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x168px

>>2037411

>>2038399
>Christian existentialism is contradictory and stupid

sauce

>>2042143
>>2038406
>>2038192
>>2038178
These are shitposters.

>>2038093
>>2037414
>>2037411
>>2038172
These are correct.

>>2042155
t. white boi

>>2042155
>Call someone a shitposter for pointing out that Aristotle, the man who was proven wrong about literally everything he said except for his "not even wrong" propositions that get a pass due to being unable to be proven or disproven, as indeed wrong about everything.
>Claim someone is correct for claiming that Nietzsche and Marx, who wound up highly influential in psychology and sociology (respectively) are wrong about everything.

You may not be a shitposter, but you are a fucking moron.

>>2042185
>relevant means right
Everything Marx ever said is wrong because of his pathetic idea of surplus value.

>>2042178
Not even Stirner, there are no photos of Stirner

File: ayn rand.jpg (98KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 300x450px

Does she qualify as a philosopher?

>>2042248
Stirner is like proto-anon.

>>2039774
>"like... are you kidding me!?"

>>2038129
>relative success of the free market economy
Ha.
Atleast when communism fails it doesn't take down the entire earth system with it

>>2043787
>Atleast when communism fails it doesn't take down the entire earth system with it


Aren't 150 million deaths enough?

I bet you blame "free market" for 1929 and 2008. Study more.

>>2038135
Also about Darwin - you're sort of bringing a present-day mindset on the religion to the past. You could be Christian (and see as one) without accepting the bible as pure fact.

File: image.jpg (59KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 625x626px

>>2043718

>>2043870
>image.jpg

How is it bait

>>2042248
Maybe he actually meant Rudolf Steiner was wrong.

>>2043668
>woman
No

>>2043787
So its only good at failing :^)

>>2037411
All of them were at one time or another...

File: soccer tease.jpg (55KB, 431x450px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 431x450px

>>2037411
>YOU CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN!!!1!1!

File: 4db.png (60KB, 860x650px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 860x650px

>>2043718

>>2038261

So did John.

>>2044198
Since when did Socrates think this?