Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Is it a blessing in disguise that modern society doesn't take philosophy seriously?
If they tried to -- lacking the strength for recognising the primacy of philosophers of the Spinoza, Stirner, Nietzsche, Alex Kierkegaard type -- they would glorify only those who appease the majority's weaknesses, state-sanctioned. Perhaps even those who provide the greatest antidote to the aforementioned, the corruptions (as Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Foucault are for Nietzsche).
Instead with philosophy's disregard or ridicule, we at least have that a chaotic laise faire liberal realpolitik political mess, that allows elitism to thrive in the fields where the masses have no immediate grasp. (Our culture continues to grow because in the midst of democratic political degeneration a few individuals proudly and unapologetically continue the tyrannical, despotic tradition in businesses, armies, universities, sports teams, cultural clubs, the arts, and so on. If democracy were instituted in every field of human endeavor — instead of merely in politics — with the soldiers voting on what the army should do, students the school and universities, workers the business, the uncultured the arts, etc., civilization on this planet would be wiped out within a generation, and we would revert to barbarism — if we didn't all starve to death well before that, that is, which we so obviously would.)
>>
>>9012710
>philosophy
>covering simple ideas applied on basic abstractions with a thick layer of badly defined deliberately obfuscated linguistic mess
Not everyone is willing to spend time on pointless mental masturbation.
>>
>>9012736
did you say masturbation?
;^)
>>
What a hot mess of buzzwords.
>>
>>9012736
Looked at more closely, it is not the alphas who make the rules but the philosophers. The alphas merely put them into practice, as the Han dynasty did with Confucius' philosophy, Alexander with Aristotle's, the Roman emperors with the Stoics' and the Epicureans', Lenin and Mao with Marx's, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco with Nietzsche's, and even the democratic pseudo-leaders, to an extent, with the pseudo-philosophers' liberal claptrap. It is only subhumans who think that philosophy is superfluous and causes nothing, but as the fascists' and communists' millions of victims discovered (a little too late for their liking), not only is philosophy (which is to say thought) not superfluous, but it makes the world go round.
>>
>>9012710
>Spinoza paired with Stirner, Nietzsche, and ALEX Kierkegaard
????
Btw, it's not just modern society. No society ever really took it seriously. Regular hoomans don't really change over the centuries.
But I do agree. Of the people who do get involved in philosophy, they usually warp it for political / monetary gain (which isn't the worst you could do, it's what all master moralists do, but they're still warping it) or they turn it into some nut-cracking chore (analytics and scholars).
>>
>>9012736
/this
I thought most of this shit was common sense. Why does everyone here have to be told that?
>>
>>9012736
>I'm a moron, so I think there's a "thick layer" of "deliberately obfuscation" and forget that most of today's common sense was not only a mystery to previous centuries but is due to previous centuries' philosophers spending their lives analyzing life
ftfy
>>
>>9013194
How is the eternal recurrence common sense? Even science prides itself on being superior to common sense, fucking plebs.
>>9013164
>Of the people who do get involved in philosophy, they usually warp it for political / monetary gain (which isn't the worst you could do, it's what all master moralists do, but they're still warping it)
>it's what all master moralists do
What does it mean to be "interested in money"? Money is an abstraction, it has no reality of its own. To possess money merely means that the possessor performed a useful service for some people at some point in the past, and these people are now willing to repay that person's service on demand. To be "interested in money" therefore means that one is interested in having other people serve him on demand. That's all it means. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as this DESIRE FOR SLAVES remains an issue of secondary importance. When elevated to a top priority, however, it is fatal. For you cannot become great by merely being good at getting other people to serve you. To become great you have to become good at giving, not at taking, and by focusing on amassing money, instead of the creation of actual things, you ensure that you never will. After all, what is the point of having slaves WHEN YOU HAVE NO GOAL towards which to employ them other than the accumulation of yet more money? (i.e. of yet more slaves willing to do your bidding even though you have no goal in your mind to instruct for them to help you to achieve).
>>
9013238
You sound like a fagit cuck boi who lives with mummy
Stay mad shit for brains
>>
>>
>>9013238
Isn't a slave owner with no goal still a master? Which many masters are. My statement still holds ground. Even the higher humans, to Nietzsche, were still not ripe enough for his work.
>>
>>9013405
>Which many masters are
>many
originally you said "all". if you move goalposts there is no point.
The original definition is pretty explicit on this point. Since their morality is not derived from -reaction-, it wouldn't be focused on things that they already take for granted, like money or property. Goals come naturally there, whereas for the opposite reaction-based type money/owning slaves appears to be a goal in itself, or they simply the masters to be interested in that alone (like you seem to be doing). HISTORY would not be what it is today if masters were only interested in owning slaves.
>>
>>9013451
You're right. That was careless of me.
>>
Is Alex Kirkegaard the end of philosophy?
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1