>Philosophy is the art of saying something incredibly stupid

File: PierpScaruffi.jpg (30KB, 548x308px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 548x308px

>>9768564
Shit wrong picture

>>9768564
>>9768567
Take your heathen hide back to mu you fool

You kill a thread when you make a new one

>>9768564
He read something, didn't understand it, so it must obviously have been incredibly stupid.

File: being and time.jpg (26KB, 335x499px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 335x499px

>I don't know if this book had anything to say or it was merely a giant bluff, but i know that it doesn't prove anything. Heidegger provides no proof whatsoever for what he claims. Even if he is saying something, he doesn't prove it. So it becomes a little pointless to try to figure out what he said.

>Full disclosure: the first time i read Nietzsche i felt that his books were just a ridiculous collection of nonsense, written in poor German, and largely based on an embarrassing degree of ignorance about anthropology, sociology, art and science; and i haven't changed my mind since then. I still have to understand why he became so famous. I am not sure that he also became influential because i think the century that followed had little use for his philosophy and/or his method (assuming he had one).

>Bratya Karamazovy/ Karamazov Brothers (1880) is a philosophical novel narrated by an "omniscient" invisible character. It is overlong and several episodes seem to have been improvised just to make it more convoluted. The final speeches at the trial are redundant just like many other lengthy discussions.

>>9768891
jesus christ

>>9768891
>Nietzsche
>poor German
WHAT?!

>>9768921
>Calasso writes in a disorganized, convoluted manner so that the reader is constantly unsure of what is being said.
>For example, "It was precisely because the Greeks had reduced the difference between gods and men to a minimum that they measured the distance still separating them with such cruel precision: an infinite, unbridgeable distance" can be both obviously true and obviously false because, within one sentence, it says something and the opposite of it.
>For example, "In the long history of divinities, the inhabitants of Olympus were the first who wished to be perfect rather than powerful. Like an obsidian blade, the aesthetic for the first time cut away all ties, connections, devotions. What remained was a group of figures, isolated in the air, complete, initiated, perfect..." (page 90) means absolutely nothing.
>Some statements are so ridiculously meaningless that one is embarrassed to read them: "The Greeks were drawn to enigmas." Only the Greeks? How about "all human beings of all civilizations have always been drawn to enigmas"? Instead he goes on to ramble that "Oedipus was drawn to the Sphinx, and he resolved the Sphinx's enigma, but only to become an enigma himself. Thus anthropologists were drawn to Oedipus, and are still there measuring themselves against him, wondering about him." (page 344).

lol he's illiterate

>>9768564
Superior remark by Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary:
"PHILOSOPHY, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."