Why do people get so emotional when someone else points towards a flaw in their reasoning?

Generals are for retards by retards.

Here's something I've been thinking about. Keep in mind I've never even read Nietzsche and I do not normally share my thoughts on philosophy because I'm borderline retarded.

So, Nietzsche says that Christian self-denial is bad because we are denying our true potential to satisfy our own urges and ultimately our true ability to "satiate" the will to some extent.

However, I actually think that succumbing to our animalistic desire is actually self-denial, namely denial of our ability to cognize rationally, ethically and come to solutions which are better than "I want what's best for me, and me only."

>>25172565
>I actually think that succumbing to our animalistic desire is actually self-denial

The instincts being out of control and you being unable to respond to a stimulus is what he calls decadence

>>25172552
God created even the chads so why again are they nihilistic when they have no reason to be.

>>25172552
Good books on philosophical genealogy in the realm of Hacking and Foucault?

I wonder why many important figures in philosophy aren’t discussed enough or at all in this board. I never or hardly saw a thread on Classical liberal thinkers like John Locke or Fredric Bastiat. But for some reason(idk why) this board thinks contrarianism in profound and

>>25172564
>posted by a faggot for faggots

>>25172609
I saw one or two Locke threads but Bastiat, no. And what about De Molinari?

>>25172552
Favorite pre-Enlightenment thinker and Favorite post-Enlightenment thinker
For me its Aristotle and Schopenhauer

>>25172564
These are better than targeted philosophy threads which usually turn into king of the hill.

>>25172609
Bastiat wasn’t a philosopher and Locke is pretty mid. It’s true that some thinkers and schools are discussed more but this is because it’s what anons happen to read. I don’t see what’s inherently “contrarian” about Kant or Maximus the Confessor or Heidegger. Most anons oppose crude materialism but that’s because it’s retarded, whether you’re a theist or an atheist.

>>25172661
Bastiat was a political philosopher tho. Locke wasn’t mid at all. Can you tell how you reached the conclusion that locke was mid?

File: IMG_0040.jpg (172.7 KB)

172.7 KB JPG

>>25172620
Aristotle and Fichte for me. I will never stop shilling Fichte here until I get someone to read him. I really want to read his 1804 lectures but I’m somewhat tired of these German autism books that take a month to read 100 pages desu. In 1804 he’s broken with Schelling and I think how he deals with this might have relevance to constructing a retroactive refutation of Hegel. Fichte is probably the closest of the three to Schopenhauer because he’s so concerned with individual experience and because he is a Kantian, ie he rejects transcendent metaphysics. Here’s a passage from On the Concept (1794) that a Schopenhauer guy would appreciate.
>The kind of reflection governing the entire Wissenschaftslehre, insofar as it is a science, is the act of representing. From this it by no means follows that everything reflected upon is also nothing but an act of representation. In the Wissenschaftslehre the I is represented; but from this it does not follow that it is represented merely as representing. Other features may well be discoverable in this I.
Tl;dr - Hegel reduces everything to Logic, thinking. Even the color red is logical, a “liberation” of the subjectivity of pure thought. Fichte is in the same camp as Schopenhauer or Aristotle or Kant. He gives full weight to dualism and contingency in a way Hegel and Plato do not. If I could do a very small summation of Fichte: every moment of every day we move through time, we are subject to an “ought”, but this “ought” is never fulfilled. This vanishing goal is God, this is the first principle of rational life. (Certainly not some sort of being, it is beyond being, it never exists.) And then this leads to interesting intersections with Neoplatonism and Christianity, apophatic theology, but Fichte was not a Platonist or Christian. He was a living paradox, a devout atheist.

>>25172700
Locke was mid because he was a crude materialist, he was less than mid because he was too cowardly to follow materialism and empiricism to their logical conclusion like Hume did. I’m not saying he was stupid or not worth reading but he isn’t one of the greats.

>>25172701
where to start, I searched once and couldn't find proper guide to how to read his works in which order also some secondary texts

>>25172734
Read the two Introductions to the “new presentation” - these are very readable and they are on wikisource. Also if you like the “crystal clear presentation” which is also on wikisource. Then dive into full autism with the Nova Methodo lectures and also read ofc the Grundlage in Breazeale’s translation (but ignore the bracketed text). Then Hegel’s Differenzschrift. If you can’t figure out what’s wrong with it read the others over again. Then his works on natural right and ethics.

>>25172701
I saw you in the last thread and I think you are a great poster. I look forward to reading your autistic tangents in future threads.
>inb4 samefag

>>25172581
God created even the chads, so why again are they nihilistic when they have no reason to be?

File: 19A034B8-6BFD-4471-A864-D58E0E9CAFA0.png (29.9 KB)

29.9 KB PNG

I keep imagining scenarios and conversations in my head. I just realized I have been sitting on my couch for almost 40 minutes having imaginary conversations with myself.

Am I going insane?

>>25173439
its just adhd

Has anyone read Ferdinand Ulrich or Erich Przywara?

>>25172605
Lowith - Meaning and History
Blumenberg - The Legitimacy of the Modern Age
Agamben - Homo Sacer series (particularly II.2-5 and IV.1-2)

>>25172565
>So, Nietzsche
Not a real philosopher

>>25174126
You're saying you dont find Nietzsche to be a real philosopher? Why's that?

>>25174377
he's a retarded pseud that wants you to read some medieval """philosopher""" christfag go on and on about angels dancing on the heads of pins

>>25174126
What is 'real' philosophy?

>>25172565
He’s talking about the neurosis and self-hatred that stifles joy and strength. Consider the way some people get into left-wing politics and begin to overanalyse every feeling and thought and action they have for traces of vice

>>25174571
I bought good and evil to look at, maybe over spring break. Ill keep this in mind when I read it.

>>25174384
> go on and on about angels dancing on the heads of pins
heaven forbid anybody talk about anything other than what is right in front of is!

>We have said that pragmatism represents the final outcome of all the modern philosophy and marks the lowest stage in its decline; but outside the philosophical field there also exists, and has already existed for a long time, a diffused and unsystematized pragmatism which is to philosophical pragmatism what practical materialism is to philosophical materialism, and which merges into what people generally call “common sense.” This almost instinctive utilitarianism is inseparable, moreover, from the materialistic tendency: common sense consists in not venturing beyond the terrestrial horizon, as well as in not paying attention to anything devoid of an immediate practical interest; it is “common sense,” above all, that regards the world of the senses as alone being real and admits of no knowledge beyond what proceeds from the senses; and even this limited degree of knowledge is of value in its eyes only in so far as it allows of satisfying material needs and also sometimes because it feeds a certain kind of sentimentalism, since sentiment, as must be frankly admitted at the risk of shocking contemporary “moralism,” really is very closely related to matter. No room is left in all this for intelligence, except in so far as it may consent to be put to the service of practical ends, acting as a mere instrument subordinated to the requirements of the lowest or corporeal portion of the human individual, “a tool for making tools,” to quote a significant expression of Bergson’s: “pragmatism” in all its forms amounts to a complete indifference to truth

While Western Philosophy by Kenny was a good intro to philosophy and I found the parts about the middle ages informative I disliked how he organized the book. I was hoping for something organized chronologically by philosopher where you learn about each ones contribution, instead it is organized chronologically by philosophical topic, so while you get a overview of how opinions on certain topics evolved you get less of a handle on specific philosophers.

someone already asked this, but Im curious if theres any good philosophy/educational podcasts similar to robinson erhardt's show?

>>25174670
>guenonfag
yep, just as I suspected

>>25173631
Thanks, I already have Meaning And History

>>25172701
What was the general intellectual climate like in Jena? Was there a lot of hostility?

>>25174855
I couldn’t say really my view is so limited. But my impression from Fichte is that it was full of idealistic young men who wanted to revolutionize Germany. You also had these violent student gangs; Fichte went to war with them and had to leave the city for a time; his father in law was injured by a brick thrown through a window. You also had a significant “conservative” faction supported by the princes who attacked Fichte at every turn, ultimately of course ousting him. Another factor was freemasonry - Fichte was a mason. In his “Letters to Constent” he argues that freemasonry should serve as an intellectual vanguard for changing society. (Overall Fichte has more in common with Marx than Hegel did). What else? There was an overproduction of intellectuals so most of these kids were alienated and working shitty tutoring jobs. Idk those are my impressions.

Any advice for a philosophy major returning to university as a 28 year old?

>>25174670
You are never not acting for practical ends.

>>25175084
Sounds similar to the current university climate except more men

>>25175084
Also what do you think could be Fichte's medieval equivalent?

>>25174384
>>25174563
Real philosophy is systematic and not just aphoristic anklebiting that never considers counterarguments or the consequences of its own propositions. Real philosophy would be people like Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel.

did plato change his beliefs in his later life, I've recently come across dialogues like Parmenides, and he's basically arguing against what he proved in his earlier dialogues

>>25176479
Hard to say for two reasons: 1) there's question on when some of the dialogues were written, but most scholars seem to agree stuff like Parmenides was written later so this is less important.
2) there's a question as to whether every dialogue is specifically written in the polemical way you're thinking (arguing for what Plato believes) as opposed to pedagogical texts meant to raise questions and explore a problem. Parmenides does call into question the Theory of Forms, but does that mean Plato rejected entirely his own previous theory? Or was he just acknowledging the holes in his previous arguments for said Theory? He was a teacher after all, and even earlier dialogues end in a state of aporia, so why couldn't it be the case he wrote them in such a way to invite responses from young philosophers? Or even to encourage himself to better develop his theory?

>>25174377
>>25174384
Post a single excerpt of Nieztsche actually enganging in philosophical discourse in the sense of something you'd read in Aristotle, Descartes, Melebranche, Locke, Hume, Kant, etc.

>>25175861
>>25176660
>this philosopher isn't a philosopher because he doesn't copy the writing style of other philosophers
lol

>>25176667
I'm not that guy, but I dont think more formalized philosophy is just a matter of style. I'm no expert, but if I had to guess, less formal philosophy appears easier to "take down" because it is less explicit about what its trying to do and what the problem even is. That could be described as a "style" choice, but it's clearly more thab that

>>25176667
It's not about "style," as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Spinoza for instance all have radically different styles. It's about actually engaging in rational, logical argumentation, following one point to another and considering its consequences, such as what it leads to and what it rules out. Hence all proper, "real" philosophy culminates in the construction of a system. Real philosophy is architectonic. Aphoristic "owns" and cheap sociological analysis aren't philosophy.

>>25176667
I'd rather call it a 'method,' just as science has a particular 'method.' All the above mentioned people have different writing 'styles' while still pertaining to said 'method.' You'll just dismiss this with a short quip of course but you're free to answer the perennial question of 'What is Philosophy' if you disagree.

>>25176785
>>25176812
Is Heraclitus a philosopher, or no?

>>25176824
Yes Heraclitus and Parmenides and other pre-socratics were philosophers; they have (or are purported to have, we have mere fragments) full metaphysical and epistemological systems.

>>25176835
You're tipping the scales for your preferred conclusion. Heraclitus' writings exist in fragments, but both ancient testimony claims his text to be as gnomic as what we have. How is any of that a system, and how is he different in kind from Nietzsche, who intentionally models himself off of him?

>>25176746
>>25176785
>>25176812
Any definition of philosophy which excludes Nietzsche is not in line with how the term is actually used. There's only one reason why you'd insist on your special definition that nobody else uses (you haven't read Wittgenstein and you hate neetzuh).

>>25172552
Which works (and in what order) of Plato does one need to read to get a reasonably full picture of the man's thought?

I found this list online:
>Introductory Dialogues I-The Death of Socrates:
>Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo
>Introductory Dialogues II:
>Meno, Republic I-II, Protagoras, Gorgias
>Intermediate Dialogues I:
>Philebus, Phaedrus
>Intermediate Dialogues II:
>Theaetetus, Symposium, the rest of Republic
>Advanced Dialogues:
>Timaeus, Sophist, Parmenides
Is it any good /lit/izens?

>>25176965
skim this and you're good:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

>>25176965
Kinda jumps around. I don't know why anyone would read the first two books of the Republic, divert with a bunch of other dialogues, and come back to it, and Philebus is more difficult than Phaedrus, Symposium, and the Republic. The starting four are fine as a start, but there's plenty else like Laches, Lysis, and Charmides one could read before Phaedo, which is a certain jump in difficulty. And Theaetetus should be read with Sophist and Statesman.

You could start with subject matter you're interested in. Love and friendship? Lysis, Phaedrus, Symposium. Politics? Alcibiades Major, Gorgias, Republic, and the Laws. Looking for something technical? Parmenides, Timaeus, Philebus. Etc. Or just start and stay with the shorter dialogues for a while, move on to Protagoras, Meno, Symposium, and build your way up to Republic, Timaeus, Parmenides, and Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman.

>>25176868
The problem with the appeal to OLP is that you're essentially helpless against semantic drift and simply have to accept it. In that case, sure, Nieztsche is a philosopher, as are Nick Land, Jordan Peterson, Curtis Yarvin, and Sam Harris. PhilosophyTube and Contrapoints and Destiny are philosophers too.

What is virtue to you?

>>25177033
>The problem with the appeal to OLP is that you're essentially helpless against semantic drift and simply have to accept it.
I mean, yes? That is indeed how things work.

File: BA70288B-116F-4354-83D2-282FAB76F53C.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

Why did my brother draw yaldabaoth when he was a kid

>>25177212
>I mean, yes? That is indeed how things work.
If you're ignorant and think semantic drift isn't caused by people, or further, people with intents behind their crafting of how language is used by the masses. Ignoring this just means that the concepts you use and think in are controlled by outside forces, especially pernicious when this is applied to moral and political concepts. It's the mark of being a slave.

File: 1751925573687190.jpg (51.1 KB)

51.1 KB JPG

What is the point of studying ethics and developing a personal system of how best to treat my fellow man when most people are like the proles from 1984 and do not have enough neurons to form their own thoughts?

>>25173439
Have you tried journaling?

File: MV5BOWM1ZWE0MTMtY2UyYi00ZTVlLTg0MmItYTVmYTk3Mzk4YzJjXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>25177218
Every time I see that word picrel comes to mind

>>25177259
>people determine the meanings of words by using them
>"OH SO YOU THINK SEMANTIC DRIFT ISN'T CAUSED BY PEOPLE???"
implessive reading comprehension

>>25172648
Who said anything about Hank, Bobby & Peggy?

>>25177344
The first step is to realize that you’re just as retarded as they are.

>>25177344
in studying ethics you may eventually realize that ethics is fake and gay

otherwise it's a waste of time

There’s a lot of talk in general itt about what philosophy is, who are the real philosophers, etc. In this passage from a letter of Fichte to Jacobi we have an almost classical, theological conception filtered through critical idealism and a defense of the ‘usefulness’ of philosophy. It gives me the feels because Fichte had so much respect for Jacobi even though he was a realist, even though Jacobi was a conservative Christian and Fichte was a radical; he thought they were saying the same thing in different ways. Jacobi eventually denounced him and accused him of being a nihilist, it’s all just sad. Even though Fichte was an ‘atheist’ (there is no supreme being standing over you), he thought philosophy was about God and nothing else.

"My absolute I is obviously not the individual, though this is how offended courtiers and irate philosophers have interpreted me, in order that they may falsely attribute to me the disgraceful theory of practical egoism.... As soon as we regard ourselves as individuals, we find ourselves at the practical standpoint. From this standpoint, the pure I is posited outside ourselves and is called God. How else could we have discovered God, if we had not discovered his attributes in ourselves after all? Realism rules within the domain of the practical standpoint. What is the purpose of the speculative standpoint if it does not serve life then? If mankind had never tasted this forbidden fruit, it could dispense with all philosophy. But mankind has an innate desire to catch a glimpse of that realm which transcends the individual, to view this realm directly. The first person who asked a question about the existence of God broke through the boundaries; he brought man into conflict with himself, which can only be resolved by proceeding to that supreme point where speculative and practical appear as one. Presumption led us to philosophize and this cost us our innocence. We caught sight of our nakedness and since then we have had to philosophize for our salvation."

>>25177462
It’s also notable imo because he endorses a dichotomy between real life and autistic speculation while still defending the value of the latter for those who are attracted to it. Philosophy is one way of dealing with the same conflicts everyone has to deal with, by thinking things through.

>>25177344
Because ethics is not about others its about (YOU)

File: IMG_0087.jpg (154.9 KB)

154.9 KB JPG

>>25177218
Because the Syrian retards who came up with Yaldabaoth had a first grade education. You can literally see how big Plotinus’ brain was. Kant is another such. Gnosticism is a religion, at best it approximates philosophy in representational form.

I dont like philosophers who use the word "I" as some special term. I find it confusing

Good video you should watch. Any other channels like this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X1CQlrwgDI

>>25177688
He looks like he’s having a stroke.

>>25177692
Peter Heath translates “das Ich” as “the self” but it’s a foolish translation. Fichte argues there is no ‘self’, no soul-thing. So do Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. Hegel has a little aside in the Logic about how Fichte shot himself in the foot, at least rhetorically, by talking about “the I” when he wasn’t talking about personal consciousness at all. Similarly Kant - transcendental apperception is not empirical apperception.

>>25177695
Yeah well the eyes rolling differently is meant to represent Plotinus’ immersion in contemplation. But I admit it looks weird. Plotinus himself wanted no images of his person, this was taken surreptitiously. Regardless, the man had a very big brain.

>>25172564
>muhh muhh retards

>>25172554
10% being wrong is embarrassing, 90% their identity and self worth is attached to being le smarty pants intellectual.

I'm 28 and I feel behind on philosophy. How old are you guys and when did you get into philosophy? I feel like very many of you have read a ton of shit.

>>25178968
They've read fuck all and are just pretending based on things they have vaguely heard.

Kierkegaard is based as fuck. I am so excited to read his other stuff.
>In order to stress the element of self-determination in thinking, philosophy [viz. Hegelian philosophy] declares: The absolute is because I think it. But since philosophy itself perceives that free thinking is thereby designated, not the necessary thinking it usually celebrates, it substitutes another expression: namely, that my thinking of the absolute is the absolute's thinking-itself in me. This expression is by no means identical with the one preceding; it is, however, very suggestive. That is to say, my thinking is an element in the absolute, and therein lies the necessity of my thinking, therein lies the necessity with which I think it. It is otherwise with the Good. The Good is because I will it, otherwise it is not at all. This is the expression of freedom, and the same is also the case with evil.... This in no way reduces or lowers the categories of good and evil to merely subjective categories. On the contrary, the absolute validity of these categories is declared. The Good is the being-in-and-for-itself, posited by the being-in-and-for-itself, and this is freedom.
>When I choose absolutely, I choose despair, and in despair I choose the absolute, for I myself am the absolute; I posit the absolute, and I myself am the absolute.
>The German philosophers [viz. Hegelians] have minds at ease; objective, logical thinking has been brought to rest in its corresponding objectivity, and yet, even though they divert themselves by objective thinking, they are in despair, for a person can divert himself in many ways, and there is scarcely any means as dulling and deadening as abstract thinking, for it is a matter of conducting oneself as impersonally as possible.
>Philosophy sees history under the category of necessity, not under the category of freedom.... For the historical process there is no question of an either/or, but nevertheless no philosopher can think of denying that for the acting individual there is such a question. This in turn explains the carelessness... with which philosophy regards history and its heroes.... This in turn accounts for its incapacity for having a person act, its inclination to let everything come to a standstill, for what it actually demands it that one must act necessarily, which is a contradiction.

I realize the 'ethical' stance exhibited in these quotes isn't his last word but he did understand Fichte, better than most contemporary scholars do now. A lot of this 'ethical' stuff is pure Fichte directed against Hegel from beyond the grave with some creative interpretation/extension but basically completely faithful, practically a commentary on the Wissenschaftslehre. Even the apparently distinctly Kierkegaardian stuff about 'despair' and choosing despair is anticipated in the Deduction of Representation. If I went back to get my MA I would do a dissertation on this relationship because it is not much explored.

>>25179681
Continuing the thought a small bit - Hegel thinks form and content are the same. You can still find to this day retards online who think Hegel deduces the absolute by pure dialectical thinking alone. In fact it does have a genuine content in the old-fashioned Kantian or scholastic sense, and this content is the I=I with which the Phenomenology of Spirit ends. Hegel thinks his system sublates all contradictions. But in fact (as Kierkegaard indicates in one of the quotes above) his system would contain a massive contradiction if it bothered itself with the living contradiction that is individual life rather than sweeping it under the rug because it could not make sense of it. As a pseud and a hobbyist I was always mildly insecure about how I was reading the idealists so it strokes my brain-peen to find Kierkegaard thinking in a similar way about both these great thinkers, though obviously much more acutely and intelligently than I could.
>>25178968
For me it was late, a friend gave me an anthology of Aquinas and I was annoyed that I was getting filtered so badly so I started reading Aristotle and got swept away. I've only been reading philosophy for like six years, try it you'll like it.

"When the individual has grasped himself in his eternal validity, this overwhelms him with all its fullness. Temporality vanishes for him. At the first moment, this fills him with an indescribable bliss and gives him an absolute security. If he now begins to stare at it one-sidedly, the temporal asserts its claims. These are rejected. What temporality is able to give, the more or less that appears here, is so very insignificant to him compared with what he possesses eternally. Everything comes to a standstill for him; he has, so to speak, arrived in eternity ahead of time. He sinks into contemplation, stares fixedly at himself, but this staring cannot fill up time. Then it appears to him that time, temporality, is his ruination; he demands a perfect form of existence....

His mistake is that he has not chosen in the right way, not simply in the sense that he has had no eye at all for his flaws, but he has regarded himself within the category of necessity; himself, this personality with all the multiplicity of its qualifications, he has regarded as belonging to the world process; he has seen it before the eternal power whose fire has penetrated it without consuming it. But he has not seen himself in his freedom, has not chosen himself in freedom. If he does that, then at the very moment he chooses himself he is in motion. However concrete his self is, he nevertheless has chosen himself according to his possibility; in repentance he has ransomed himself in order to remain in his freedom, but he can remain in his freedom only by continually realizing it. He who has chosen himself on this basis is eo ipso one who acts."

>>25179763
So here Kierkegaard reads Hegel in ethical categories malgré lui, subverts the beautiful soul in the Phenomenology of Spirit by making its abstract negativity into the Hegelian philosophy itself rather than the Schellingian, so arguing that Hegel's philosophy is just as retarded and abstract as Schelling's, and asserts choice over pure thinking, etc. Obviously he's also talking about something real and profound but I just want to be autistic about it and show how cool his criticism of Hegel/defense of Fichte is rather than talk about real life.

>>25179763
Even the language of "the more or less that appears here" - one of Hegel's main criticisms of Fichte is that his system is 'merely' quantitative because the relation between the I and the not-I is in the category of quantifiability or divisibility. For Hegel, the category of quantity (such as for example your moving through time) is abstract and he doesn't think philosophies should use quantitative categories at all. The relation between the I and the not-I should not then, for Hegel, be understood as an infinite transgression of limitation. The 'spurious infinity' is sublated in being-for-self and so on. But Hegel's argument rests on an external presupposition just like any other philosophy. Fichte could have responded to Hegel the same way he did to Spinoza - 'your system is logically perfect but I can not accept it because I ought not.' And that's more or less what Kierkegaard is doing here. Top shelf stuff man.

I'm not generally one for philosophy, but I've been on Mr Evola's wild ride in Revolt Against the Modern World (I mistook it for a political tract) and was a bit confused about his ideas on slavery. He seems to look down on labour vs work, but also states that a slave, if he's dedicated and treats his forced labour as a spiritual calling he can ascend despite it being something so completely divorced from the noumenal or higher worlds that it is actively detrimental to what passes for the soul, or totem, or whatever of the slave. Wether or not the slave is a slave by the choice of his soul-stuff/totem/the self portions that goes on to rejoin his ancestors as a non-aristocrat, whatever.

Am I misreading it? Can someone flesh it out for me if I'm just being extra retarded?

>>25176965
I read Euthyphro > Apology > Crito > Meno > Symposium > Gorgias > Phaedrus > Ion > Republic (haven’t read others)


Worked for me

>>25172701
>Certainly not some sort of being, it is beyond being, it never exists
Can you elaborate this because it's not connecting really.
Also can retards who have nothing to say or discuss stop flooding yet another thread and start lurking?

Genealogy of morals was my first book and I understood 90% of it. Does this indicate I'm ready to skip "beginner" philosophy and skip straight into more advanced works I'm more interested in or is NIetzsche still for rookies

Has anyone here, or on /lit/ in general, written a philosophy book worth reading? Not a summary of someone else, or academic essay, but a new book? Or are we all just doomed to reread Hegel and Schopenhauer, like a degenerate race living amongst ruins, left to bicker about the ideas and intentions of the long lost creators?

File: brainlet thinks he is smart.jpg (130.9 KB)

130.9 KB JPG

>I use and randomly create big words to make myself look smart!
>I need 300 pages to explain something that takes others to say in 2 paragraphs!

>>25176660
he's not a systematizer

>>25179984
>are we all just doomed to reread Hegel and Schopenhauer, like a degenerate race living amongst ruins, left to bicker about the ideas and intentions of the long lost creators?
what 0 analytic philosophy does to a motherfucka
>inb4 analytic work is... le bad!
you've read none of it KEK

I have read the usual plato recs, beyond good & evil, twilight of the idols, anti-christ, descartes's meditations. Now what

>>25179943
The first principle of being is prior to being this or that; it’s activity, absolute unity, not-substance, infinite, without potency, etc. All traditional ways of thinking about it. In Kant too transcendental apperception is prior to experience, prior to mere subjective or empirical apperception. Fichte is immanentizing God by speaking of him in the way he does. God isn’t at the circumference of the heavens, we’re not fallen from God in the way Platonists would say either (though there is a sense in which we are fallen and separated). God is the Good or the ‘ought’ that governs all our choices; the world of being is relative to this telos, the telos is not and never could be a being. But as to how Fichte gets from this abstract ‘ought’ to something more divine, it’s a very long story, but tl;dr it has to do with the necessity of recognition. Because of our social character the absolute I (God) turns out to be a “we”.

>>25180047
Also, you can see God for Fichte is prior to the thought of God. So philosophical reflection is always misleading because we can’t think of something without making it a thing. But God is not a thing or a being. He has a whole deduction as to why this is so. Hence Fichte is an ‘atheist’ insofar as theists think of God as a being in one way or another (even philosophical theists) and Fichte does not. He says “God does not exist” (words to that effect) in the essay that got him in trouble.

>>25179993
...I didn't say anything about analytic philosophy. Maybe analytic philosophy is really good, maybe Hegel and Schopenhauer are also really good. But this doesn't answer my question.

Just getting around to Stirner and I'm realizing that the core idea of The Genealogy of Morality was largely just copied from him. Or at least it seems that way.

What are some philosophers that get down to the brass tax of why I was torn from the womb?

>>25180192
brass tacks
ask your mom lol

>>25180201
>brass tacks
Fuck I'm gay... I'm not recovering from this.

>>25179951
I would only consider tertiary literature as "beginner" philosophy. But Nietzsche does write in an accessible style.

>>25180047
>>25180062
I sort of get what you're saying but I don't see why it is in such a stark contrast with hegels being. Is it because the being for hegel is the ultimate subject of history and it's sole developer, whereas Fichte is saying it is this kantian noumenon God that governs the action of being?

>>25178968
Like 14 but I've mainly read bits and pieces. Most of it is pretty worthless nowadays. I'm rereading hobbed leviathan and it's interesting but 95% irrelevant. Focus on absorbing the important ideas and not reading books just to read books.

I don't know why people insist on reading the entirety of western canon when just starting philosophy. Get a loose understanding of major figures, then dive into the modern foundational texts of whichever area of philosophy you are actually interested in. Historical texts should only be background knowledge that allow you to read and understand modern papers.

>>25180740
>Is it because the being for hegel is the ultimate subject of history and it's sole developer, whereas Fichte is saying it is this kantian noumenon God that governs the action of being?
This isn’t a bad way to put it at all though it’s another angle than what I was getting at. Hegel’s absolute is like you say very much “in” the world and especially “in” history (to speak loosely and representationally). Fichte’s is noumenal and supersensuous in a more radical (and Kantian) way, it is a “beyond” that always is a beyond. We can’t think about it just like an eye can’t see itself; when we try to think about it, it is a cipher. But I don’t mean to be cryptic, it really is the Good in itself, or if you like Reason. We never grasp whatever it is our lives are driving toward, this Good, because it’s always receding - the infinite progress. I can know this or that good but not the Good - like the old metaphor from Plato, it’s like the sun you can’t look at that illuminates everything else. Hegel’s absolute on the other hand is no cipher, you can know it exhaustively with a few weeks’ hard reading. I think I’m writing too much as if other anons have read the same exact books as me and sorry for that. For Hegel thought is first; the Logic is the first moment of God, pure thinking. This results in a very horizontal, frictionless, and if you ask me banal and normie philosophy. For Fichte it is this ought, the Good, the I=I. (I=I because there is no conflict with the not-I). Hegel has this same concept of I=I but with him it becomes ‘modernity’; he thinks the reconciliation is really here, right now, today, and it is the world we live in. Fichte thinks there is no final reconciliation and certainly wouldn’t have sought it in modernity, which he hated. (The Age of Consummate Sinfulness he calls it)

Okay nerds, can you actually prove you're not just a boltzmann brain?

>>25181871
>how do you disprove radical skepticism?
You can’t, but it also doesn’t get you anywhere, hence the hunt for a first principle.

>>25177171
The result of the cultivation of self-control, an attitude that promotes examination and choice. If you have mastery and strength, temperance of emotions, if you are willing to doubt every ideal and not follow them with zeal, then you have choice over your life and destiny, you are self-determining because *you* at all times can and do evaluate things against your ends

>>25178968
27
Never read much philosophy till 2 years ago at 25

between 20-25 I was 'philosophizing' for myself, just writing in a notebook yknow, thinking, ruminating, and just was watching a lot of video essays which inevitably cited a bunch of philosophers. At this period I did read a few book of economics, trying to understand the appeal of libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, I had an odd feeling with them and the people following these ideals, didn't understand why, eventually Stirner brought an answer: they both rely too much on Principles. I was familiar with some concepts of philosophy, form and matter, ideal and material, virtue, I had a sense that everything was yin-yang in life in a very loose way before reading actual philosophy.

Then I started reading Aristotle, can't really remember why, maybe I was 'ready' and bored of everything else. Now I'm acquainted with Aristotle, Stirner, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Ayn Rand, the more "Individualist" lineage of authors basically. I'd like to push through Plato and Kant for my culture but I'm just tired so eh. You won't find me debating anyone though on what philosophers thought, sometimes I'll poke at people's claim to see if they can any interesting individual thoughts beyond vague stuff, and often that's not the case.

You don't need to be extremely well-read to discuss philosophy itself, philosophers bring you useful lenses to look at life, and good vocabulary, but you can still discuss philosophy by just asking questions, and thinking for yourself. I find conversations that are *only* discussing what a philosopher wrote or thought, and where it's only people putting their champion philosopher forward quite boring.

The single most important lens to understand philosophy and the different clashes is that of the dichotomy between the actual and the ideal. I'm reading Spengler and he said Goethe had a more of philosophy of 'becoming' and Kant more of a philosophy of 'thing-become', more analytical, more systematic, when he points out this contrast it is the same idea I exposed, actual vs ideal, movement vs stillness etc., this dichotomy permeates everything and you'll see it everywhere with different names, every work plays with this idea, it's what will rhyme most.

If you have a natural doubt towards what modern life has to offer, keep that doubt when reading philosophers, keep that doubt when interacting with students of philosophy, there's some smart people, but there's a lot of them that have just good vocabulary but won't really have good thoughts or conversations.

Just find something and start reading man, you won't feel behind, It'll click fast enough. Ganbatte!

>>25181781
What do you think about heidegger?

File: 1755855907015013.gif (3 MB)

3 MB GIF

>But when I see an older man still engaging in philosophy and not giving it up, I think such a man by this team needs a flogging. For, as I was just now saying, it's atypical that such a man, even if he's naturally very well favored, becomes unmanly and avoids the centers of his city and the marketplaces--in which, according to the poet, men attain "preeminence"--and, instead, lives the rest of his life in hiding, whispering in a corner with three or four boys, never uttering anything well-bred, important, or apt.
>Gorgias 485 d-e

>>25179996
I only read from Aristotle forward. Dialogues confuse me.

I like Camus but I disagree. One must in fact, imagine Sisyphus blowing his fucking brains out, or repeatedly slamming a sharpened rock against himself.

>>25183080
cool

>>25182117
They really are tedious to read. You get good bits but also a ton of fluff.

>>25172565
Vulgar vitalistic Nietzscheans distort Nietzsche a lot. Nietzsche isn't some radical hedonist-egoist who wants you to be Gigachad. Essentially he is one of the original philosophers of "Eigentumlichkeit" (roughly "ownliness," from "eigen," meaning "what is one's own," "what truly belongs to one"), often translated authenticity (from autos, self, same root as "author"). So crudely: be the author of yourself and your own actions.

Nietzsche is only opposed to one thing, really: living life at second-hand. Not in some vague sense of "bro, be authentic!" but in the sense that what you primally ARE, in so far as you can ever know anything about yourself, is YOU. His philosophy arguably boils down to: "Make damn sure what you're doing is what you would wish to have done, so hard that you would be overjoyed to find out that you're going to do it an infinite number of times in infinite cycles of the same life" (the eternal recurrence doctrine).

What he doesn't like about Christianity, which for him is a symbol of a whole way of second-hand being and not just historical Christianity, is that it tends to make people suppress this life and their own authentic self-manifestation in it in favor of a future life of which they have no knowledge. The one thing we can know about, namely our this-worldly life and our selves insofar as our selves are progressively manifesting (either "inertially" by merely reifying and ramifying the second-hand thoughts of others, or "authentically"), is sacrificed on the altar of a perfect life in which our this-worldly self will be replaced with a blessedly immobile new self that is utterly unlike us.

>>25184937
(2)
He has many passages where you can kind of read between the lines and see that he admires the strength of saints, ascetics, and other self-negaters and self-transcenders. For example in the famous early section of Zarathustra:
>I love him who loves his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing.
>I love him who reserves no share of spirit for himself, but wants to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus he walks as spirit over the bridge.
>I love him who makes his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.
>I love him who desires not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny to cling to.
>I love him whose soul is lavish, who wants no thanks and does not give back: for he always gives, and desires not to keep for himself.
>I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favor, and who then asks: "Am I a cheat?" -- for he wants to perish.
>I love him who scatters golden words in advance of his deeds, and always does more than he promises: for he seeks his own down-going.
>I love him who justifies the future ones, and redeems the past ones: for he is willing to perish through the present ones.
>I love him who chastens his God, because he loves his God: for he must perish through the wrath of his God.
>I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may perish through a small matter: thus he goes willingly over the bridge.
>I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgets himself, and all things are in him: thus all things become his down-going.

But even in the Genealogy of Morals ch. 1 you can see glimpses of admiration of the will to power latent in the Christian transvaluation of ancient values. He was a deeply learned if idiosyncratic classicist. He wasn't retarded. He knew the ancient world's brutality very well. He didn't like slavery, and he didn't like people whose "prominence" is acquired without genuine greatness, through riches or the exploitation of others who are given no chance to manifest their authentic selves.

You also have to remember he's reacting against a milquetoast "cultural Protestantism" of the mid to late 19th century in Germany. If there's anything Nietzsche hates it's bourgeois mediocrity combined with bourgeois arrogance, for example he hates the kind of man who thinks "I'm a German and Germans are great; I have a little dash of Protestant culture and that makes me great; I am a modern European and have had all the riches of ancient learning heaped up in museums and books for me to casually peruse on weekends," etc. That's all second-hand. He's trying to shock people out of their second-hand inertial drifting and get them to create first themselves and then create things that keep life live, things as good as the ancient learning that is worth writing and reading about in and gaping at in museums the first place.

>>25184938
(3/3)
All this goes back to his early quasi-romantic Wagnerian phase and his real desire: to create a new classical-tier culture in modern Germany. He thought Wagner could do it, and never quite recovered from the trauma of coming to think Wagner was a puffed-up bourgeois mediocrity too, someone who wanted to PLAY at creation but still fit himself into second-hand systems. So Nietzsche pivoted to something like: "I'm only talking to anyone with ears to hear: don't be second-hand, whether it's Christian second-hand, German second-hand, intellectual second-hand, philosopher second-hand. Whatever you do, do it because it's something you would joyously affirm as the only thing you could have done in that moment and something you would choose again and again in infinite future repetitions of the same life."

There's a scene in Ibsen's Peer Gynt where the protagonist thinks he's dying and meeting the devil, but it's actually this guy called the Button Moulder. The Button Moulder melts down souls like metal buttons in a big pot, dissolving them into the whole molten stew, and casts new buttons out of the latter. Peer thinks it's a punishment for being evil and says "But I wasn't even that bad! A few sins, sure, but ..." and the Button Moulder replies something like "That's precisely the problem - you weren't even evil enough to be interesting. You were just so-so. You lived generically so you will go back into the generic soup of human material to be re-made into another being." There are esoteric doctrines of "soul-making" about this too. Nietzsche is not far off from this.

Heidegger adapts Nietzsche (among others) to phenomenology when he describes "das Man," "the One" (in the sense of "One eats breakfast in the morning" when used as a justification for why YOU are eating breakfast in the morning), sometimes translated as "the They" or "the They-self" (in the English sense of "Why are they doing that?" "That's what they do"). Again, second-handness. Heidegger thinks second-handness is necessarily the background of all thought and action: you have to have a lot of things you take for granted that you acquired second-hand, like your language. But you can choose whether to allow yourself to "fall" or "lapse" into living your whole life as das Man, as "one who does the things he does because they're what one does," or whether you live "authentically," taking what is second-hand and choosing or discarding it, actively renewing and reaffirming it if it's still valid, rejecting it or modifying it if not.

>>25184937
>>25184938
>>25184941

thanks! I ordered beyond good and evil. Ill keep this in mind when I read it.

>>25184941
The idea of "breakfast food" is retarded. I get the idea, you're not going to have time to prepare a sunday roast before work, but it's gone FAR beyond the point of practicality.

Every time I think I have conquered my pessimism it comes back. I wonder if Nietzsche succumbed to despair in the end.

File: 1744626568969171.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>25184937
What's his response to getting btfo because you said the wrong thing to the wrong person? Does he have a practical angle to this or is he an absolutist about it?

Got the complete works of Plato and it recommended reading Protagoras and Gorgias as intros to the ideas in the Republic, so I did. In Gorgias, when Socrates is confronted with the fact that lying, cheating, conniving people can often lead better lives through their behavior, his response is that his soul is still purer than them, that he is a "better" person, and he will have a better afterlife which is very unconvincing for me and, I assume, for Nietzsche.

Is there a single book on The Greeks I can read as a reasonably complete introduction?

>>25186949
What are you trying to be convinced about? That being a bad citizen is harmful for civilization? That lying produces a worse species? That a soul is more pure if it remains honest? That an afterlife will reward those who have good intentions?

What exactly needs convincing. The republic is a book where philosophers debate on how to create the ideal society, based upon truth, reason, justice, virtue for the civilization etc...

No idea what you have an issue on

File: chocolatelily-checkerlily.png (872.9 KB)

872.9 KB PNG

>>25186959
i think ancient Greek philosophy and history are so closely related that you can go with an introductory book about the history of Greece and that'll teach you a lot about the philosophy of the states to the point where you'll know who/which part you want to study further.
for a long time, Homer was the complete omnibus of Greek culture so personally I'd recommend reading about the history of the Iliad (and by extension the Odyssey) and its influence on Greek societies. Plato was diametrically opposed to Homer and Homer was who Greek schoolboys were taught from when learning. it's hard to start Western thought without knowing Homer

>>25186968
Fair enough. Thanks.

>>25186129
Despair was definitely part of it, but I think he lacked grounding after many years of theorizing through existential dread.

>>25174126
>>25175861
That is literally not the definition of philosophy. Pick up a dictionary please.

File: duneeveningprimrose.png (791 KB)

791 KB PNG

>>25186972
check out Preface to Plato by Eric Havelock. basically extrapolates on the concept I expressed earlier, that is that Homer was the quintessential educator of early Western society

>>25174384
/lit/ never ceases to dissapoint me, philosopy is the study of existence. That is literally it, anyone who claims "heh, actually Nietzsche wasn't a..." is simply a dimwit who onlys knows philosophy because he memorized what philosophers wrote down, instead of actually philosphizing about their own life due to lacking any depth in their life experience to reflect upon. Having no comprehension of the core meaning from the books he reads.

A homeless person can be a philosopher, a lawyer can be a philosopher, anyone can be, and if you associate philosopher as "well he's not recited by others, he's not well known, he's missing this aspect!" then i recommend getting into fiction, it's more of your forte.

>>25177212
>That is indeed how things work
Is it? There are numerous specialized terms whose meanings are hotly debated and nailed down to precise definitions, especially in the sciences.
Descriptivism always needs a backdoor which allows for greater levels of precision than can be generated by the common social mass.

>>25186967
That being true to whatever your ideals are is necessarily a "good" thing. Though what is meant by "good" isn't even entirely clear to me. The opposing sides in "Gorgias" describes it in terms of virtue and a balance of pleasure/displeasure.

1984 also tackles this while Winston is being tortured. We want him to continue to oppose the party but it's easy to want someone to do that when you aren't suffering the non-stop torture as a consequence of that.

>>25181914
Radical skepticism is a fools way of saying "i think this is true, nah i think that is true, nuh uh don't believe you". That is how deep that philosophical view goes, everything else is flowery words to make a childish belief seem mature. Absolute certainty is not dictated by a mortal's perception lol.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-04 9.39.24 AM.png (189 KB)

189 KB PNG

>>25180856
Or create your own philosophy

>>25180192
L + O = U

>>25186990
good fiction is just metaphoric philosophy, condescending about reading fiction just says more about your own character than anything

>>25187117
you know what he meant, quit being a bitch

>>25187031
I don't know how to phrase this perfectly but what is good, is simple. We are humans with awareness, part of a species called humanity, our purpose is to survive and evolve together. This is done through many aspects such as unity, peace and harmony within the species for the coming millenium. If an individual's perception is against this foundational reality of humanity, then their thought is bad.

Most people will often say "well what is good and bad is subjective", that is only true if you are intellectually dishonest, illogical, lacking perspectives or cognitively fragile. Simply ask someone 1000 perspectives on various political issues, write it all down, then crossreference for logical consistency, look for any contradictions, then force them update their stance to remain logically consistent. If someone completed this fully, they'd realize that majority of people are simply confused and never audit their own belief/ideaological views. Majority of humans are simply emotionally immature and enslaved by their Ego.

What is good is simple, and everyone is arrogantly confused and claiming their confusion is good. We're a species divided, requiring unity through radical species ego deconstruction and sentience amplification, but no one is willing to accept this because it's easier to attack another tribe than to say "my tribe is fucked".

>>25187031
I don't know how to phrase this perfectly but what is good, is simple. We are humans with awareness, part of a species called humanity, our purpose is to survive and evolve together. This is done through many aspects such as unity, peace and harmony within the species for the coming millenium. If an individual's perception is against this foundational reality of humanity, then their thought is bad.

Most people will often say "well what is good and bad is subjective", that is only true if you are intellectually dishonest, illogical, lacking perspectives or cognitively fragile. Simply ask someone 1000 perspectives on various political issues, write it all down, then crossreference for logical consistency, look for any contradictions, then force them update their stance to remain logically consistent. If someone completed this fully, they'd realize that majority of people are simply confused and never audit their own belief/ideaological views. Majority of humans are simply emotionally immature and enslaved by their Ego.

What is good is simple, and everyone is arrogantly confused and claiming their confusion is good. We're a species divided, requiring unity through radical species ego deconstruction and sentience amplification, but no one is willing to accept to this because it's existentially painful.

If you get what im trying to say.

File: Screenshot 2026-04-04 5.03.28 PM.png (275.3 KB)

275.3 KB PNG

>>25187117
Anon:
>Nietzsche isn't a real philosopher
also Anon:
>Fiction is metaphoric philosophy!

Anon has spoken to AI too much that he's now predicting definitions based on the scenario given to simply not admit defeat. toptier kek

File: 9786159424645_p0_v2_s1200x630.jpg (50.1 KB)

50.1 KB JPG

I've read better shit that makes better sense written by Buddhist monks on self realization that the stupid ramblings of this guy.
I now know to immediately filter people's opinions on eastern philosophy if they point to this man's work.
He presents some concepts that are very traditional in Buddhist philosophy, but appears to reword them trying to pertain to a sense of originality.

>>25186990
I don’t have a problem with what you’re saying, just the anti-intellectuals who think anything that isn’t completely on the surface is mental masturbation.

File: 71EPhW+o7HL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg (109 KB)

109 KB JPG

If you want something more Tasty and Truthful than Sun and Steel for eastern philosophy, I recommend "Silence Speaks" from Baba Hari Dass.
A silent monk who spend 66 years not speaking a single word.

One problem with Hegel is that he writes in such a way that you have to buy into him to understand him and then you’ve put in so much effort the ideas feel like your own and you become blind. So many earnest, intelligent Hegelians out there who have effectively brainwashed themselves. As Aristotle said in Prior An about Academic definition by division, ‘at every step one could ask “why?”’. Hegelians will say everything is dialectical, but even Hegel didn’t claim this. So how do you bridge the ‘apparent’ world of the understanding with the ‘true’, dialectical world of reason? You heckin’ can’t. How do you ‘sublate’ the contradiction between human freedom and the necessity of phenomenology? You heckin’ can’t. Why does Hegel’s pure thinking just happen to lead to the proposed constitution of the Prussian reformers? Hegel’s system is like a giant metal sphere revolving on a pebble.

>>25187480 (me)
Or again if you ask them “why dialectic?” their answer is “just look at it! You can see it work before your eyes!” Yeah, I can see how the Logic works and also acknowledge that it is ingenious. But that still doesn’t answer the question, it still doesn’t explain this dualism between understanding and reason. The Greeks were aware of dialectical thought they just didn’t see why dialectic should or could be bracketed off and opposed to finite thought.

>>25184937
This is indeed the existentialist/Heilniggerian reading of neesha, which is right, but is kind of incomplete. Neesha is not concerned about the problem of living life "second hand" so much as he is concerned about life-denying ideals/idols. He is very well aware of the fact that everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants, we are all always living life second hand as we belong to traditions, cultures, elitisms, etc.

Rather than the problem of second-handness, Neesha is concerned with the problem of life-denial/reality denial. He sees this as an instantiation of the power of value-reevaluation . Our ability to reevaluate is so powerful that we can literally deny life itself, live towards death, live for the sake of false idols/ideals. Note however, that this isn't a widespread "our ability", this is distinctly the ability of intellectuals, philosophers, and in the past, priests. Regular people cannot do this. Everyone doesn't have this ability in them, in fact, most people do not, even with education, or high social status.


>>25184938
He's not against slavery by any means, or against exploitation, or against denying the authenticity of others.
BGE (§188):
“Every enhancement of the type ‘man’ has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society—and it will be so again and again—a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some sense or other.”

He constantly describes a need for a pathos of distance, and for groups! to separate themselves from others in order to advance something. Elitism necessarily comes at the expense of someone else. This doesn't mean elites who only stand in a position of commanding either, they have to either command or obey (older cultural developments) depending on the context. And importantly, he repeatedly states that his work is for the few, to be understood by the few.

tripnigger begone

File: 1575528492082.jpg (43.6 KB)

43.6 KB JPG

So is math synthetic a priori or analytic?

>>25187753
>synthetic a priori
mental illness

>>25187753
Kant says it’s synthetic because it rests on intuition. Hegel says it’s analytic because it proceeds by equality. Fichte says it’s a meaningless distinction.

>>25187838
Haven't heard of Fichte, why does he say it's meaningless?

>>25172552
Which religion is closest to Neoplatonism? I understand the concept of initiation to kill the ego and to provide an actual pathway to spiritual salvation but the religious models in contemporary Abrahamic faiths don't make any sense to me.

>>25188541
Because something can only be analyzed if it is the product of synthesis and vice versa.
>>25188553
Well that’s too bad because Roman Catholicism and… fine, Eastern Orthodoxy are both deeply influenced by Neoplatonism. The whole tradition of contemplative prayer is extremely Platonic. Beyond that you have Sufis with some Platonic influence, also some Shi’ite.

>>25188620
Roman Catholicism doctrine of Hell and Christianity's mandate of original sin alongside the fatalistic view of human redemption prevents me from ever believing in Christianity. I don't like messianism and I find the twelfth Imam stuff really silly so I can't believe in that. Maybe I should explore Sufism more.

>>25188640
What about Hell and original sin put you off? What do you mean by "fatalistic view of human redemption," exactly?

>>25188843
>What about Hell and original sin put you off?
Hell in Catholicism is a physical place where you are eternally at rather than simply a soul too unaware of its original self to reach enlightenment. Theoretically in non-Abrahamic traditions Hell is something you can escape and the moral conundrum of God eternally punishing someone doesn't even exist. Original sin is even worse because it views humanity, and the world as a whole, as a corrupted creation rather than an imperfect creation made intentionally (or at least, is not evil) so that we can understand and appreciate our true form.
>What do you mean by "fatalistic view of human redemption," exactly?
It's fatalistic partially because of what I said about original sin earlier, but also because it literally sees the human soul as so impossibly corrupted that only through rituals where, according to Christian doctrine, you're cannibalizing God, can you be interceded for. There's basically no point in doing anything because Christianity has such a cynical view of the world, and the entire religion is built on not being accountable and banking on a messiah to purge all the conflict in yourself and the rest of the world.

>>25172552
should be it's own board

File: IMG_0355.gif (368.6 KB)

368.6 KB GIF

>>25172552
>What I Expected
A philosophical and intellectual discourse on love, rather than sensuality and gratification.
>What I Got

>>25187753
I thought Quine had already done away with the concept of synthetic a priori...

Hume was right about literally everything. The greatest philosopher of all time.

>>25176746
>>25176785
NTA but you are criticizing Nietzsche for the simple reason that his is a negative philosophy (i.e. not constructive), but why do you act as if tearing down wrong assumptions is not knowledge?
>Hence all proper, "real" philosophy culminates in the construction of a system.
This doesn't even mean anything, you're just stating your own preference. It's not even how philosophers have been moving for several centuries now. Only recently with Wolfendale is the argument being made for a return to systematizing

Just wait until my metaethics paper is complete
It'll get accepted by Ethics and everyone will see once and for all that I am right

>>25172564
Yes