How do you fix a gf who thinks Hegel and Kierkegaard are "boss" but thinks Camus and Sartre are "hacks"? I pointed out to her that Kierkegaard hated Hegel but she just said "yeah, taking them as a whole they're completely incompatible, but taken as teachers I still learn new things from both each time I read them."
>>8048852
>bait
Murder-suicide.
>>8048852
>someone with a gf appropriates pepe
>>8048852
>>Camus and Sartre in the same bracket.
Top kek m8; one was a philosopher and the other was an autistic Heidegger fanboy.
If she likes Kierkegaard and thinks Camus is a hack just have her read the Myth of Sisyphus, her submission to the irrational won't even be enough to console her in the face of Camus' lucid shitting all over Kierkegaard for a hundred pages.
>>8048852
>women
>intelligence
Choose one.
For women, all the playing around and shit with literature and philosophy is nothing but an excuse and a product of their attention-seeking nature (seductive nature). At the end of the day you realise that they are what they really are -behind the fucking veil.
Im not even mysoginistic.
>>8048864
Why wouldn't she just wear revealing clothing and makeup then? She's easily hot enough
>>8048863
Thanks
>>8048867
>>8048852
is this actually serious? she is right / more patrish than you. will you still be able to get it up knowing this?
>>8048879
>assuming she thinks by herself
>>8048879
>like an obscurantist and "dude faith lmao" over lucid philosophers with actually applicable philosophies
>patrish
No. No, she isn't.
>>8048981
>Hegel not applicable
>Kierkegaard not applicable
It's ok to admit you don't get it. There's no other reason to be reading high school philosophers.
>>8048981
You are right about Hegel and Kierkegaard, but Sartre is just junk-tier.
>>8048879
I concur. Sartre and Camus may be good but they're nowhere near the level of Hegel. Anyone who disagrees is an uncultured pleb.
>>8048864
Go back to /r9k/ anon, you're not wanted here.
Tell her to read Spinoza, Nietzsche (maybe not Thus Spoke Zarathustra, everything he said there he said better elsewhere) and Deleuze (I advise his books on Spinoza and Nietzsche, the one on Leibniz (but I don't think there's an English translation)). Then she mauy become more willing to read those other folks and take something out of them - she doesn't seem ideologically disposed to ignore a thinker's good ideas, so it may be worthwhile.
>>8048867
For you.
>>8048852
>looking to women for companionship
You're getting what you bargained for
>>8048863
an apparently absurd reality doesn't negate the possibility of divinity you A B S O L U T E pseud
But Sartre is fucking terrible, she's right about that.
>>8049361
Sorry, but there are no fairies, dragons, gods, vampires, werewolves, gremlins, or unicorns. There is just your life, and what you make of it.
>>8049806
Fuck you I'm a dragon
>>8048852
>reads lit and philosophy
>"boss"
>"hacks"
>"yeah, taking them as a whole they're completely incompatible, but taken as teachers I still learn new things from both each time I read them."
I'd just ignore her to be quite honest family. Don't even break up or anything, just leave and don't talk to her any more.
>"I still learn new things from both each time I read them."
In the context of the full quote it's truly the quintessential
>"I don't know what's going on but I say I do"
why all the Sartre hate? he is basically just Heidegger for the layman
She is right.
>>8049816
I'm reading Sartre now and I'm thinking to read Heidegger next, is there a good piece to start with?
>>8048852
tell her that sartre wrote the critique of dialectical reason
>>8048852
Kierkegaard says Hegel's philosophy has no ethical or religious categories.
What did he mean by this?
>>8049308
>(but I don't think there's an English translation)
there is but its not done by one of the usual deleuzians and its consequently horse crap
>>8049859
the dialectic in part involves the systematic destruction of categories
>>8049849
what the fuck is your point you little twat? that sartre took too much amphetamine? i don't think even he ever read that book.
>>8048852
Camus and Sartre are fucking idiots compared to the two philosophers she mentioned.
Nice troll.
>>8049864
>that isn't what he meant
also, it's more accurate to say that john the ladder says hegel's philosophy has no ethical or religious categories.
also can you say anything without tons of jargon?
>>8048863
But in Infinite Jest, DFW lets us know pic related
>>8049901
don't you know its a bit gauche to attribute thoughts of a character in a novel to the author?
>>8049806
nice argument
>>8048864
>attention-seeking nature (seductive nature)
To what extent do you (or Schopy) imply their attention seeking is a subspecies of seduction?
>>8049907
I was gonna say that he says it through the Character, but I doubt DFW expected many of his readers to know those philosophers (pretty objectively, a small fraction of them will) and thus I can see no point in him not saying what he thinks personally of them here.
Listen to her
>>8049915
You really think he is assuming his readers don't know Kierkegaard, Camus, Rousseau or Hobbes?
>>8049920
Only a fraction will.
The book sold over a million copies and hardly anyone "in the real world" reads Kierkegaard, or raw philosophy texts at all, for that matter.
>>8048852
You're young, you're allowed to cherry pick and test out your beliefs and discard and add according to your analyses.
>>8049933
Is this prohibited when older?
>>8048852
>How do you fix a gf who thinks Hegel and Kierkegaard are "boss" but thinks Camus and Sartre are "hacks"?
Sounds like she should ditch you.
>>8049942
When you're older, assuming you sought out experience and life and actually tested your beliefs in practice and not only in logical analysis, your beliefs are more or less tested and you have your core beliefs.
An old man with a wishy-washy philosophical core is a useless old man. Still searching like a young man, he offers no wisdom to the younger generation.
>>8049806
ayy lmao u never read kierkegaard
>im an atheist because being anything else is irrational!
>>8049860
Oh, fair enough. I've looked around for it a while ago, since I wanted to talk about it on here, but couldn't find it. Can you point me to it?
>>8049946
You didn't answer my question.
And I don't live to serve other people. Teaching young ones will be a side effect, it's not an aim.
>>8048852
she sounds a lot smarter than you to be honest
>>8049959
>ayy lmao u
Back to /b/, son.
>>8050159
I can see you as an old man connecting bubbles of seemingly connected thoughts. No one's gonna knock for that.
>>8050182
if you think for one moment that Kierkegaard (or p. much any philosopher who talks about faith or divinity) is positing the existence of "fairies, dragons, gods, vampires, werewolves, gremlins, or unicorns" you're an absolute moron
>>8049308
Implying OP has read any of that. Anyone who's read those would know that Camus and Sartre are derivative of Kierkegaard,
Op is bait.
>>8048852
give her the spook
>>8049835
Read The Letter on Humanism so you can see why everyone in this thread is a fucking retard
>>8049835
Basic problems of phenomenology
