What philosopher was the most wrong, about the most things, in the most importantly wrong, bad, incorrect ways?
The picture is not meant as a positive assertion, but simply as a cheeky personal bias to get ideas flowing - I just enjoyed listening to Ella Fitzgerald scatting for several minutes.
Observably factual incorrectness of ideas - Copernicus and Galileo BTFO of geocentrism, for example.
Deficient morality - Sade is an obvious example.
The Greeks - Sophists? They were BTFO?
Nihilists - the whole project seems both in accord with a proper understanding of reality, and it it is wholly anti-human. /lit/ is stuck in this general area. Was Cioran "wrong"?
There is some pregnant wish to indict Marx here, but it's a tired run and we really must keep open the notion of indicting "conservative" philosophers for the sake of amusement, which is the real reason why I made this thread. Marx did seem to autistically hone in on an economic view of things to the exclusion of others, however. But in fairness I'm not qualified to write much further beyond this point.
R A N D
D E S C A R T E S
>le science
>facts
lol
>deficient morality
lol projecting your morality
All of them?
Hegel and Fichte were way off in fantasy land
Nothing they wrote corresponds to reality at any point
>>8238936
But were they "wrong"?
Even Hitler "killed a bunch of people and if you accept that jews and homosexuals are human beings, than that in principle makese" not merely "me", but the average human being "sad". "sadness" being related to "wrongness" in this sense.
In order for the prompt to make sense, "bad" has to be extended in all of its various senses, to all of the various branches of philosophy. It bears mentioning that this view presupposes a bunch of one-dimensional "dials" of philosophical discipline, supposing in principle that some one person has the worst all-time weighted average.
>>8238914
Berkley. I can follow his argument until he (necessarily) calls upon God, in the most absurd fashion, to save him from internal incoherence.
>>8238919
confirmed for dez cortez
>>8238914
David Stove
>>8238914
Aristotle is the original meme philosopher and ruined everything
I don't pay attention so much to whether philosophers are "right" or "wrong" anymore (not that I'm saying these categories aren't useful), but to whether those philosophers are interesting, i.e. whether they offer a perspective or conceptual tools which can help me see my blind spots, help my own understanding evolve and become more sophisticated through the dialectic...
I guess I would say Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex was literally the most boring book I've ever suffered, and the most obviously a product of a mediocre mind. It only got published because she had connections through more capable and more (rightly) famous thinkers such as Sartre (for obvious reasons). Her answer for why sexism always existed in prosperous and strong civilizations was essentially a conspiracy theory, and that through the power of bien-pensant (muh existence precedes essence bullshit) women everywhere should rise up and overcome their gender roles through intellectual transcendence.
I don't have a problem with feminism per se (I do enjoy Butler and apply her ideas in my own thought), but there are a lot of mediocre thinkers associated with that school who get by on being a woman rather than through being interesting.
>>8239011
*fixed
tfy
>>8238914
>What philosopher was the most wrong, about the most things, in the most importantly wrong, bad, incorrect ways?
If you ask these questions you will never understand any philosopher. ]
Pyrrho - lol
>>8238937
NOT
Plato was seriously a fucking retard.
Durr what if everything is a big sphere existing in anuddah world durrr.
I'm fucking glad Aristotle came along and BTFOd that fucking retard.
L Ron Hubbard, duh
>>8239026
This
I think a lot of people would say Otto Weininger
Aristotle -arrogant presumptuous retard, believed in a bunch of nonsense (teleology, final causes, dismissed infinity without logic to prove god as first cause, essence/matter distinction, essence accident distinction, faggot ethics based on moderation instead of extremism and edginess)
Others are aquinas (a more retarded aristotle, also unoriginal as a cows dick)
Plato (although hes atleast poetical and trippy) Descartes was a disgusting moron as well. Rand.
Probably Schopenhauer.
>>8239026
this
Kant, started the entire shit slide that is Continental Phil
>>8238914
>Sophists
An insanely famous rapper released a bunch of diss tapes of a less known rapper and you think this signifies the less famous rapper is shit?
Nah, on the contrary.
But, generally, OP, you are using too many buzzwords. "Factual incorrectness of ideas"- is this like Hegel but after two dabs of positivism?
It's like you're trying to ask which philosopher was most un-sciency and wrong about sciency things. Then the answer is obvious- yea, basically any Greek philosopher of nature ever had (from our point of view) hilarious misconceptions about biology, medicine, physics or anatomy. Then again it's doubtful whether such parts of philosophic texts can even be considered philosophy- it's more like primordial natural science. Which, of course, had some hick-ups in its earliest days.
TL;DR: philosophy is never wrong
>>8239019
>only got published because she had connections through more capable and more (rightly) famous thinkers
>Her answer for why sexism always existed in prosperous and strong civilizations was essentially a conspiracy theory
>who get by on being a woman rather than through being interesting
...
>I don't have a problem with feminism per se
ugh, do you even realize the irony of what you are saying
Graham Harman is pretty fucking wrong.
thales
>>8239019
> Her answer for why sexism always existed in prosperous and strong civilizations was essentially a conspiracy theory
Congratulations, that's the most facile interpretation of SS I've ever seen. Her argument is a logical follow on to the existential world view and no more a conspiracy than anything in Being and Nothingness.
And why are you sucking Sartre's dick when you say existence precedes essence is bullshit? That's the very core of his philosophy.
You are one dumb motherfucker!
>>8238919
Lol calm down SciCuck. The jury is out on that one. Though he did make philo more masturbatory (as if that was a possibility).
Probably Aristotle, factually. But hey he did the best with what he had. I think bits and pieces of their thought are valuable, but both Smith and Marx were pretty fad off from what factually happens/needs to happen when you offer a set-in-stone prescription for socio-economic ordering. Both are ideologically responsible for the oppression and death of countless people, so pretty big fuck ups id say.
>>8239081
You are unbelievably a dumbfuck
>>8238914
Adorno was among the most right.
>>8239256
Right or wrong, I thought Sex and Character was brilliant given the entire scope of the work. At the very least it presents radically different ways of looking at things.
Plato, St Augustine, any rationalist, Kant, Parmenides, Xenophanes
>>8239019
>I don't pay attention so much to whether philosophers are "right" or "wrong" anymore
Then why are you continuing to read philosophy, as it sounds like you are still doing.
>>8239026
>>8239246
>>8239470
Very dumb posts, and dumb, presumably unique affirmations. It is depressing to think that three distinct people can so quickly agree that the /content of a philosophical text's ideas/ is among its least important attributes, which is what your very different statement does eventually imply.
It goes like this. Let me take a guess at your thought process which motivates this statement and the agreements. For you, philosophers are a train of historical figures who say xyz, and are "interesting" as cultural figures. As such, you might read them as a sort of entertainment, or for historical insight, or even for a nice turn of phrase. And one can even be honest about this - after all, I myself started the thread "for the sake of amusement", as I said. /But at some point, if one cares about the content of philosophical ideas at all, then one ought to begin comparing them, ranking them, judging them in some way shape manner or form./
For you, some sperg (me) who comes along and naively asks "but which ones are wrong?" (and by the same token, which ones are not wrong) has committed a faux pas. Silly boy, the point is (/never/) whether the ideas are actually right, wrong, or at some place on a scale of misguidedness. To even ask is to miss the point, as you've said. No, the point is only ever to get a bit of history and cultural context. Who takes any of these people seriously, anyway. We have a contemporary default worldview that we can uncritically fall back into once we're done with this book. In other words, for you, the point is not to read for the plot, but for the prose, which is where my original conceit comes back in.
Except that the "plot" is of course terribly important to large numbers of people. I'm given to understand that there are many Catholics who are quite fond of what Aquinas actually said. And I'll spare you the details on the historical importance of the content of Marxs' ideas, which as we know were taken quite seriously by large groups of people, with dubious results.
No, judging the content of ideas, building a personal view of them, comparing them, even identifying philosophers who seem to you to have been the most misguided, even once you allow that they are also historical figures and that they must be read on their own terms - that is /exactly/ how to understand philosophy.
>>8239794
/pure fucking autism/
Stirner.
>>8238963
Funny, this is how I feel about Kant.
>>8238919
>D E S C A R T E S
lol no
>>8239579
>ideologically responsible for the oppression and death of countless people
this joke gets funnier every time i read it
>>8239467Go fuck yourself.
>>8241427
>he thinks the self is the most primary entity
>>8239538
thales was magic, you're going to get rained on.
>>8238914
>Deficient morality - Sade is an obvious example.
Sade's not that hard to understand so I'm going to be kind and assume you haven't read him.
>>8241496
kek
>>8239467
>t. still sore i'm never right when a schopenhauer reader is around
it's a thread about who's wrong not who hurt your butt the most.
Unironically?
Wittgenstein.
Ironically?
Hegel.
>people saying Aristotle and Plato were morons
Find another hobby guys.
>>8241528
Aristotle was afraid of homeless people beating him at proverbs and Plato was a prancing lala homo man who re-wrote half the shit that happened because he couldn't cope with Socrates not wanting his ass.
>>8239467
>ends philosophy
>no, he's wrong, antinatalism is slave morality! Embrace the absurd!
>>8241532
Please stop
>>8241574
>antinatalism
>pragmatic
>>8241581
>if you don't have sex you spontaneously combust
>>8241575
There's no such thing as stopping
>>8241590
>ends philosophy
>just don't fuck guys, c'mon it'll be good trust me.
>>8238919
>Rand
>philosopher
Maybe someone like Aquinas? Or one of the Presocratics?
>>8239471
i always preferred cont to an my dude, seemed more grounded in humanity. You think your logic problems will solve the tougher questions, fuck off
the toughest questions are beyond science thats what makes it philosophy
>>8241695
but humanity sucks
>>8241701
which is why schoppy is kant's true heir, not a reason for kant to be wrongthough he is wrong in places
>>8241695
>the toughest questions are beyond science thats what makes it philosophy
and philosophy has answered jack shit
>>8238914
Kant. Immanuel "Fuck reality" Kant.
>>8241788
>humeian feel guy detected
your reality deserves to get fucked it might like it
>>8241596
I don't see the problem
>>8241682
>tfw aquinas couldn't have lived in the mid-20th century
>>8241788
> Immanuel "I bet most of them don't even understand what 'reality' means in my system" Kant.
Repair'd.
>>8241999
Immanuel von "u wot m8" Kant
>>8239464
>teleology is nonsense
>Doesn't understand that a causal series ordered per se necessarily must terminate at a first cause.
You're kidding, right? Read some metaphysics. I can understand disagreeing with these arguments, but you clearly don't understand what you're rejecting.
>>8239467
The reason?
>>8242074
>>Doesn't understand that a causal series ordered per se necessarily must terminate at a first cause.
So what explains the causality of that supposed first cause? That is, what explains its causing this determinate effect as opposed to some other determinate effect (say a universe with human life rather than a universe with only non-human species)?
Because if a cause were absolutely first, then that would seem to imply that nothing has determined this cause to act in any particular way - no prior cause has necessitated it to produce a determinate effect. So it seems like the effect of this first cause will be completely indeterminate, totally random.
> The first cause is determined by its own nature to act in the way it does.
But then the same problem seems to attach to this inherent nature - if nothing caused it to be the way it is, if it is absolutely undetermined, then its just a random original state, and there was nothing stopping it from being totally different from the way it happens to be.
The point: it seems like the concept of a "first cause" doesn't really help us to understand how the chain of causes and effects shows the particular determination that is does, rather than some other conceivable historical trajectory - and it also doesn't say anything special for this first cause (if someone wants to attribute wisdom or moral respectability to it), since this first cause could just as easily had a different or opposite nature.
>>8242145
The argument shows that an uncaused cause must exist. In principle an essentially ordered causal series is impossible without it (an accidentally ordered causal series could in principle exist without a first cause). The "what caused God?" objection is missing the point. I'd suggest reading some Aristotelian or Thomist metaphysics if you want to understand the argument in depth. Edward Feser is a good resource for this.
Also the idea that the divine attributes (like goodness, omnipotence, etc) are just assumed arbitrarily is wrong. People like Aquinas and Aristotle spend a significant amount of time arguing that the first cause must have these attributes.
>>8242245
I don't think your post really gives any explicit defenses - it reads to me more like "no, that's not accurate - just read these people and you'll see." But I'm more interested in *your* explicit reasons.
> an essentially ordered causal series is impossible without it
I guess my question is about the supposed essence of this order. What explains why this essence is the way it is, as opposed to some other way? And if no other way is conceivable, what explains that sole conceivability of the first cause's essence, that absence of any other alternatives? If you say "the first cause's essence just *is* this particular way, which explains the causal series of our particular universe," then it seems like that's just a non-answer that could be given by an intelligence in any universe, even if their universe contained, say, much more suffering than ours. "This is just the way things are, because the first cause couldn't have been any other way" is a response that can be given in *any* situation, so it doesn't seem explanatorily powerful.
> Also the idea that the divine attributes (like goodness, omnipotence, etc) are just assumed arbitrarily is wrong.
Why?? Maybe your preferred thinkers have given arguments, but how would *you* present those arguments, if you think they're sound?
Again: If the first cause's attributes aren't determined to be in a particular way by anything else, what stops them from being arbitrary?
Max Stirner.
Stirner or Schopenhauer
Only because I have never read them and they've never come up in any other philosophers I've read. Sure, Nietzsche talks about Schopenhauer often, but I feel I gain nothing if I read him.
Shit threads like these about philosophers "BTFOing" another philosopher don't help either.
>>8239467
>>8240347
>>8242321
>>8242351
I wonder if these responses are largely just reflexes against Stirner and Schopenhauer gaining memecurrency on /lit/ and /his/, irrespective of any faults or merits these thinkers actually had (especially since these condemnatory posts don't contain any reasons in their defense).
>>8242371
I'm the no stirner/schopenhauer guy.
Yes exactly. I am being prejudice, I admit it. I'm not sure where either fits in to the canon of philosophy. Maybe one of these days someone will prove me wrong. Philosophy takes a lot of time to really read and understand. I'm not going to waste my time when it comes to it.
The only thing that interests me in Schopenhauer is that Melville read him.
>>8239794
>No, the point is only ever to get a bit of history and cultural context
This is where the edifice of your argument falls apart. For the assumption being made by those anons is not that philosophy is a purely historical pursuit (but I'll suggest that it is that, anyway) but that the way philosophy is practiced is not inherently "progressive," nor is it "evolutionary," in the sense of the possibilities of "wrong turns" made by the writers of "bad content." on the contrary, the assumption being made is that philosophy consists of so many sedimented "re-readings," in which either the texts in more explicit cases, or merely the "problematics" in the more implicit cases, of past philosophers are re-read, rearranged, and recycled to produce something new, which, regardless of your epistemological position, must retain some value of "truth," at least at the level of appearance, for it is, no matter how sloppily conducted based on a reinterpretation of a real text or problem. and it is here, with the problem of the reality of the appearance, that your argument really must jump through hoops to avoid the inevitably historical conclusion: for it is impossible except in the most Berkleyan of idealisms to ignore the fact that the standards of hermeneutics, and even of logic, are historically determined (however it is you chose to define this is a matter for theory, not philosophy), and thus, with the realization that so too must the readings of texts and problems which those hermeneutics and logics yield up must be determined in a symptomatic way by that same history, we are forced to conclude that the "content" of philosophy is less an indicator of truth in any platonic sense, but rather "the truth of the times," the particular character of intellectual life unique to the lifeworld out of which it emerged.
in that sense i would answer your question in the op by suggesting that the wrongest philosophers are usually the best, for the constitute the most violent rejections of this inexorable logic of determination, in such a way as to every the more radiantly prove the thesis. the untimely Nietzsche becomes in this perspective a good candidate.
>>8242306
I was a bit busy when I posted that last response. So the idea of an essentially ordered causal series is a series where all the later elements in the series depend on a first element. The example given by Aquinas is a person's hand moving a stick which moves a stone. The stone's movement at every moment depends on the person with the stick. Should the person drop the stick, the movement stops. Of course, the causality doesn't stop there. The hand moves due to the contraction of muscles, which move due to nerve impulses etc. This kind of series can't regress to infinity, since each element in the series derives its causal power from something else from outside it. It would be like expecting an infinitely long paintbrush to paint a picture or expecting an infinitely long train of passenger carriages to leave the station without a locomotive.
Now an accidentally ordered causal series can go off to infinity. An example of this would be a family's genealogy. Once a father gives birth to his son, he can die and the son has the ability to beget his son without relying on his father.
You seem to think God is some really powerful being in this universe. That's a wrong-headed modern way of thinking about God. Instead, classical theism holds that God is not a being, but He is instead subsistent being itself. This is because if he were just another being, his existence would need to be explained by another cause, and we are back at the infinite regress problem.
As for the arguments about the divine attributes, I can give you a taste, but the full effect can't be given in a 4chan post. The first cause is clearly the source of all things if you assume that Aquinas's arguments are true (you may not accept these arguments, but I just want to show you that some classical ideas about God emerge from the metaphysical arguments for His existence). As the source of all things, all good things must come from this entity. An entity cannot give that which it doesn't itself posses. This is how we can attribute goodness to God. Of course an objection to this is "but he's also the source of all evil!" It's a pretty good argument, but the response is that evil has no metaphysical existence in and of itself. Instead, evil is just a privation of goodness.
Similarly, as first cause, things receive their power from this being. Something cannot give power if it does not itself contain that power. It then makes sense to refer to the first cause as the source of all power or omnipotent. This is just a start. In the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas painstakingly lays out the consequences of his arguments for God's existence.
>>8239081
>>8241532
iCringed
Aristotle was bad at science
>>8242466
> I was a bit busy when I posted that last response.
No worries.
> So the idea of an essentially ordered causal series is a series where all the later elements in the series depend on a first element.
This seems like the notion of vertical causation, in which the movement from potentiality to actuality requires *at every moment* the agency of one and the same cause; this would be the rationale behind Aquinas' first way.
> Now an accidentally ordered causal series can go off to infinity.
This seems like the notion of horizontal causation, where the reduction of potentiality to actuality does not require the persistence of one and the same original cause - but the causal series can continue even after the exhaustion of the priori cause's causal power, like the pushing force of the first domino in a line.
But I still don't see how this distinction addresses my question. Using either notion of causality, the question remains: what explains why the first cause has this particular causal power, that makes it possible for it to bring about this determinate effect? What, if anything, could explain the ability of a first cause to sustain every moment of *this* universe's existence, in such a way that *this* series of effects, sub-causes, and further effects follows from that first cause? What explains the fact that *this* universe followed from that first cause, rather than some other universe? That is, what explains the fact that the essence of the first cause implied that the existence of *this* universe would follow from it, rather than some other conceivable universe?
Because if, in seeking for an explanation, we can't point to anything apart from this first cause, then it seems like this first cause is totally unexplained - it seems like its action, its essence, is totally arbitrary, since we can give no account of it.
>>8242466
>>8242612
> You seem to think God is some really powerful being in this universe.
Not necessarily - my point is that even if the first cause acts as some supposedly non-physical, beyond-the-universe principle of explanation, it's *still* an unsatisfactory explanation, because it leaves the explanation of its own essence undetermined (in fact, since it's a first cause, the explanation of its own essence is in principle non-determin*able*) - thus random.
>That's a wrong-headed modern way of thinking about God. Instead, classical theism holds that God is not a being, but He is instead subsistent being itself. This is because if he were just another being, his existence would need to be explained by another cause, and we are back at the infinite regress problem.
I guess my point is that I don't see how the classical theist position avoids the problem; even if the first cause is not a physical being, but is rather the *ground* of being, this ground still presents itself as explanatorily powerful because it has some determinate essence, from which follows this universe's determinate causal series; but if that original essence can't be explained, then it merely presumes a degree of explanatory power that it can't warrant, even in principle. "It just is" isn't a satisfactory answer - so any completely satisfactory answer, theistic or otherwise, isn't to be expected.
>>8238914
>Was Cioran "wrong"?
Please explain this part to me.
>>8242431
This is a very interesting reply, thank you. It has many layers, which can be taken in their turn.
The point of the text of your post is to somehow negate what I wrote above >>8239794 , where I generally insist that philosophers should in principle be "ranked by quality" in the course of learning philosophy. A series of very telling things happen over the course of your own post, however, and for the rest we must entertain three basic possibilities:
1) you are an educated person who is genuinely conversant with philosophy, or
2) you are having some sort of a troll, or
3) (most likely) a third blend is also possible: you might actually know and understand the vocabulary of modern western philosophy, and be amusing yourself harmlessly via this post by throwing out "expensive vocabulary".
In any event, we take the potential bait since it's interesting. This is always the basic trust taken when posting to this website.
You identify yourself as other than the three anons that I had addressed earlier when you write "for the assumption being made by /those/ anons...". This is not an ad-hom, but a substantive point in the dialogue: by indicating in your own language that you are not the same as any of those three, you disclaim authority to speak on their behalf, not being any one of them. True, you still have an interesting third party perspective, but the problem with your initial statements is that you claim to speak for the intent of those authors to which I had addressed myself when you say that "the assumption being made by those anons is x", except that by your own admission you cannot claim knowledge of such. Nor does it matter that I did a very similar thing in my earlier post, because in the context of my post, I made clear that I was making a purely rhetorical thrust, whereas you actively claim to represent the views of people who are not yourself. I had been vocally /supposing/ what was meant, while you are claiming knowledge where no present context indicates that you have such, and you have been careful to disclaim such.
1/2
>>8242431
Some cosmetic points are worth making about your post, though they don't go straight to the heart of the matter, which is the point, but they do have the effect of undermining the substance of what has been written, which is rhetorically helpful. The image is a "tumblr" grab of a "gucci" fashion show, and although the rest of the language is only /vaguely/ continental and obscurantist, the best tell of your commitment to the frame is your invocation of "lifeworld", Habermas' word. On some level, it is therefore to be suggested that the reply is less than wholly serious, and is playing with fashion, a la contemporary understanding of continental philosophy. You're "getting into character" as a person who is "doing, defending" continental philosophy, in some contemporary sense. Image choices for such thought-out replies are never accidental. You wanted to present an image of a serious, frowny, yet slightly feels-y, mystical Europe. A fashion model is ideal for this. And my supposition does not contradict the above point because I am /observing/, as opposed to claiming knowledge of intent. This is the difference.
The more /substantive/ pushback of the post, once it is decoded (and it has some merit), is that one cannot be objective about the rightness and wrongness of a historical train of ideas, since we are all trapped in real history, and forced to subjectively, self-interestedly participate in the same state of affairs. What this pushback ignores (yet it must clearly know and pretend not to know, given its continental tradition of thinking in terms of practical, rational and emotional realities of human life) is that objectivity is not essential to the possibility of useful or meaningful or even "rational" judgment, from a human point of view. Ex: Ooh, a snake bit my brother and he died, well that's bad. Let's kill snakes and construct our houses in such a way as to repel snakes from now on. Subjective, "sensible", and clearly undermining the point that had been attempted to be mounted.
Finally, and this is really the important point: by meaningfully engaging with the prompt that I put in the OP to conclude your post, you vindicate my later insistence that ideas should in some sense be ranked according to quality. You attempt to do so in a contrarian way which says that "up is down, the worst are the best", etc, but of course that's not what is really going on because at the end of the day, you correctly accept the frame that I've proposed and said that xyz are the "most right" philosophers, for such-and such reasons that you deem to be "right". The point being that at some level, even the Continental tradition is obliged to care about "truth", "being right" etc, however much it might flagellate to the contrary in the most extreme cases. Human beings like being right.
>>8239019
You forgot how Simone was a filthy degenerate who sexually exploited her female students and then pimped them out to her cross eyed boyfriend, all the while keeping a journal on how their nether regions smelled and tasted.
Champion of equality indeed
>>8241707
i like a lot of schopenhauer's ideas, but the embrace of eastern asceticism is a dealbreaker
it's also kind of dumb how he very ranks aesthetic experiences, saying that music is at the top
nietzche is the answer to schopenhauer, kant, and hegel
sartre and robert solomon build on the foundation laid by nietzche to round out a pretty coherent worldview
>>8242640
This is not intended as a positive claim on my part but as an engaging prompt regarding a philosopher who is popular on /lit/ these days (and whose conceits I often happen to agree with).
>>8242721
>the embrace of eastern asceticism is a dealbreaker
schopenhauer is usually criticised for embracing luxury instead of the usual definition of "eastern asceticism". he recommends fine wine and good food and art work until you stop.
>it's also kind of dumb how he very ranks aesthetic experiences, saying that music is at the top
>dumb
>because reasons
>reasons i won't bother with explaining
>nietzche is the answer to schopenhauer, kant, and hegel
Nietzsche recommends more asceticism than Schopenhauer. Less than Kant, but your first objection seems really weird to then praise Nietzsche as the answer.
>sartre and robert solomon build on the foundation laid by nietzche to round out a pretty coherent worldview
kek, I hope you're trolling at this point.
>>8238919
I wish people would just say how Rand was wrong about everything rather than just use buzzwords and without mentioning the welfare she took at the end of her life.
>>8242757
funny story: I was in this literal communist bookstore once and these two old white guys were holding court with each other, like an unfunny Statler and Waldorf.
They shortly get round to Rand, I'm browsing but really just listening to them. "oh yeah she took that welfare you know, feh.". The other one comes back: "yeah, but she was an atheist, so she wasn't all bad."
desu it was remarkable to hear two old white guys openly speaking with each other in those terms, although they were of course doing "teenage" talking points.
>>8242765
Ok. Thanks for your input.
>>8242754
>nietzsche reccomends slave morality
ok
>>8242765
kek
>>8238919
found the marxist teen
>>8242765
I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it Rand or communism that's for teenagers?
>>8242351
congrats on the most retarded post of the day
>>8239056
meme failed faggot, also anon is right about your internet star
>>8242765
>fun story, people of all ages can only talk about the welfare instead of her philosophy
Somewhat interesting I guess?
>>8242788
I said he recommends more acesticism than Schopenhauer. Which isn't hard really, but it's most of Ecce Homo and parts of Also Sprach.
You're the one equating words I'm pretty sure you don't understand with "slave morality", so I'm going to kick that one back to you to explain how you define asceticism so differently to dictionaries and how you think Nietzsche praises it less than Schopenhauer.
>>8242703
>>8242709
First, a fourth option: an educated person engaging tangentially and instrumentally with philosophy, which I thought my quip about that genre's difference from "theory" would have betrayed. In any case the use of "genre" here again should be read as a relativizing and even fictionalizing gesture which I hope should once and for all answer the question of my commitment to "the tradition," Continental or otherwise. As for the pernicious dyad (Continental/Analytic) which your classification of my interests and investments implies, though, we'll have to wait until the end of my response to consider its ramifications for your concluding remarks.
Frankly I find the remarks on intentionality and the epistemological considerations of my relationship to the other anons uninteresting, as they are delivered from a position—Analytic? or simple "not Continental?"—which must necessarily reject notions of the "unconscious," political or Freudian. The basic argument from my side of the trench, though, would be something to the effect of finding reason to suspect the cultural digestion of the historicist point of view, culture here limited perhaps to that of this board, something I think any number of "readings" of the threads in which Marx has cropped up over the past few weeks could admirably demonstrate.
But the part of your reply which so clearly demands the most attention is your, I must say remarkable, reading of my image choice. The assertions of performativity are spot-on, as is the scare-quoted wavering between "doing" and "defending" continental philosophy. I think both words could stand, but "under erasure" in the Heideggerian/Derridean sense, something scare quotes don't quite capture but of which greentexting is an interesting carnation. Nonetheless I must ultimately reject your indictment of my bourgeois wish-fulfillment in the form of the model. Unfortunately I can only do so by offering an empirical corrective to your hermeneutics: in selecting that image, I simply popped open my downloads folder and scrolled through for images. The only appropriate ones were this model, and the nearest, dearest contender, an image of Fredric Jameson speaking in China which I have posted on this board a number of times and whose style and "method" of literary theory is my central inspiration. He is influenced by Continental philosophy, no doubt, but his position as an American academic, and one involved in literature at that, allows him to stand quite outside of the philosophical tradition, rather theorizing about its development where he does engage it.
And engage it he does, frequently with Nietzsche. Surely this is where the second possibility you highlighted as to my motivations must come to a head, for his invocation as the "wrongest" or the "rightest" philosopher, being the philosopher who, of all of them, was most suspicious of absolutes, could not have been taken as anything other than parody.
>>8242074
I clearly don't understand what i'm rejecting? Are you retarded? I barely even gave any reasons as to why i rejected the arguments.
>Doesn't understand that a causal series ordered per se necessarily must terminate at a first cause
Perhaps one could argue that an infinite amount of causal relations would make perfect knowledge impossible. Therefore a complete explanation of any particular object or the total sum of objects would never be complete due to the finitude of human understanding as opposed to the infinite explanations that objects require.
However, there's no reason to suppose that knowledge must be complete, or that it musn't be flawed.
The universe itself does not necessitate our comprehension of it to have it's own particular existence or characteristics.
And you mentioned that essencial infinite causal relations are impossible, but that accidental ones aren't. Then my refutal is simply to say that essentialism is retarded and it's merely a convention that human understanding requires in order to comprehend things, and it can be further decompressed as we advance knowledge: eg. we understand the essence of matter as atoms, then protons electrons and neutrons, then quarks and other smaller subatomic particles etc... Essences are merely observed regularities and generalizations of more complex empirical processes. The distinction between accidents and essences is arbitrary.
>>8242946
We must now come to terms, of course, with the artificiality of the right/wrong dichotomy which your qualitative ranking scale would imply, as well as the Analytic/Continental dyad which is its most vicious incarnation in meta-philosophical discourse. Its general use being the establishment of truth value one side of its divide or the other, it has the effect of "echo chambering" the respective discourses to which the labels loosely refer, locking certain thinkers out of discussions of other which could sorely use the grounding which analytics bring to the table, on the one hand, or the mobility which the dialectic brings, on the other. Likewise, the construction of a qualitative ranking based on an "intensification" or "quantification" of that binary, a translation of it to a sliding scale, has roughly the same sterilizing effect, albeit with some sort of statistical distribution accounted for.
All this, again, should be taken in terms of instrumentality: I only read insofar as it enriches my reading of literature. I'm sure it shows, but that's another matter entirely, one I invite you take me up on, if you care to break another lance.
A final word on historicism: I reject the assertion that declaring a dialectical category for the analysis of the "tradition" (i.e., my call for a consideration of relative radicality of thought in relation to the dominate contemporary currents) is a mere "contrarianism," as you have argued. The difference is minimal, but it is this: your argument must always fall back on something of a metaphysics of quality; mine does not waste its time with such absurdities, the reality of the history of production being guaranteed by the post-epistemological form of thought that is the Marxist dialectic.
>>8242880
Nietzsche is the champion of the Dionysian in The Birth of Tragedy. He ridicules the ascetic mindset. Self denial is antithetical to self overcoming. The asceticism found in Christianity he accuses as a form a slave morality. He mocks the shit out of their adoration for the meek and the poor. You think an ubermensch gives a shit about moderation?
Schopenhauer very directly praised asceticism. He claimed that aesthetic appreciation was but a temporary panacea for the suffering entailed by the will to life. He said that only through ascetic living can we overcome the suffering inherent to life. He is lifting this directly from buddhism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#5.3
>>8242976
>I only read insofar as it enriches my reading of literature
"...only read philosophy* insofar..." my mistake.
>>8242978
neetchy didn't know about issues related to sustainability though.
Rousseau.
No, human nature is not inherently good and corrupted by society. Hunter-gatherer civilizations have a horrendous violence rate.
>>8242757
Her whole metaphysics is based on the accurate collection and interpretation of phenominological data, which is then used in turn to justify the metaphysics.
Aka you can believe your senses, the senses and reason justify her arguments for the world therefore her metaphysics is correct.
She took a lot of parts and made a circle. People hate her for association reasons and memes which is incorrect and o hate seeing shit arguments against her too; but in reality she's still a shitty pop philosopher
>>8243019
phenomenology is not empirical, and empirical data is not phenomenological. stop confusing the two.
>>8242978
Only Nietzsche said that only through suffering could one develop, and that the problem with viewing the purpose of life as suffering as Schopenhauer did was that people would not suffer enough to develop.
This added to how he tells people why he is so wise etc, is because he chooses to live in asceticism to heighten their chances of developmental suffering, taking quiet walks in woods, all that other basic buddhist hippy routine, compared with Schopenhauer's cure for suffering which is to indulge as much as possible, which isn't ascetic in any of the usual sense of the word, makes me think you're not studying this seriously or don't have the resources to.
What you probably need to look at is Lukacs criticism revolving around the idea of the Grand Hotel Abyss he gets from Schopenhauer, and then you need to realise that ascetism =/= charity. Nietzsche praises forcing oneself to suffer, to be deprived and beaten, because he thinks it's the only way through; it's one of his big problems with Schopenhauer is that Schopenhauer turns and runs to indulgence instead of delving deeper into suffering. He does also criticise him for charity (and being Christian) but that's much more to do with Schopenhauer's promotion of Kant, not his views on asceticism as a whole which he thought he didn't go far enough into.
Nietzsche praises moderation in drugs, and early morning walks, and quiet, all of which are much closer to eastern asceticism's practice than Schopenhauer's. You're trying to conflate it with Western asceticism to bring in his criticisms of Christianity, but that's not a criticism of eastern asceticism, which Nietzsche is much closer to. Schopenhauer also never said you overcome suffering; he did say sometimes it's replaced with boredom, but overcoming suffering is much more a Nietzsche thing.
>>8238914
my dairy desu
>>8243037
It isn't asceticism if Nietzsche enjoys what he is doing. Asceticism entails self-denial, which Nietzsche rejects. Nietzsche isn't saying to deny your will, he is saying to align your actions with your will in such a way as to be self consistent--self-overcoming
>>8243037
Nietzsche directly criticized Buddhism and Schopenhauer for their asceticism. I don't see how you can accept that and maintain what you're saying.
>>8243019
>Aka you can believe your senses, the senses and reason justify her arguments for the world therefore her metaphysics is correct.
I thought that she just used the axiom that reality exist, you perceive accurately the world with your senses which are interpreted through your consciousness.
Basically Plato's cave but affirming that there's only reality.
>>8239586
They're everywhere, anon. This isn't hard to believe.
>>8241422
Haha none native German trying to understand kants theoretical philosophy.
But seriously if you think he was wrong about everything you clearly don't know shit about philosophy. Hence gtfo.
>>8243305
Kant was wrong about literally everything.
Shit Tier Philosopher Hall of Fame:
Augustine
Aquinas
Kant
Hegel
>>8242720
ibelieveeverythingiread.jpeg
Plato, Aquinas, Hegel, basically any of the great systematising philosophers.
I'd go with Plato on account of his starting the whole mess
>>8243336
*tips fedora*
>>8243321
Spews cancer for edgy teens and manchildren to lap up.
>>8238945
Ha.
>>8242757
>took welfare
Well she paid for it :^)
>>8243321
Not hairstyles.
>>8238914
I don't think Nihilism is necessarily anti-human because it can allow one to focus on the objectively lived experience and you can therefor begin to look for ways to improve it for yourself and for others
>>8243305
I'm a native German and I think Kant was the worst philosopher.
>self evident inherent human rights
>>8239887
But it's beautiful
>>8241532
Well meme'd!!!!!!!
>>8238914
All philosophers
>>8243867
>>8241438
You seem to be unaware the Marx is famously wrong on everything he's ever written or said[1]
1. ^ see collapse of the Soviet Union
>>8243368
A pop philosopher. Can be asinine at times, especially with his abundant tone-criticism. I listened to his conversation with Dan Dennett last night, and while I agreed with Dan for the first portion on compatibilism, I found Sam's ideas of a deterministic morality incisive.
Jesus that sentence came out like shit. whatever, i'm tired. night
>>8244010
plus, since they recorded it in a bar, you get to hear a happy birthday sung in the background :)
>>8242754
>schopenhauer is usually criticised for embracing luxury instead of the usual definition of "eastern asceticism".
He embraced many luxuries in his personal life, but such a lifestyle wasn't the one his philosophy recommended for quieting the desires and sufferings of one's will. His behavior was in many ways contrary to his written philosophical advice - but he could always say, consistently with his system, that his own innate character of willing was just not of the kind to deny the will-to-life.
>he recommends fine wine and good food
Not as a way of stilling or forgetting the will, though; fine food and drink will only fulfill the will's temporary goals, leading possibly to boredom and certainly to more affirmative willing, without quieting it or peacefully liberating our consciousness from it.
>and art work until you stop.
Yes, art is recommended as a temporary relief from the pressures of willing - and as a means towards recognizing the essence of the universe, the deep undesirability of existence, encouraging those people with the proper dispositions to renounce willing in a more permanent way than artistic contemplation alone can accomplish.
> Schopenhauer's cure for suffering which is to indulge as much as possible
This was not Schopenhauer's cure. To summarize his philosophy more technically, thus to avoid terms like "advice" and "recommend" (since Schopenhauer believed that people are deterministically bound to act in the ways they do, so that we can only attempt to explain their actions, not change the character of their willing by giving practical advice), he said that the ultimate cure for suffering was not to shun it, but to embrace it; to recognize the universality and ineradicability of misery in nature, by identifying one's own being with that of the whole of existence in the acknowledgement that it is one's most fundamental self that is both committing and suffering all of this, and to allow one's own will to be battered by pains so that it is repulsed from the gauntlet of suffering that is this universe, canceling out its own willing nature, and leaving the person in a state of resignation from pains and pleasures - a state of ascetic consciousness that impartially contemplates the world and peacefully awaits death.
>Schopenhauer also never said you overcome suffering
He did say this, though! He said that it was very rare, but that the will and its inherent suffering could be conquered in some saintly individuals, and this conquest over suffering appears as the ascetic (resignation-from-)life described above.
>>8243970
>Marx was an absolute evil and was wrong in everything and if something has anything to do with Marx it must be denied with great haste and without giving it any real thought
>See 8 hour working days and other rights of the workers, labor unions, free and equal education and healthcare
with your logic Hegel would be the most destructive thinker of all time, obviously being the personal executioner of every single dead person under totalitarian regimes since he said some stuff some hundreds years earlier before his thoughts were put into practice. Or maybe it is Hobbes, who is the clear father of authoritarianism and therefore ideologically responsible for the oppression and death of countless people. Or maybe we can go back to Aristotle whose teachings of fate before existence are directly responsible for every single death that was caused by discrimination of any kind. Totally the same if Aristotle was there to pull the trigger, dude
t. other
St. Augustine
>>8244984
t'was merely a jest my good man :(
That's seriously how banal some people's analyses of Marx are.
>>8243186
>thinking axioms are ever warranted
yeah bro im a staunch empiricist but im gonna just make a bunch of metaphysical statements to support my presumptions and then call you stupid for thinking there are any flaws with this line of thought. You got a computer so thats proof enough anyway.
>>8238963
>Let me prove to you how the concept of matter is entirely illogical and that Atheists are dumb as fuck how can you believe in something that is totally irrational lelelele
>what is the world made of then, George?
>...G-god?
>>8245202
Instead of implying that there are a bunch of problems and that it's self evident to notice, why don't you say what's wrong with it?
>>8239011
Seconded
Faggot ruined philosophy.
"b-b-b- uh muh empiricism"
>>8244054
>He embraced many luxuries in his personal life, but such a lifestyle wasn't the one his philosophy recommended for quieting the desires and sufferings of one's will. His behavior was in many ways contrary to his written philosophical advice - but he could always say, consistently with his system, that his own innate character of willing was just not of the kind to deny the will-to-life.
Yeah, since you read the bits about music, I know you aren't dumb enough to believe this.
You're conflating Schopenhauer's idea of what the will is with Nietzsche's, and forgetting that Schopenhauer was justifying his lifestyle just like Nietzsche did when describing his daily routine.
I don't see why you're bothering to lie when anyone interested in either philosopher can read their works and see you're wrong.
I mean, even you just read the shitty Essays and Aphorisms that most newbs get they're going to see you're wrong on Schoppy's suffering within the first two pages. Ah, well, I expect more babble about how black is white and Nietzsche is Schopenhauer and vice versa, but I don't see why you'd bother.
>>8245231
Because a staunch empiricist using metaphysics to defend empiricism is absurd because the former denies the later.
Like an atheist appealing to God.
>>8245236
thirded
greek thought was all downhill after socrates. im not sure if the athenian spirit survive The Thirty
> since you read the bits about music
I did, but it's not obvious what relevance that has for your present claims against me.
> I know you aren't dumb enough to believe this.
Don't underestimate anyone's stupidity on this site; as of >>8245245, I'm certainly not underestimating yours.
>You're conflating Schopenhauer's idea of what the will is with Nietzsche's
Doubtful, since I haven't read Nietzsche.
> I don't see why you're bothering to lie when anyone interested in either philosopher can read their works and see you're wrong.
Presumptuous accusations aside, what specifically did I say that inaccurately described Schopenhauer's system?
> I mean, even you just read the shitty Essays and Aphorisms that most newbs get they're going to see you're wrong on Schoppy's suffering within the first two pages.
Specifics, please. I haven't read that edition. Can you cite any specific passages that you think show my errors?
>>8245379
You'd like Nietzsche, he actually does some of the things you claim about Schopenhauer which Schopenhauer doesn't do.
>>8245257
I don't see how when the only metaphysics she uses is that existence exists and expands on that. She doesn't use metaphysics to defend empiricism, only stating that our senses are to be trusted and that there is only the world around us and nothing more.
Also, she isn't a staunch empiricist either. She's more in the middle.
>Rand holds that all knowledge is derived from perception, and a judgment can be “validated” (Rand’s term for establishing an idea’s basis in reality) only by tracing it to its foundations at the perceptual level. In this sense Rand counts as a kind of empiricist. But she rejects the traditional rationalist/empiricist dichotomy, taking it to embody a false alternative: rationalism holds that we can deduce knowledge from concepts acquired without the help of perception, whereas empiricism holds that we can gain propositional knowledge from experience without the help of concepts. For Rand, neither is possible: while the senses provide the raw material of knowledge, conceptual processing is needed to establish knowable propositions.
>>8245520
>i dont see how she does this except for when she does
I was talking about people who do this in general, by the way.
>>8245625
Ah, my bad.
i know its not the place to ask this but i remember a thread where we talked about philosophers in general, i was interested in one of them, here are a few hints about him:
-Greek
-He was able to convince people to commit suicide
>>8246157
Hegesias
>>8246163
thanks man
>>8242976
No lance has been broken in the first place of course (as you well know - another telling and useful-to-me form of rhetoric which goads, teases, and yet is subsumed into mine, and not yours), although these are stimulating replies. Behold, it is no banality that I remarked that human beings like being right. The very fact of our former competition vindicates my view; your continued assent to my frame demonstrates your willingness to accept its conventional terms which you would like to squishily obfescape by means of this-or-that term.
Addmittedly, I regret not presently having time to do a response to your latter points their full justice - . Your thoughtful, civil and rhetorical replies still deserve deserve a deeper reading, especially the bits about historicism and how so-called continentals and analytics need not be so bitchy with each other, as is the conventional read of things on this particular forum, say. I do not claim to be an "analytic philosopher", for example.
But those aside, let's cut the noise and suppose that an interested third party may be reading. The initial premise of the thread (for which, for the record for any who care to read by this far-gone stage, I am the OP) was an invitation to suggest the "most wrong" philosphers. A series of posters variously criticized the basic premise of the thread as being misguided, which I corrected >>8239794 . In response to this, you began a very interesting >>8242431 and florid train of thought, with some good points, which I refuted >>8242703 >>8242709 , whereupon you expanded >>8242946 >>8242976 , leading us to the present post.
The very fact that you had previously been trying to "win" all along again puts the lie to what you had attempted to wriggle out of in the final sentence of >>8242976 .
This errata has no argumentative bearing whatever on the substance of our conversation, but I believe that you meant "dominant" for "dominate" in the same latter post.
>>8238914
Nietzsche, Stirner, Sartre and feminists.
>>8247086
Nietzsche wasn't wrong tho
>>8247087
>refuting Soap & Shower
>>8247094
He doesn't refute him. If he wanted to refute him, he wouldn't have critiqued him; he's just a humanist while Shopping Hour is much broader than that.
>>8242798
found the wageslave
>>8247144
>marxism
>not wagecucking yourself out to lazy parasites
>>8247150
>wanting to eat alone
>>8247150
in the "free" market you're literally wagecucking yourself because all you have is your labour power
>>8247156
and under marxism you are busting your ass to support parasites
>>8239081
Plato it is ecactly what you hear 14 year olds hype about at the supermarket
>what if everything is a lie
>whgat if everything is really juast a dream
>what if everyhing really only exists in another world
>>8247174
>implying gulags cost that much
oh anonkun :3
>>8238914
>ctrl+f
>not Evola
Today was a good day.
>>8247177
that's not Plato though. Sure, Plato's metaphysics are nutty, but the relationship in his philosophy between transcend ideals and worldly reality is not that of real and unreal, fiction and truth, etc. It would be totally misleading to describe his ideas with any of your green text.
>>8247156
Not if you're your own boss.
Time is the only merit of worth, not labor.
>>8247174
You do that in capitalism.
>>8247367
Most entrepreneurship is just obfuscated wage labour with less rights.
>>8238914
Probably Foucault.
Not only is it simply wrong (and perverted) to see power as *the* causally fundamental agent, but he played a major part in completely perverting the humanities departments of universities across the Western world, to devastating effect.
>>8247174
>and under marxism you are busting your ass to support parasites
So basically you'd rather support parasites who became parasites by birthright or exploitation of others, than parasites who became parasites by not being able to find their place in society.
In essence, you'd rather cuck yourself for sociopaths than out of empathy for your fellow men.
>>8243139
>It isn't asceticism if Nietzsche enjoys what he is doing
lol no. Nietzsche's definition of asceticism isn't whether it makes you feel good or not, and he specifies that asceticism is a compensation, not a denial of will but a willingness of denial. He's not accusing people of denying their will, because he believes that people would prefer to will something, even if it is denial, than actually engage with denial of the will.
>>8243147
>Nietzsche directly criticized Buddhism and Schopenhauer for their asceticism. I don't see how you can accept that and maintain what you're saying.
He criticises Schopenhauer for inheriting Kant's Christian asceticism, sure; he also praises Schopenhauer for being a true philosopher, rather than the kind of comedian who slights the Christian moral ideal out of a redirection of ressentiment, and proclaims that the kinds of "ascetic" practices that Schopenhauer has to offer (indulgence in pleasures, quelling the will, the golden rule etc) are "innocent" asceticism. Beyond Nietzsche's idiosyncratic definition of asceticism, most people do not view eating more cake as an ascetic experience. If you want to use Nitezsche's definition, then you have to admit that not just starving yourself of pleasures is ascetic, but also indulging in them. Only one of them is harmful, and he accuses Schopenhauer of the more innocent ones. He also tends to lump Schopenhauer in with Kant and the Christians more than the Buddhists when he does criticise him for being an ascetic.
Meanwhile, Nietzsche advocates many practices which would generally be considered ascetic by those he accuses of ascetism (the Church, atheists, science, historians, every good philosopher in Nietzsche opinion, and also the armchair philosophers, which covers almost everybody). Most would consider his daily routine to be ascetic, but not enjoying good wine. Relying solely on Nietzsche's definition of asceticism is one of the damaging cynical asceticism which Schopenhauer doesn't get burdened with; you're closer to his scientists and comedians than his artists or philosophers.
>>8247414
>every good philosopher in Nietzsche opinion
*Nietzsche's opinion
>one of the damaging cynical asceticism
*asceticisms
I hope these were my sloppy typing instead of my keyboard going again, fuck.
>>8245138
Ah, you rused me well my friend
Rather elaborate
>>8247150
>not knowing that unemployment is literally illegal in communist countries
>>8247911
>communist countries
>>8247051
Not right. Just less wrong. If this hasn't been lance-breaking, at least lance-cracking, and if not that then I'd assent to saber-rattling. Until next time.
>>8247399
I like his views into power structures but his conclusions are entirely wrong. Although the fact that now most people in the humanities try and view everything in power structures and delude themselves into seeing it, hasn't really helped.
>>8247399
>he played a major part in completely perverting the humanities departments of universities across the Western world, to devastating effect.
How?
>>8242351
Seriously nigga? You think the guys Freddy and Chucky defined themselves against have nothing for you to gain?
>>8238937
not a philosopher
Marx & Hitler
The two greatest examples of right diagnosis, wrong prescription.
>>8241574
> Schopenhauer
> Ending philosophy
Holy fucks you retards are truly delusional. Fucking Sam Harris has a better shot at ending philosophy than Schopenhauer.
Also AN is complete garbage.
>>8250876
>I haven't read Schopenhauer and would prefer not to
>I have read absolute shit tho :3
convincing
>>8250882
About as convincing as every posts here made about him BTFO anything at all.
>>8250893
>i read idiot posters who likewise haven't read schopenhauer
>not that i can tell the difference
>i wouldn't know who fichte was if i was in the process of quoting the "hegelian dialectic" stages
so so convincing, tell me more
>>8250901
Are you talking about yourself?
>>8250903
>i don't know how quotes work
god, i didn't think it would get this good this fast. go on?
>>8250913
I'm saying you're projecting.
>>8250922
so did schopenhauer but he beat you to it by a couple centuries
>>8250925
That's a fallacy lad.
>>8250931
>i'm comprised of buzzwords
really, you're totally bringing me on board here, keep going.
>>8250933
> Logical fallacy
> A buzzword
You're literally retarded.
>>8239019
so much is wrong with this post, you're an idiot.
>>8250938
>all fallacies are logical ones
>logical fallacies imply an incorrect conclusion, not means
>i'm totally not buttmad about books i haven't even read
why don't you educate me further, sensei?
>>8239485
What, dude.
He just said Simone herself was a bad thinker, and that he disagrees with her, but still likes some feminist thinkers.
As for some women who are famous solely for being women, you can tell me that's misogynist as much as you want, but there is still the fact that everyone reads shit like Wuthering Heights and pretends it's anything but a victorian soap opera.
>>8238914
Did any philosopher basically recommend suicide? Because I would agree with them.
>>8250943
> Claim X is a buzzword
> I say that's not the case
> Doesn't demonstrate it's a buzzword
Confirmed braindead.
>>8250951
not that anon, but he's probably pointing out that sartre being considered a better thinker is laughable. i don't like Simone, but claiming Jean Paul was smarter is full retard tier. she did use him for connections, but calling Sartre more rightly famous is bull
>>8250954
No you don't. You'd have killed yourself by now.
>>8250957
Oh, I get it.
I agree then, Sartre is shit (and Simone doesn't seem much better, though I haven't read her)
>>8250959
That's what people say, that suicidal people don't talk about it, they do it, but I just am terrified of the messier methods like jumping from a building or leaping in front of a truck. At the same time, I desperately do want to die, so I don't think it's entirely true, it's just that fear gets in the way of achieving your goals, in the same way that you might want to be a successful writer, for example, but you don't have the discipline. It's possible to want something but to not be able to get it.
>>8250955
>i need citations for common buzzwords
>i'm that oblivious
>not like it's so much of a buzzword that i thought that "fallacy" always implies "logical fallacy" and i didn't need to specify in a philosophy thread
>i also totally know what solecisms are
wow, so much knowledge, much corrected. please more
>>8250966
Wuthering Heights is the sort of shit anglophones try to sell the rest of the world as good but is just so fucking insular and self-centered it only works as archeology, something which both Dickens and Twain end up being as well.
And I obviously won't fucking waste my time reading Beauvoir when I disliked Sartre, unless I fucking have to for some class or shit. I just don't like it, and you're the pleb for liking Heidegger-for-babies, tbqh
>>8250971
All fallacies are ultimately logical logical fallacies.
Also, I don't see how this changes the fact that you comitted a fallacy.
>>8250968
Fear of what? What are you afraid of?
>>8250978
>i don't like it
>you're a pleb for liking something i don't like
/lit/: the post
>>8250989
>All fallacies are ultimately logical logical fallacies.
>fallacy even means le wrong
>everything fallacious reduces to logical fallacy
>fallacies of means are totally fallacies of conclusions
>what's more i totally think i didn't agree with the philosopher i'm meant to be arguing against just because i like buzzwords
>that's not a logical or conclusive fallacy at all
nice solecism, i feel myself believing you more and more with each passing post. i'm sure you'll refute schopenhauer any moment now.
>>8250968
you have depression and should probably seek help
>>8251001
stop trolling the idiot.
he's just going to keep shitting up the thread and you know he's not worth it.
>>8251007
c'mon man, he's hilarious.
>>8251000
>I don't like Wuthering Heights
>wow git gud ur a pleb
>I don't like because of this, also, you're a pleb for liking babbys first "woaaaaah nothing is inherently right or wrong philospher"
>lol ur just calin me a plen :^) ur such a litizen u fag
great debating skills m8
>>8251001
What? I said Schopenhauer didn't end philosophy.
> Le fallacies aren't wrong meme
> Implying formal and informal fallacies aren't both logical fallacies
> Implying I'm Implying that
You're dumb.
>>8251003
As it happens, I just got discharged after a three week stay in hospital. I have a team of psychiatrists. Depression is part of it, I have bipolar.
>>8251016
>formal and informal fallacies are the only fallacies
>fallacy fallacy doesn't exist tho
>i never said that anon projects, just like schopenhauer did
>take my word on the philosopher i've not read
>i know a lot about him from the shitposters who also haven't read him
>i'll make pronouncements on philsophy from shitposts i read of non-readers instead of referencing the source, but i'll ask you for citations on common internet buzzwords
how does one attain your master level of schopenhauer and fallacy knowledge? truly, sensei, you are a light to this world
>>8251031
Where am I asking you for citations? I sure did, what's your point?
A language error being a fallacy is extremely debatable.
My claim was that Schopenhauer didn't end philosophy. Clearly, this is true. If you don't agree with this, refute it, or stop greenposting like a turbo autist.
>>8251052
>when i couldn't work out what the buzzword was i didn't mean for you to actually point out the buzzword
>i'll refute myself next sentence any way because i don't know how to quote which part my second sentence was meant to be referring to
>i think when you said solecism you actually meant fallacy
>i'm sure it wasn't a reference to the internet solecism of fallacy which often means anything but
>no i can't play mrs malaprop in the next production, people might think it's not a satire of middle class grasping and that i'm just playing me
>i only made one claim over the who quote chain PLEASE DO NOT LOOK UP THE QUOTE CHAIN IT IS LIKE THE CURTAIN IN THE WIZARD OF OZ
>i'd like you to leave me with the last word because if you continue an argument past my conclusion, then it looks like i haven't settled the argument and brought it to an end
>it's fine when i use that method to say philosophy didn't end with schopenhauer though, because while it's the same fallacy, i don't know what that means
i know, it's like you just can't contain the truth bombs. let it all out, sensei
>>8251070
>>i only made one claim over the who quote chain
i meant "whole quote chain"that seems like the kind of error you might get lost with
>>8251070
If you're unable to understand what I'm referring to because I'm not greentexting, that's your problem.
Well, I don't know lad, you keep implying the existence of other kinds of fallacies without mentioning them. If they exist, show them to me.
> Replying favorably to an anon that has a similar opinion to yours means you are that anon
Wew lad
> Implying I wasn't being ironic with my last sentence
> Asking someone to refute your claim means you want to have the last word.
That would only be true if you proved yourself unable to refute the claim. Are you admitting yourself stupid anon?
>>8251096
>i'll pretend that i didn't need a quote in there to not contradict myself from one sentence to the next
>that's totally someone else's fault
>i'll keep pretending that fallacy is purely a logic thing and ask for citations otherwise while claiming i never ask for citations
>not like i claimed "fallacies aren't wrong" is a meme, rather than a basic point of rhetoric, and i can keep pretending every meaning of fallacy which does imply wrong doesn't exist
>i'm sure that's not a rhetorical fuck up at all, and nobody in a philsophy thread will notice
>i'm sure nobody will make me google gettier problem
>just like nobody will pick up on naive and idiosyncratic uses of terms from rhetoric in a philosophy thread
>i'm pretty sure they only learn logic which excludes rhetoric and nobody with a phil background would be getting jokes from this that are passing over my head
>actually, i'll just claim that i'm not the anon that started this because it looks like what i claimed was my only claim is now a long quotechain of mistakes even 201 classes don't make
>i'll pretend i was being ironic when i asked my opponent to stop
>hopefully they know nothing about philosophical or dramatic irony because then that would be an admission i'm an idiot either way
>yes, let's just pretend when i asked anon to stop i didn't mean it
>that will convince everyone i'm not drowning in my own shit and anon doesn't keep replying because he knows i'm going to keep shitting myself every post
>i'm sure nobody noticed that was anon's goal since the first time i decided to claim some shit about books i haven't read
>everyone will believe me when i say i'm not basing my opinion of schopenhauer on /pol/ immigrant posts who also haven't read schopenhauer
is there no end to the wisdom you have for us, anon?
>>8251125
what the fuck is going on?
>>8251134
Anon1 tried to shit on Soap and Shower and failed to realize that would bring out Anon2 who probably read The Art of Being Right.
I don't think Anon1 knows that's happening either, but Anon2 hasn't gone full haetmachine yet if he has read it.
It's basically a fight between a sperger who doesn't read enough and a sperger who read Schop/took philosophy.
>>8250941
At least he contributed something to the discussion besides asspain.
>>8251448
t. asspained
>>8250876
Schopenhauer was a genius, it's no wonder he influenced everyone from Tolstoy and Borges to Nietzsche.
>>8251451
Yes, but anon would need to learn three extra languages to understand the basics of Schopenhauer, while he can read Sam Harris on his phone with ease.
>>8251450
>no u
One of the clearest admissions of inferiority
>>8251459
kek
>makes post about ass pain which adds even less than the guy he's responding to
>expects nobody to notice
I'm not the guy you're responding to but his post had a greater discussion:asspain ration than yours. I'm not saying his was a wonderful post, just that yours could go on any board on any subject in any discussion and it would still communicate the same thing: asspain.
>>8251467
Ratio. Fucking autocomplete.
>>8251467
You want me to put effort into calling out pathetic shtiposts? How did you get past the captcha?
>>8251471
>HOW DARE YOU EXPECT ME TO FEED THE TROLLS WITH MORE THAN SHITPOSTING
The thing is, I expected you to stfu instead of posting worthless shit. I guess /b/asic standards were too much to ask of you. I bet you bump every shitpost you see and wonder why you see so many.
>>8239081
I don't think he's who you think he is
