User Controls
should lanny stop pretending to be an important philosopher
-
2018-11-11 at 7:14 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 7:27 PM UTCeveryone here is so stupid
-
2018-11-11 at 7:31 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2018-11-11 at 7:43 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 7:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sudo HTS is a top tier tranny
Nietzsche was wrong about so much more than he was right, I really don't know why he's even talked about. He was a horrible faggot too and kind of a fraud who espoused self identity but di dnt really even have one or understand his own.
I don't think he should be mentioned in the same breath as good philosophers but he was right about things like power.
I find it hard to respect anyone who uses him as an example of an actual philosopher. It's hard to respect them and I assume they just want to justify their homosexual tendencies.
Sudo, I love you and all, but you're being unfair to Nietzsche. He was centuries ahead of his time.
The whole problem with Nietzsche is the plebs that misinterpret him and give him a bad name.
Now excuse me while I bend over for my dominant top gay master...
-
2018-11-11 at 7:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I'm not super hot on Nietzsche's philosophy either, but I do think he's actually a pretty interesting writer if we just pretend like thus spoke zarathustra wasn't actually a thing. And his work was influential to a lot of, IMO, better philosophers of the 20th century.
Thus Spake Zarathustra was pretty incomprehensible to anyone who will at least admit to an ounce of humility.
But it's a beautiful piece of poetry (and philosophy), in my opinion.
Nietzsche is sadly overrated by the alt-right morons, and underrated by the more left-leaning types who see him as some sort of fascist.
(By the way, he absolutely loathed fascism. Just throwing that out there for anyone who didn't know). -
2018-11-11 at 7:50 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 7:51 PM UTCdamn it.. isn't it hrmph?
-
2018-11-11 at 7:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by HTS So essentially you need to be accredited to be a thing. Your status as "a thing" is dependent on people agreeing with it? You're not a plumber unless society sees your piece of paper that says "totally a plumber"? 🤔
I call bullshit. Kafka was a writer before anyone knew he'd written anything. You are what you do, not what people acknowledge you for doing. 🤔🤔🤔🤔
Well not really.
I'm not trying to imply that.
I think you're unfairly interpreting what I said.
You can be a damn good plumber that could fix any drainage problem in the world, but not be a Plumber TM because you lack the credentials.
That doesn't make him/her any less of a plumber in my eyes. -
2018-11-11 at 7:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks Thus Spake Zarathustra was pretty incomprehensible to anyone who will at least admit to an ounce of humility.
But it's a beautiful piece of poetry (and philosophy), in my opinion.
Nietzsche is sadly overrated by the alt-right morons, and underrated by the more left-leaning types who see him as some sort of fascist.
(By the way, he absolutely loathed fascism. Just throwing that out there for anyone who didn't know).
theres no point in reading translated literature.
once they;re translated, their nuance and subtlities were lost. -
2018-11-11 at 7:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny theres no point in reading translated literature.
once they;re translated, their nuance and subtlities were lost.
You raise a totally valid point.
I have read a lot of German philosophers, from Kant and Nietzsche through to Heidegger.
I even consulted differently translated editions from time to time, to gain a broader understanding of the concepts involved.
But on the other hand, not translating them at all kinda defeats the whole idea of spreading knowledge. -
2018-11-11 at 8:04 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 8:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe @Lanny yesterday I got "The myth of Sisyphus" and "Atlas Shruggged" I've never read anything by either author. Which books do you think I will like more? Which one should I read first? Do you like those authors?
I like Camus a lot and loathe Rand's writing, so I'm pretty biased towards Myth of Sisyphus.
Originally posted by Odigo Messenger - Now With Free 911 Service Nietzsche wrote for those who could understand and for those who could follow, not for the common man. Or the literal untermensch, like Sudo.
Besides his books look badass on a shelf. "Beyond Good and Evil", "Twilight of the Gods", etc.
This kind of thing right here is why people don't take Nietzsche more seriously. -
2018-11-11 at 8:32 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 8:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Probably not what §m£ÂgØL is talking about, but if you want an interesting argument sorta "against" Socrates, check out Nietzsche's "The Problem of Socrates" in "Twilight of Idols". You can find copies online. The gist is that Socrates wasn't killed for just being an obnoxious shit who annoyed everyone he talked to, but basically that society is arbitrary but functional, and it works because we normally don't question how arbitrary it is. When you start trying to understand a society on an intellectual level, as Socrates did by questioning things like virtue, or the gods, or justice, and basically forcing people to think about those things instead of accepting society's answers you jeopardize social cohesion. And that only a society which is already experiencing anxiety about those things is susceptible to the kinds of challenges that Socrates represents.
I mean basically Nietzsche is still sucking Socrates' dick if you step back and think about the kind of things N-dog was into, and rightly so, but it does kind of recast Socrates' character from the traditional idea of the guy chasing the sophists out of Athens and challenging the hypocritical blowhards of Athenian aristocracy into a kind of anti-social iconoclast. I mean the traditional narrative does paint Socrates like that, but I think the normal retelling kind of treats Socrates as an intellectual Robinhood or something, someone working to cure the culture of what ales it, rather than a symptom of it's underlying sickness.
Yes, that's true. Nietzsche is really Socrates wrapped in German culture, as well as a fantastic mustache by the way.
It's almost like deflecting the question being asked back upon the one asking it has become the claim to fame for many a philosopher.
But sadly, too many cultures, both historical and currently existing, had an overwhelming need for that kind of forced introspection.
Also, I'll check out Nietzsche's writing on Socrates. -
2018-11-11 at 8:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks You raise a totally valid point.
I have read a lot of German philosophers, from Kant and Nietzsche through to Heidegger.
I even consulted differently translated editions from time to time, to gain a broader understanding of the concepts involved.
But on the other hand, not translating them at all kinda defeats the whole idea of spreading knowledge.
no, you cant spread knowledges unto those who do not want to seek it.
for people who are serious about gaining the germanic knowledges of kant or neet-zsche or any other german thinkers they would be willing to spend their to learn german, not just contemporary german they speak today, but the german of their times to be able to truly immense themselves in the thoughts and philosophies of these dead thinkers.
anything short of this is just being convenient philosophers not much unlike convenient christians.
how can you say you understand kant and think kant and phathom kant when you cant even think in the language and senses that he thought in.
which is why muhhammad is so smart when he required that al quran be read and written and memorized in and only in arabic, to prevent the corruption of its meaning and intent. -
2018-11-11 at 8:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by gadzooks If you mean literally, you might be onto something, since they didn't exactly have toilet paper back then, and Diogenes, well, he literally lived like a dog.
But if you mean in terms of their ideas, I'd care to hear your elaborations?
They advanced Western thinking with incredible haste.
Do you really think they 'advanced western thinking?'
Because I think philosophers have played an incredibly minimal role in the developing of humanity. Philosophy is very important. Philosophers are not.
I feel the most important change in advancing western thinking has been communication. Look at how news of morphine addiction spread RAPIDLY after the invention/adaptation of the telegram in the mid 1800's. It happened quickly that states started passing legislation on various drugs, and then of course the narcotics act wiped that all away, but it's crazy to think that before then people didn't really demonize drug use in the same way.
Then of course in the 30's and 60's there are some major movements and discussions on drug use that have shaped western society to this day. These were largely facilitated by movies, radio, music, etc.
When has a philosopher ever swayed public opinion? If anything, they seem to be more a product of the times. I feel like philosophy doesn't really get interesting until descartes and humes and all of them come around. It starts becoming more practical and applicable to real life. Probably a better way to word it but I hate getting meta with philosophy. Early philosophers feel so disconnected and fundamental and abstract. Like the type of shit you think of as a teenager. I think scientific understanding has done wonders for philosophy, personally. -
2018-11-11 at 8:55 PM UTC
-
2018-11-11 at 9:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by GGG Do you really think they 'advanced western thinking?'
Because I think philosophers have played an incredibly minimal role in the developing of humanity. Philosophy is very important. Philosophers are not.
I feel the most important change in advancing western thinking has been communication. Look at how news of morphine addiction spread RAPIDLY after the invention/adaptation of the telegram in the mid 1800's. It happened quickly that states started passing legislation on various drugs, and then of course the narcotics act wiped that all away, but it's crazy to think that before then people didn't really demonize drug use in the same way.
Then of course in the 30's and 60's there are some major movements and discussions on drug use that have shaped western society to this day. These were largely facilitated by movies, radio, music, etc.
When has a philosopher ever swayed public opinion? If anything, they seem to be more a product of the times. I feel like philosophy doesn't really get interesting until descartes and humes and all of them come around. It starts becoming more practical and applicable to real life. Probably a better way to word it but I hate getting meta with philosophy. Early philosophers feel so disconnected and fundamental and abstract. Like the type of shit you think of as a teenager. I think scientific understanding has done wonders for philosophy, personally.
That fundamental and abstract thinking is the source of modern day physical sciences.
It might sound obvious now (because of hindsight bias), but they really did come up with the idea that material is constructed of atomic units, paving the way for chemistry, and Aristotle wrote a bunch of books about laws of physics (now mostly discredited, admittedly, but who else was sitting around positing laws of motion in Ancient Greece? most people were preoccupied with raising their cattle and tending to their farms). -
2018-11-11 at 9:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny no, you cant spread knowledges unto those who do not want to seek it.
for people who are serious about gaining the germanic knowledges of kant or neet-zsche or any other german thinkers they would be willing to spend their to learn german, not just contemporary german they speak today, but the german of their times to be able to truly immense themselves in the thoughts and philosophies of these dead thinkers.
anything short of this is just being convenient philosophers not much unlike convenient christians.
how can you say you understand kant and think kant and phathom kant when you cant even think in the language and senses that he thought in.
which is why muhhammad is so smart when he required that al quran be read and written and memorized in and only in arabic, to prevent the corruption of its meaning and intent.
Dude, nobody's gonna sit around and learn umpteen different languages just to ensure an authentic interpretation.
Be realistic.
