2017-05-16 at 3:56 AM UTC
Gayplastic doesn't like his inability to justify his position, so he just becomes a faggot bitch instead and whines. It basically gayplastic in a nutshell.
2017-05-16 at 4:30 AM UTC
I tried to reach Nietzsche once and it was so fucking dense I could barely unpack it. I just ordered "beyond good and evil" and I'm going to give it another go. It might not be actual philosophy but Jung really scratches my intellectual itch and its not as dense. Psychoanalysis trumps philosophy in my opinion because it asks the question "who the fuck is even asking these questions." Maybe I'm just too stupid for Nietzsche though.
I think freud really had something going with his penis envy theory, its not just penis envy though its like some girls have a small man complex.
2017-05-16 at 4:42 AM UTC
psychology looks for understanding inside of a person, religion looks for understanding outside of a person, philosophy realizes that both must be understood to understand anything. i seem to recall that a few weeks ago i came up with a better way to phrase that while i was driving it but i've forgotten precisely how it goes.
unless you're reading for amusement, i wouldn't bother with any Nietzsche besides 'the will to power'. it was his 'conclusion' or 'magnum opus' so to speak and everything before that was in some degree adolescent and flailing. jung is always good. there's no practical difference between religion, psychology, and philosophy in the truly brightest of the visionaries.
2017-05-16 at 4:54 AM UTC
Tbh, after reading much of Nietzsche's work, many, many times, I think the simple fact is that people read too much into it. No doubt that there's probably a lot of complexity and depth hidden in the dense and complicated nature of his writing, but a part of says that a lot of that complexity is for its own sake, and not deliberately meaningful (or at least not in a clever way that Nietzsche "programmed" in). I feel the same way with, for example, Ulysses and a lot of the Romantic poets and authors.
Now that's not strictly a bad thing, but it means that you should view it more in the context of art than philosophy. It's like looking at clouds, and largely a reflection of yourself, or more importantly, the lens you are using to view his works. Try it yourself, pick up a Nietzsche book and look at it through the lens of... feminism, fascism, Absurdism, eugenics, socialism... Whatever. It will seem like a complex work of great depth through all of them.
2017-05-16 at 5:41 AM UTC
I was reading the genealogy of morals but I lost that book somewhere and that was a few years ago. I already ordered beyond good and evil so I'm going to give that a go but the will to power sounds good and I'll probably check it out in the future. I know what you mean about psychology, philosophy, and religion, Jordan Peterson has a reading list on his website and I had an amazon gift card so I got a couple books he recommended because he seems smart and talks about all of those things.
Man and his Symbols blew my mind when I was younger, it was exactly what I was looking for and Jung became a hero to me. That's where you're supposed to start with Jung, I had a friend who thought he was too advanced for it and read some other book of his and got nothing out of it, meanwhile my life was changed.
I have two friends who went to fancy schools (that school in Missouri where the rich kid didn't eat anything for a little while cuz poop swastika) for psychology and I asked them about it and Jung was never even mentioned. I knew right then that going to college was a complete rip off and the only way to learn was to do it yourself.
If you haven't read the seven sermons to the dead I highly recommend it, I forgot who it was written by but it was transcribed by Jung and apparently its in the red book but you can find it online easily and it's not very long.
2017-05-16 at 6:21 AM UTC
Jordan Peterson is an odd bird. I think he's dead wrong on pretty much everything political, it colors a lot of what he does. But the dude's articulate, and when he steps away from the conviction that everything everyone ever wrote is a condemnation of socialism I can really get behind a lot of what he says.
What really surprises me about the dude is that the right has apparently found a psychologist, and one who's into some crazy shit like Jung, that they can stomach. I honestly didn't think was possible, but be it through intentional courting or an incidental following picked up because the pronouns thing the dude is bringing batty ass depth psychology to conservative america which is pretty impressive.
2017-05-16 at 10:31 AM UTC
Gbh, I've really grown to principally hate public intellectuals recently.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-05-16 at 5:40 PM UTC
My biggest problem with him is that he believes in god, he's anti sjw and is into Jung so that's good enough for me. Atleast he's not bill nye.
Originally posted by Lanny
No, I'm sure lots of people think I'm stupid in all sorts of emotional states. Greenplastic just seems upset with me personally, and I'm not really clear on why. I think he might be intimidated by me or something.
Nah nigga', nah dawg. You are not intimidating in the slightest. It's just annoying as fuck to debate you, it's like a war of attrition and you got mad perseverance. Also i clearly remember 'winning' a debate on gun laws with you. And you just ignored my post. So, while supremely annoying, i feel compelled to argue with you on some issues, then eventually give up because you are relentless. ANd even if i do manage to make a conclusive argument for my position you will just ignore it or dump a shit load of semi related issues onto the discussion. I imagine Greenplastic is feeling the same sort of frustration with you right now. I mean, i love you and all, but dang nigga, dang dawg.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
I wonder why snap_snap is so easily enamoured by right wing public intellectuals.
