User Controls

Write a very superficial take on popular philosophers.

  1. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Socrates is a gross person and I wouldn't want to be around him for any length of time. You don't get to be both glib and ugly, real people have to pick one. I wish there had been a #MeToo movement in Athens because this fucker got off easy. There's one dialogue in which he literally corners a young boy with declarations of love and covertly solicits penetration. Thank God Plato was around to record this behavior, or we'd have no clue what a monster he was.
  2. Sam Harris's opinion is literally worthless on every subject, including neuroscience.
  3. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    That's not really superficial, it's as thorough as one needs to be with Harris.
  4. Professor Jordan Peterson should stick to writing really obvious motivational books that help lots of people, and his academic and practical psychology, which he is something he is really good at, and respectable for.
  5. Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    Nietzsche thought we should fight the power and that conformity was very bad. He was literally the only free thinking early modern philosopher. His writing drew on no prior philosophical work and no subsequent philosopher developed his ideas further because they were already fully formed.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  6. Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]
    Søren Kierkegaard wrote an exhaustive anthology of fictional works that reflect the fruits of a lifelong struggle with fatal homosexuality.
  7. GGG victim of incest
    Zanick was little more than a sexy piece of fuck meat who believed we shouldn't eat his kind.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  8. Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    The sickness unto death was AIDS!

    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  9. mmQ motherfucker
    I don't know anything. Who's a philosopher? Aristotle? Ha. More like where's my bottle. Cuz he's a babby. A little babby with babby thoughts. Maybe they were cool and edgy in his time but it's babby shit now, like we've moved on fucking Aristotle. Tell me something I don't already know. You can't.
    The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
  10. Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    Originally posted by mmQ I don't know anything. Who's a philosopher? Aristotle? Ha. More like where's my bottle. Cuz he's a babby. A little babby with babby thoughts. Maybe they were cool and edgy in his time but it's babby shit now, like we've moved on fucking Aristotle. Tell me something I don't already know. You can't.

    Substance has primacy over forms.

    Bam! Aristotelian knowledge BITCH
  11. DietPiano victim of incest
    Originally posted by Lanny Nietzsche thought we should fight the power and that conformity was very bad. He was literally the only free thinking early modern philosopher. His writing drew on no prior philosophical work and no subsequent philosopher developed his ideas further because they were already fully formed.

    Niethchehe asserts that one should fight societal norms, but if one's beliefs are genuinely in line with society's beliefs, than fighting those particular norms are to fight oneself.
  12. Oh lol I now realize what I'm supposed to do
  13. Daniel Dennett has proven the supremacy of total physical naturalism.
  14. vindicktive vinny Naturally Camouflaged
    stephen hawking ought to be persecuted for blasphemy.

    then prosecuted.
  15. gadzooks Naturally Camouflaged [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]
    Originally posted by Zanick There's one dialogue in which he literally corners a young boy with declarations of love and covertly solicits penetration. Thank God Plato was around to record this behavior, or we'd have no clue what a monster he was.

    In all fairness, you are taking Plato's word for it.

    Plato's dialogues are not exactly accurate recordings of fact any more than they are merely a way to convey facts in a somewhat compelling manner.

    Then again, the title (and overall theme) of this thread might have just flown right over my head.
  16. aldra JIDF Controlled Opposition
    Originally posted by Lanny Substance has primacy over forms.


    you're bordering on heresy there
  17. vindicktive vinny Naturally Camouflaged
    all roads leading to lemon party are paved with philosophy.
  18. Number13 African Astronaut [dispute my snotty-nosed seagull]
    Why the fuck is it called a philosophers stone?
  19. Lanny creature of the mesothelioma era
    Originally posted by gadzooks In all fairness, you are taking Plato's word for it.

    Plato's dialogues are not exactly accurate recordings of fact any more than they are merely a way to convey facts in a somewhat compelling manner.

    I think that was the point of the post. I think the consensus is that Plato wasn't even present for most (any?) of the dialogues. Which is reasonable, I have a hard time imagining Plato being quiet and not inserting himself into the discussion for more than a minute.

    Originally posted by aldra you're bordering on heresy there

    That's what makes A-dawg so dope though, nigga was bringing those fire new heretical ideas.
  20. gadzooks Naturally Camouflaged [keratinize my mild-tasting blossoming]
    Originally posted by Lanny I think that was the point of the post. I think the consensus is that Plato wasn't even present for most (any?) of the dialogues. Which is reasonable, I have a hard time imagining Plato being quiet and not inserting himself into the discussion for more than a minute.

    I have to admit, though I own a physical copy of The Republic, and can claim to have at least read Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics, in terms of first-hand ancient Greek philosopher's works, I have read very little of Plato. Heck, in all honesty, I haven't read so much as a page of my copy The Republic.

    Well, at least no more than any single page in succession, unless it was assigned reading for a class.

    But from what I recall, he really did have quite an ego on him, and a tendency to insert his own opinion into the so-called "dialogues", along with agreement from everybody at the table in every single scene.

    Still though, despite being brilliant and ahead of his time, he (Plato) was an egotistical narcissist.

    If he said anything disreputable about Socrates, I take it with a grain of salt.

    Then again, though, he truly revered Socrates, so maybe that's all the more reason to take his claims seriously.

    That being said, it was just utterly natural at the time to be a pederast. Socrates was no "deviant" if he himself was a pederast.

    So Plato mentioning that would be like mentioning "Socrates bought a milkshake at the market before our discussion".

    Also, Zanick, where exactly is this whole scene referenced in Plato's work anyway?
Jump to Top