/lit/ - Literature

Destiny is the closest any man in world history has come to Socrates. Destiny has probably spent 25,000 hours debating and it shows

>>18032348
he got confused nad posted it twice

>immanuel kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable
heidegger heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table
>david hume could out-consume wilhelm friedrich hegel
>and wittgenstein was a beery swine
>who was just as sloshed as schlegel
there's nothing nietzsche couldnt teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist
>socrates himself was permanently pissed
>john stuart mill, of his own free will, off a half a pint of shandy was particularly ill
>plato they say could stick it away, half-crate of whiskey every day
>aristotle aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
>hobbes was fond of his dram
>and rene descartes was a drunken fart: "i drink therefore i am"
yes socrates himself is particularly missed
a lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed

>>16358961
except you're missing the novelty in his argument. it's the brainlets that repeat "i think therefore i am" without understanding the context, sure, but it's the midwits that point out "b-but that was part of an ontological argument &also he presupposes the I!!!" and stop listening there, and it's everyone else that realizes not only that his ontological argument was a novel, demystifying extension of (mechanical) philosophy to the natural world, but that he, on top of that, had a mechanical theory of light, recognizing that object forms didn't just magically get into your mind. he recognized that what you see must be an innate construction of the mind, from inside: that the sensory organs only give occasion to construct experience. this thought experiment lead him to the boundaries of what's mechanical and what isn't. what's the difference between an automaton and a human? we still have this question today. his idea was that the difference lie in acts of will. many scientists would disagree, but even /sci/, the most hardcore of empiricists, still respect Roger Penrose (indeed, there's a thread there about him right now) who has a mechanical theory attempting to define this difference/dualism he also believes exists. The consequences, for him, that the world was mechanical and thus could be constructed, was only naturally followed by an ontological argument. Descartes was ahead of his time (altho of course Newton's,etc later "action at a distance" has, against scientist's greater efforts, forked Descartes from science ever since - but this was still a big question to raise). Seeing people project their zero-order, contemporarily-warped opinions onto him is always tragic.

>such that

>>14956724
its a quote from Jaws

>>14957517
is this image based or cringe

when u sit upright like ur parents told u

I've been Gnostic my entire life. When I look at society, I try my best to empathize with people. I understand their condition. I see that most people are naive and full of vice. They could not practice asceticism or follow Gnosticism if their life depended on it. They believe in idols and prophets instead of divine, individualistic spirit.

I've read all of the major religions and their sects. It's all childish material peddled by snake oil salesmen. These poor souls will never be saved.