/lit/ - Literature

>>14646234
Yes, or at least come to grips with his understanding of negativity/negation, as a whole mess of 20th philosophy takes it up.

>>14646234
No.

Nothing but a gleaming leprosy in the sky

There is no point reading any Continental philosopher after Kant who is wrong but still worth reading. They go into steady decline after him with the German Idealists until they hit bottom of the barrel with Heidegger, and they 've been a joke ever since. There is an alternative world were Continental vs Analytical philosophy consists in an interesting debate between Kantians vs Humeans instead of the mess they are now.

>>14646234
Nope

>>14647016
Ignore this youtuber-philosopher tier poster

>>14647031
What philosopher did I not make justice to?

>>14647049
Oh you're ESL... no wonder you're retarded and watching intros to philosophy on youtube

>>14646234
Yes. If only to interpret what the Hegelspawns are saying, also, it’s nice if you are talking to a Marxist and they reference anything Hegel so you can call out their bullshit and how they only know Hegel through Marx.

There is little more satisfying than than telling a Marxist to go read Hegel.

>>14647049
Schopenhauer himself, Nietzsche, Husserl, Wittgenstein, etc.

But yes. Proceed to explain how none of these are worth reading (despite not having read them yourself).

>>14647089
>interpret what the Hegelspawns are saying
I guarantee you have zero examples to back this up.

>>14647101
If you've read Plato's Parmenides & Schopenhauer's World As Will & Representation, you'd see that Wittgenstein has done nothing but repost things that were already said and without revision. His ladder quote is in fucking WAW&R. What a fraud.

>>14647064
Have you never heard the expression "making justice to" before? t. average Joe larping as a grammar Nazi

>>14646234
No.

>>14647119
Lol this is the charge you push back against. What a fucking mess of a mind.

>>14647101
Okay Husserl isn't THAT bad, but Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are complete shit. Whom do you want me to roast first? Also
>Wittgenstein
>Continental

>>14647089
Marx is actually coherent. Anything he got from Hegel is disposable.

>>14647064
Continental philosophers are the ultimate ESL morons.

>>14647134
You just got OWNED my friend

>>14647143
Do both. This will be good cringe.

>>14647157
No fuck you pick one. But you should be at least somewhat familiar with him so you can argue back.

>>14647173
Schopenhauer

>>14647173
I will engage effort posting in good faith. Nietzsche first.

>>14647182
>>14647194
He is rewatching youtube videos on 2x rn

>>14647194
My first criticism will be that Nietzsche argues insufficiently about his positions. A good example of this is his criticism of Christianity, which mostly consists of psychological explanations of Christian religion rather than actual refutations, which is borderline ad hominem fallacy. To make things worst, he isn't even consistent in his line of attack. Although generally disparaging towards the attitude of the ascetic priest, he admits that asceticism can be a positive ideal if it originates from a desire to conquer yourself rather than hatred of life. But if asceticism can thus be a positive attitude, can we not interpret Christianity as arising from such a noble instinct rather than resentment? And this brings us to the second important point of criticism, his lack of coherent thinking. The most salient example of this is probably his self-refuting doctrine of Perspectivism. If there are no facts but only representations, this doctrine itself is just as false as the doctrines he attacks. He doesn't even consistently adhere to perspectivism, I remember a passage where he admits that he views truth as something divine, it was on The Gay Science I believe. Speaking of this book, he is also rather inconsistent on his views on science. At one point he says that the scientific interpretation of the world may be the most stupid and the poorest in meaning, and in another point he praises "the Physicist" without qualification, I don't remember the quote exactly but I can find it if you want. So overall dogmatism and incoherence are the two main accusations I would levy against him.

>>14647318
We should never contradict ourselves? Everything is true always? Or are some aphorisms and modes of thinking useful at different points?

It doesn't sound like you're familiar with Nietzsche. Coming at him with the inconsistency meme is lazy and on wikipedia. Emerson, who Nietzche based many of his writings on, already put all the nails in that idiot consistency coffin.

There are different uses of Christianity. Wow.

Nietzsche doesn't "admit". Why the weasle word?

>>14647318
tl;dr

>>14647282
I thought we already established you are the one with the shitty English, although I can't say for sure given your posts are never longer than one sentence.

>>14647370
you are making the justice =^_^? Maybe u want teach me give better Spanish or whatever language you use in jungle settlement you're posting from?

>>14647119
Make justice to X is a common mistake when learning English as a second language. Now you know better!

>>14647359
Is this all you got? Yeah Nietzsche is incoherent but that's actually not a bad thing? Please explain to me why logical fallacies are not an intellectual vice.
I also accused him of dogmaticism, but you didn't address that.
>There are different uses of Christianity. Wow.
Is this supposed to be a point about something?
>Nietzsche doesn't "admit". Why the weasle word?
The word " admit" merely refers to someone conceding a point, how is that a weasel word?

Stop trying to teach people Nietzsche. they're not predestined for wisdom. They're not made to discover new truths. Abandon any pretense to wisdom, and the world will be immeasurably better.

>>14647401
This is getting hilarious, I love how you try to roast me for my English while absolutely butchering the language. Please try using shorter sentences, this is getting painful to read.

>>14647401
I want to make sweet justice to you, anon.

>>14647143
I'm a fan of Schopy. Could you tell me why you think he is complete shit?

>>14647318
Nietzsche Is more of a poet or social commentator. As you point out, he doesn't actually offer a coherent philosophy.

>>14647437
All I have for what? You failed to show logical fallacies and posted just a weird introductory class misunderstanding of Nietszche's discussions of European Christianity.

Your dogmatism claim had nothing logically paired with it. Nothing to address.

Now say something nice about Nietzsche to prove you actually understood or read any of it and this isn't A Short Introduction runoff post.

>>14647479
You have been iq filtered. Never show your face here again, Pedro.

>>14647491
Does anyone?

>>14646234
Enlightenment

>>14646234
just read Kant and Schopenhauer then skip all other germans

>>14647486
I mainly dislike him for his dogmatism, he doesn't try to prove his will-based metaphysics. I am not a huge fan of airy fairy speculative philosophers, especially since he tries to derive a moral philosophy from his metaphysics.

>>14647501
Philosophers do.

>>14647514
Dogmatismposter at it again. Cringe brazilians on my lit board. Out! Out!

>>14647521
Here come exactly zero examples...

>>14647514
He bases his Will on his principles of sufficient reasons, well outlined in another books, which are in turn based on Kantian Idealism. Perhaps you skipped his book on principles of sufficient reason? He is not at all speculative, but a real Kantian.

>>14647526
You want a list of philosophers?

>>14647532
Duh

>>14647493
So first you admit that Nietzsche is inconsistent sometimes, now you backpedal and accuse me of not giving him any examples of him being inconsistent even though I already did so.
This is the most low effort rebuttal I have ever seen, you unironically told me to say nice things about Nietzsche to prove I have read him.

>>14647514
He explains Kant better than Kant could.

>>14647535
No, just one with a coherent system. If you don't think systems break down easily into contradictions, maybe you simply receive opinions and parrot them.

>>14647537
What do you mean "duh"? Explain yourself like a functioning adult you retard.

>>14647499
That's much better, stick to shorter sentences until you get the hang of it.

>>14647547
Wittgenstein

>>14647547
Aristotle, Kant, Carnap, Rawls, ... they all attempt to provide a coherent philosophic account of the topics they address. Nietzsche just rattles off aphorisms and slogans and 'opinions' at random like a drunk uncle.

>>14647544
You failed to show incoherence. Psycholigical reasons for embracing Christianity that weaken people... and... self conquering towards a goal as an ascetic... Plus no examples of "disparaging" ascetics, which obviously he is addressing different kinds... Your mind is a fucking mess bro!

Nietzsche... addresses his contradictions... He's self-consciously contradictory. On purpose. This is why I'm calling out your pseud bullshit.

>>14647573
nice bait

>>14647555
Not even close

>>14647532
I haven't read his book on the principle of sufficient reason, but the very fact that he is a Kantian means that he cannot apply the principle of sufficient reason outside of experience, so I don't see how that could help him prove his metaphysical system. Anyway Schopenhauer explicitly says in The World as Will and Representation that he doesn't think his metaphysics can be proved, but I will be very impressed if you can make a good argument for it.

>>14647598
Empirical proof? Use your brain for a hot second. How did this go over your head?

>>14647546
Yeah Schopenhauer's prose is great, that much I will agree. He doesn't really explain Kantianism though, he merely summarizes his main points. I would be surprised if someone had a thorough understanding of Kant just by reading Schopy.

>>14647150
His historical perspective is both a product of and reaction to Hegel.

>>14647282
Lol

>>14647318
>>14647491
Good posts

>>14647627
*because he tosses everything kant wrote aside except the transcendental aesthetic

>>14647643
cringe

>>14647634
And laughably wrong

>>14647634
Marx's 'theory of history' is the least valuable part of his work.

>>14647574
>You failed to show incoherence
>He's contradictory on purpose
Lots of conflicting arguments going on here, I guess you are rather Nietzschean in that respect. Self-consciously so, I am sure.

>>14647648
Your boy got owned, anon. Get over it.

>>14647605
Who the fuck said anything about empirical proofs, if you don't understand a post don't reply to it.

>>14647598
Schopenhauer doesn't claim that Will corresponds completely to thing-in-itself, so he isn't dogmatical. But he claims that insofar as thing-in-itself and is accessible through experience and insofar as it appears to us, it is the Will. He is actually very careful not to go out of Kantian limits and never outside of experience. His metaphysics cannot be empirically proved by science, but by philosophy, which is what Kant envisioned metaphysics to be: things that are inaccessible to science yet available in the objective reality.

I highly suggest not to discard Schopenhauer simply as a dogmatic; that's the last thing he could be accused of.

>>14647591
Name one (1) inconsistency

>>14647663
No. You're missing the point here. You offer bad examples, showing everyone that you're unfamiliar with either the texts or with thinking on your own... Apparently you inherited this vein of pointing out he is contradictory, but can't point to where... and are unaware of his own reasons for it... This pseud shit won't get you far when you leave the midwit pen =^)

>>14647671
>prove
Reading comp, slow down and maybe say the words aloud

>>14647693
His metaphysics obviously go beyond experience, the idea that an insatiable Will is the ontological backbone of reality obviously cannot be verified empirically. As for the "philosophical argument" for his metaphysics, you can open the World as Will and Representation and look for it if you want. You won't find it.

>>14647700

>>14647731
It's proto evo psych. It's the logical line from physics through chemistry and biology to the manifest image. JV reading team in full gear today. Painful!

>>14647704
"You offered bad examples" is not a refutation. You can understand that, right? You need to explain why my examples are wrong. I already elaborated for my points while all you have done so far is low effort shitposting.

>>14647108
Doesn’t that quote help his point? Not being flippant.

>>14647764
Welp, your post can just hang here as an example that you have zero to offer besides intro to phil nonsense. Your weak offering was defused. Yawn.

>>14647710
Do you have an actual point to make retard, stop wasting my time

>>14647771
Help whose point about what? Plagiarism is bad.

>>14647749
So are you going to make an argument for Schope's metaphysics or not? You said you got it but all we hear so far is crickers chirping.

>>14647781
You've embarassed yourself enough in this chain for our entertainment proofboy. Your valuable time was used well.

>>14647119
>ending a sentence with a preposition
He's not a grammar nazi, he's just a foreigner, or a retard, little difference between the two.

>>14647798
Make the argument for his argument? Do your homework. Chain reactions have led to us having a representation of the world.

>>14647779
Translation: I cannot provide a single counter argument

>>14647825
>but Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are complete shit. Whom do you want me to roast first?
(^=

So far no roasting has been achieved. We just found out you were the cringe pseud we predicted... and who we expected to blunder into replying in the manner you did. Get your mind together.

>>14647804
You aren't going to get away this so easily. You said:
>Empirical proof? Use your brain for a hot second. How did this go over your head?
Can you explain what is that supposed to mean? I didn't say anything about empirical proofs in the post you are responding to.

>>14647847
A)
>I haven't read his book on the principle of sufficient reason, but the very fact that he is a Kantian means that he cannot apply the principle of sufficient reason outside of experience, so I don't see how that could help him LOGICALLY prove his metaphysical system. Anyway Schopenhauer explicitly says in The World as Will and Representation that he doesn't think his metaphysics can be LOGICALLY proved, but I will be very impressed if you can make a good argument for it.

B)
I haven't read his book on the principle of sufficient reason, but the very fact that he is a Kantian means that he cannot apply the principle of sufficient reason outside of experience, so I don't see how that could help him EMPIRICALLY prove his metaphysical system. Anyway Schopenhauer explicitly says in The World as Will and Representation that he doesn't think his metaphysics can be EMPIRICALLY proved, but I will be very impressed if you can make a good argument for it.

Looks like I am getting away easily and making you look dumb to even yourself. Based?

>>14647839
I already did it here >>14647318. No counter arguments so far.

>>14647916
Okay. That can stand as your totally defused "roast". But why concede defeat?

He is usually absorbed through other more contemporary figures like F.H Bradley. He pops up in actual political philosophy in a way as well. Discussions of positive rights often make use of his distinctions. His whole system could be seen as not necessarily embraced.

>>14647927
The one thing I will concede is that it was a mistake believing you that you want to argue in good faith. I think we are done here.

>>14647318
I'm not fond of Nietzsche, but I think I have to defend him on this one:
>If there are no facts but only representations, this doctrine itself is just as false as the doctrines he attacks.
First of all, the correct translation is "interpretation", otherwise it would not be controversial in the first place, since all science is based on observation, and those are representation which are taken as factual.
Secondly, this is not a skeptical epistemological account. This does not mean that anything goes, and that we should revert to a sort of Protagorean epistemological solipsism. At no point Nietzsche says that interpretations are all equivalent in their possible truth-values: not every interpretation is worth the same. He used that expression to rule out any possible direct intellectual intuition of facts: we do not experience facts, we experience sensations which are grasped by us, ALWAYS, through interpretation. At no point in our scientific enterprises we directly intuited a given law, rather we always intuite phenomena which are then interpreted through physical laws. (I've used physics as an example, but Nietzsche would apply it to our entire body of knowledge, scientific and unscientific)
As such this claim by Nietzsche is not meant to attack natural sciences and their validity, nor it is meant as an invitation to skepticism

>>14647990
Haha we were done at your first, completely embarassing post ahahahahaha wake up

>>14647318
>A good example of this is his criticism of Christianity, which mostly consists of psychological explanations of Christian religion rather than actual refutations, which is borderline ad hominem fallacy.
It's been a little while since I read him but to my understanding it was his point to show that the Will to Power underlies all moralities. Essentially you can’t refute a morality as it is an expression of an underlying desire and thus you can only argue against it by exposing it for what it is. He uses Christianity as an example of this to explain how it works with Christianity to say how other moralities would dislike what Christianity has done.

Personally I found his insight into that and its expression in slave(Christianity) and master(ancient Greek) moralities as very much worth the read

>>14647318
You definitely should read some of Nietzsche's books

Nietzsche is not that impressive as an existentialist when you think about it. Others like Sartre and Gabriel Marcel have an ontology and epistemology with clear arguments. Others like Merleau-Ponty have philosophy of mind. Nietzsche's early work is his weakest material. He is at his best when he discusses his view of aesthetics.

>>14648068
huh?

>>14648075
You heard me fuckface.

>>14648068
Are all NPCs really like this? Good god.

>>14648075

The later Nietzsche has more of a footing. He is making better arguments. Think his work The Gay Science. Here we have arguments. The earlier Nietzsche is just working off of philosophical anthropology tthat is dated to say the least. There is also no reason why it implies what he claims. Even then his later work is just trying to do one thing for the most part and defend his aestheticism about the meaning of life. Others did that too.

>>14647693
wrong

>>14647318
I'm going from memory here but I believe Nietzsche said that the ascetic was a sort of culmination of the diseased mind, but that if he managed to command any respect at all was because people got an intuitive understanding of the fact that the ascetic was in some sense, through his denial of life, asserting his own power. This, for Nietzsche, would have been proof that even in what appeared to be the most divine and refined one actually found, once again, a will to power.

As to your point concerning the his view on science, I believe Neitzsche thought that meaning had been lost from the world as the will to truth had revealed the world as it was, and would now "free" man from his illusions. This is in some way a curse, but in another it cannot be avoided, and the man to come must dare to confront the world as it is. So in this sense the scientist both deprieves the world of something, is destructive, but he also allows for what's to come.

As to your point about the ad hominem, I believe you're wrong. Nietzsche's point is that moral philosophy (as he understood it) categorized actions with respect to their intension or what were in people's heart, and not to, say, the result. If it is then taken as true that an action is good if the intentions are pure, and bad if they aren't, then it suffice to criticize christianity to show that behind the moral of christianity one finds resentiment, revenge, self serving rational, and will to power. If one accepts the "morality as intention" view, then to reveal nefarious intentions hidden under a moral disguise is enough to destroy the pretention of a moral system based on this intention centric conception. To the extent that Christianity is such as system then Nietzsche would actually be attacking it in a legitimate way.

>>14646234
Just watch a YouTube video on him

>>14647102
Hegel is very popular with the girls at uni, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

>>14648010
So your interpretation of Nietzsche is that he makes the completely trivial point that we don't merely perceive things through our senses, but we also try to explain them?

>>14648891
why is he? I havent read him but im curious

>>14646234
is that a little smile I see shoppy poppy? let me see those cheeks!

>>14646234
Yes.
His work is used every single day of your life.

>>14648349
>I'm going from memory here but I believe Nietzsche said that the ascetic was a sort of culmination of the diseased mind, but that if he managed to command any respect at all was because people got an intuitive understanding of the fact that the ascetic was in some sense, through his denial of life, asserting his own power.
There is a passage where he talks about the caste system in India and he says that it represents the natural hierarchy of society, with the priestly class at the top. I don't think I need to explain why this go against everything he says about the "ascetic priest" elsewhere.
>As to your point concerning the his view on science, I believe Neitzsche thought that meaning had been lost from the world as the will to truth had revealed the world as it was
Yeah but he is not consistent about it either, for example denies at certain points that science can give as the true interpretation of the world, or that a true interpretation even exists.
>Nietzsche's point is that moral philosophy (as he understood it) categorized actions with respect to their intension or what were in people's heart, and not to, say, the result
I was talking about the theoretical views Christianity puts forward, like the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God etc. Nietzsche never gives an argument against any point of the Christian doctrine, like for example David Hume, Immanuel Kant and J L Mackie, so I don't see why he should be put alongside the best atheist philosophers. But more to your point about Christianity originating in ressentiment, he doesn't give an argument for that either. In fact I don't see how he could even have an argument about the psychology of the creators of Christianity, this is entirely on the realm of arbitrary speculation.

>>14648052
So in case anyone is wondering why he keeps flinging shit around instead of making a point, this is what happened when he tried to put more than one sentence together:
>>14647401
>you are making the justice =^_^? Maybe u want teach me give better Spanish or whatever language you use in jungle settlement you're posting from?

>>14647143
Shut your damn mouth.

>>14646234
yes, and I say that as someone who once took the schopenhauer anti hegelian pill, now all I've been reading the past few months are hegelian stuff

>>14649172
>I don't think I need to explain why this go against everything he says about the "ascetic priest" elsewhere.
Okay so you have no idea about the indian caste system and its priestly class. Nothing like a Christian priest or ascetic at all. At all at all.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Stick to youtube. Or you know, read the books.

>>14649184
I think the joke bad grammar went over your head. Go back to *roasting*.

>>14647016
>has not read Hegel himself

no

>>14649852
>Okay so you have no idea about the indian caste system and its priestly class. Nothing like a Christian priest or ascetic at all. At all at all.
Nietzsche is the one who praises the ascetic ideal of the Brahmanic priest dumbass, you are arguing against him.

>>14649996
Lol yeah you have no idea what a Brahmanic priest is nor have the excerpt from Nietzsche. Ban pseuds. Ban midwits.

>>14649861
>I think the joke bad grammar went over your head.
"the joke bad grammar"
You can't make this shit up. Are you getting off on your humiliation?

>>14650019
Haha how were you pwned this hard? You're Brazilian? Portugese? Which?

>>14647016
Plenty of “analytical” philosophers take Hegel seriously and were influenced by him: Wilfrid Sellars, John McDowell, Robert Brandom. If you think that you can dismiss Hegel so easily, you are probably not very well acquainted with the “analytical” tradition.

>>14650147
Dismissing him anyway.

>>14650155
At what chapter of “Phenomenology of Spirit” did you give up?

>>14650242
Just taking Schooenhauer's advice.

>>14650252
Yeah, I see

onions

>>14646234
>Is there any point in reading Hegel?
Here is a helpful guide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jtkakoWG4

>>14647792
Taking the ladder quote helps because it goes above someone saying “Plagiarism!” Read Emerson’s essay on Shakespeare. He talks about how geniuses get their ideas from those around them, and it’s the ability to place the taken ideas in a great order that sets them apart. Wittgenstein stands out even more because he read and loved Schopenhauer, and yet in the end called the old man’s philosophy crude. And so by the end he does the same with the Tractatus—he tells us this is a type of end. Even Nietzsche ends the preface to Human all too human with we should be SILENT! Just like Heraclitus. Just like Witt. It’s not plagiarism, or, rather, it’s something similar that’s OKAY

>>14651098
Nah it's cringe and creepy and a delightful pleb filter when discussing phil. Shakespeare's transformations and use of other writers is very different than the you made this? ...I made this... meme. Wittgenstein added nothing to philosophy.

>>14651136
>cringe
>pleb filter
>I made this you made this meme
We are what we read I guess.

>>14651211
Lol you got BTFO