/lit/ - Literature

Nah, let's be real

>>19507451
Schop seems like a trustworthy old man. I wish I am neighbor with him.

>>19507451
Schopenhauer's certainly up there but idk if he's the first.

>>19507451
Literally his entire philosophy was incel cope, so this is the obvious answer.

Kant.
Dude was a poisoned dwarf.

>>19507462
He seems like someone who would refuse to help you in any way and instead just be rude.

>>19507451
How the fuck is He ugly?

>>19507444
Theirs also Sartre with his eye, although he'd certainly look much better than Schoph or Hegel without it.

>>19507468
I don't think he's uglier than Schelling. Old Schop has his own charm. Kinda like LOTR character or Christmas Carol character.

>>19507488
Definitely this abomination

>>19507444
It's either Zizek or this guy>>19507488

>>19507444
hegel is aesthetic as fuck whuat

maybe thats why normies dont like me they dont like that weird mysterious look

>>19507444
That' Hegel in his 60s, when he was chronically sick.
Young/Middle-Aged Hegel was far more handsome, pic related. He look far more noble in this depiction, imho
>>19507488
I think this is it. Young Sartre could still be somewhat cute in a fucked up kind of way. Very old Sartre is literally disgusting, I cannot look at a picture of his for more than a few seconds
>>19507491
Schelling seems decently attractive in all his depictions I have seen, including the one you have posted. He looks like a cute alien.

>>19507526
Also to make my case about Sartre, compare this picture of his young self (https://live.staticflickr.com/4089/4843004464_2650082fa2_b.jpg)) to the oicture attached to this post

>>19507526
Yeah I guess you're right, obviously most people aren't going to age gracefully. The same could be said about Schopenhauer, although only paintings exist of him in young age. Kant was pretty bad throughout his whole life though, although maybe this is due to the whole powdered wig shit in his time.

>>19507500
Nowadays he is too old to be attractive, but imhk back in the day he was at the peak of the slavic dads category. Pic related. In general, he has a great facial structure, excellent hair and beard, and very expressive eyes. It doesnt surprise that he managed to marry so many beautiful, much younger brilliant women.

>>19507491
He looks like an mystical incarnation.

>>19507500
>>19507558
nah zizek is attractive. women love this mf

>>19507444
damn hegel looks like a coomer innkeeper

>>19507451
he has the face of what I would expect from a philosopher

>>19507451
Tbh, he doesn't look ugly to me. He looks "unique" sure—cool even—but ugly? No.
Maybe it's because he's an old man? He doesn't look ugly as a young man but then again you can't really tell with a painting. Don't think he looked handsome though.

>>19507444
Checked!
I don't know about ugly but he always did strike as very German looking.

>>19507647
Imho he looked ghastly as a young man, and pretty good as a middleaged-to-old man. I think people get too swayed by his ridicolous haircut.

>>19507673
leave Shoppy alone

>>19507647
bug eyes

>>19507444
>>19507451
>>19507468
>>19507487
>>19507526
>>19507647
>>19507673

Guy who I am currently reading. He looks like a caricature of a Jew

>>19507500
zizek is peak aesthetics

>>19507710
Lukacs is great, he looks like a movie villain

>>19507706

That pic just makes me love Hegel even more.

>>19507491
Young Schelling was handsome.

>>19507444

Thomas Carlyle without a beard frankly looks ridiculous and even laughable lmao.
Look at his lips! oh no no no.

>>19507444

>>19507852
Looks fine

>>19507852
>with a beard

>>19507865
Has anyone ever been more butthurt than Carlyle? He just seethed for like 50 years straight about his country going to hell

>>19507476

>>19507880
But that's extremely based.

>>19507444
>>19507500
Neither Hegel nor Zizek are ugly at all.
OP's pic shows an old man, thing hair and loose skin. Nobody looks great in that condition, but he's not ugly. Lest most old people would be judged "ugly."
Zizek is just sloppy but he arguably looks good (or at least very manly, like a bear type)

>>19507859
Wagner was probably very attractove out of sheer charisma. That said, I dont think his face has any problem. He had a very interesting, almost royal facial structure. His problem, frkm what I've resd, was his height, and the fact that his head was not well proportioned to his body. That said, nobody seemed to care.
>>19507886
Kant was a very cute twink from his 20s up to his 50s. He is much uglier in his later paintings, modtly brcause he was a very old, toothless, fragile man.

>>19507889
Dont get me wrong, I love his writing, but his blood pressure must have been comical. The occasional discourse on the nigger question you can just tell he wrote in a state of absolute seethe, it is exactly like a shitpost someone would make when they have given up hope. Even the title is a shitpost

>>19507647
I always thought he looks like the twin of Billy Crystal

>>19507862
No he doesn't lmao, cope. Here's a sketch by a very kind artist to help you do that.
>>19507865
He looks fine with a beard, it hides his lips and overall weak face and he looks like a sage.

>>19507444
Hegel looked like a male version of Angela Merkel.

>>19507924
Again you are just looking to connect, other places you can do that.

>>19507912
While looking up a picture of young Schoppy to post, I found out that some people think he looks like Johnny Depp. I honestly don't see it though.

>>19507924
There's literally nothing wrong with that sketch either. He looks manky and well proportioned. Also, regarding the lips, imho here >>19507852 he is just making a frown (he places his upper lips behind his lower lips - if you look for it youll notice it too).

>>19507944
????
>>19507957
I never said there was anything wrong with that sketch, please read my post again. As for the lip thing, if you explanation is true answer me this: why does he keep on doing it? Does he think it looks good?

>>19507985
Is it his autism?

>>19507985
He has an underbite clearly

>>19507994
Or is he just ugly without a beard?

>>19507985
>As for the lip thing, if you explanation is true answer me this: why does he keep on doing it? Does he think it looks good?
I guess. In these pictures he is clewrly hiding his upper lip, which can be seen in all his bearded pictures. I'm not sure why he did that, but he still did. It seems to me that he was striving for a "severe" vibe.

>>19508006
Ahhh, so you think it was his autism. Got it.
Yeah, well, I think I'm going to have to go with >>19508001 on this one, dawg; I don't think I've ever seen Carlyle's top lip, but if you have I'd be happy if you were to show me it.

>>19507451
Other than the hair he actually looks like merely a dignified old man. Perhaps a little jaded and wrinkly as most old men look, but his face isn’t misshapen.

Reading about Thomas Carlyle now. It sounds like he was VERY based.

Jordan Peterson has ugly beta cuck face

On the other hand, who was the most handsome philosopher and why was it Stirner?

>>19508220

>>19508244
Looks nothing like him

>>19507706
>adamantly against differing treatment of races
>cosmopolitan
Scuckenhauer

>>19508002
He doesn't look ugly there.

all of these dudes have reasonably symmetrical faces, true ugly begins when your shit doesn't even match. there has to be a philosopher out there with extreme vertical orbital dystopia or some other fucked up symmetry condition.

>>19508026
Not that anon but you can see it here.

>>19507842
Literal basement dweller tier.

>>19508280

>>19508313
See, this thing: >>19507488

>>19507444
I'm thinking it's our boy Blaise Pascal. Deeply unfortunate. Very nice writing though

>>19507444
he was close to death at the time of this picture

>nobody mentioned Foucault yet

>>19507451
Retro Wolverine is kinda cool.

>>19508349
Not ugly, just a bald pedo fag frenchy who died of AIDs.

which one /his/?

>>19508349
>>19508393
hes considered one of the most attractive philosophers

>>19508342
Yeah, he reminds me of a Jewish girl I know (short, ugly, massive tits, I thought about it but I wouldn't) and he has the Kant thing going on, except his Jacobi isn't really even that attractive lmao (He cute though).

>>19508396
None of these look like him? Who makes these pictures?

>>19508393
I think his bad actions turned his face into what it was later in life. Just look at that, the man's handsome.

>>19508396
How does he manage to look so fucking smug in all of them?

>>19508412
An A.I., he chose a very limited one though. I don't blame the A.I. or it's creator for being limited though, I blame anon's autism for driving him to post this crap—his autism preventing him from having good judgement on aesthetics or resemblance—and shitting up this pretty funny thread.

>>19507444
Socrates, Otto weininger, ayn rand, Hegel, and guenon.

>>19508423
You maybe be onto something.

>>19508435
you make it sound like you could do better

>>19508313
Here it is >>19507535

>>19508438
Hahaha I forgot about Rene. Hes certainly up there!

>Decartes
>John Locke
>Thomas Hobbes
>John Stuart Mill
>everyone in the Frankfurt School
>Habermas
>Ayn Rand
>Judith Butler
All ugly as dogshit.
All bad philosophers too.

>>19508527
Mill has the gentleman face. Not very great hair, but quite a nice face

It is sort of hard to tell because much of his face was covered by a beard, but Marx was probably very ugly.

bump

>>19508527
>>Decartes
>>John Locke
>>Thomas Hobbes
>>John Stuart Mill
They look fine wtf are you talking about?

>>19507462
true. kant looked like a goblin

>>19508905
They all looked like repulsive goblin freaks.

>>19508905
All the names you listed aren't even bad philosophers. What is he on about?

this bald faggot

>>19508438
>René
oui

>>19508958
All bad.
End of.

>>19508958
ghastly
hideous
revolting

>>19508966
Descartes being on this list alone refutes your claim.

>>19508984
putrid stinky smelly frog

>>19507706
very pro-hegel image

>>19508964

>>19508980
Cute
Smart
Valid

>>19509013
droopy beta gay face
giant beak of a nose
gay hair

>>19508991
Tell me you haven't read him without saying you haven't read him.
>>19509021
> droopy beta gay face
Not droopy, very defined. Very alpha if anything.
> giant beak of a nose
Yes, it's called an aquiline nose and it's very aristocratic.
> gay hair
Lmao, you wish you could rock that mane bro.

>>19509004
Kek

>>19509058
John Locke? More like John Lock him out so he can't bore us with his gay shitty philosophy.

>>19509103
Rekt

>>19507488
He looks like an old ugly frog man

Camus looked sort of ugly but also sort of cool at the same time.

Brain too big to look good.

>>19509451
Maybe he just got fat? I always liked this portrait better, I think he just looks better (maybe it's the eyebrows).
I wonder which or if both or if neither were done from life...

> Who was the ugliest philosopher?
> /lit/ names literally every philosopher they can think of
What did /lit/ mean by this?

>>19509473
only a stoic philosopher was a gigachad

>>19509103
>>19509378
John Locke? More like John Lokt his BAC up your ass, because you faggots are still seething to this day at one of the greatest of all time.

>>19509492
Locke is pretty based, ngl.

this is fucking hilarious ugly ass mfers

OH NO NO NO

>>19509498
>ngl
Go back.

>>19509516
Imagine getting btfo by this. No wonder people wanted him dead

>>19507491
Schelling isn't ugly you fucking moron. This entire thread is full of retards.

>>19509632
he too wanted to be dead tbqh

>>19509554
kys faget, I'll use whatever abreviation I won't you fucking nigger smdh

Bump

>>19509440
Agreed

>>19509516
His achievements are astounding but not gonna lie that's 100% untermenschen phenotype.

>>19507955
compare the fucking eyes and brows for fuck sake

Maquiavelo looks like a fucking incel with his mischievous smile

you are all pseudoaesthetes. there is only one correct answer. you cannot be any uglier than this nigga

>>19507814
Gigachad chin

>>19507899
I agree. I think Wagner's face is actually kinda projecting a trustworthy aura, like some handsome old man who can tell you a lot of intresting life lessons. Comforting desu.

>>19508407
Honestly he's a normal looking guy if we don't look at that huge ass nose.

>>19507488
/thread

>>19509440
How is he ugly? Looks pretty normal. You could say that he has a shit hairline but other than that he's average looking. His smugness adds to his charisma.

>>19508220
A challenger appears. This chad has aged like fine wine and still looked handsome in his later years, no homo.

>>19509461
This pic looks disturbing to me. His eyebrow just freaking me out.

>>19508280
>>19508412
We have no images of Stirner that aren't napkin sketches by Engels so you have literally no basis for claiming any image does or does not look like him. Please don't tell me you're one of those numbskulls who think that photograph of Beckett is Stirner. You're not that dumb, are you?

>>19508964
I always thought he looked like a monkey.

>>19510529
The sketches clearly portray him with a strong Nordic profile and defined chin.

>>19510497
The guy I posted isn't Pascal; its most likely Louis-Isaac Lemaistre de Sacy or his brother.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Isaac_Lemaistre_de_Sacy
Like I said, he's the Jacobi to Pascal's Kant.

>>19513094
Kant looks so handsome in this photo

>>19507444
HE WAS NOT UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just a nerd or some shit

>>19507451
I'dd kill to look hot when I turn 60
I don't know why you think he's ugly. Maybe he was weird when he was young, but he turned into a handsome oldman

>>19507444
Bakker

>>19514222
Nice trips. Also, who?

>>19507912
Kek. It's uncanny

>>19507865
thats one hell of a beard.

>>19507451
That looks like a cool old man
>>19507466
This guy looked like an unkempt Satyr by his own confession

Jack Kerouac
Schopenhauer
Voltaire
Marlowe
Milton
Donne
Kierkegaard
Camus
Alcibiades

>>19510485
>like some handsome old man who can tell you a lot of intresting life lessons.
And then tell people you're a masturbation addict.

>>19507444
>>19507451
both are not ugly.

>>19510460
He's just an old man.

>>19514880
He looked sort of like John Wayne.

>>19515261
He really does.

>>19507710
>George Lucas

>>19507444
the moustache made miracles for him

>>19507444
It's fucking happening to me bros. All the hair above my frontal cortex is gone, like it was burnt off. My skull is fucking climbing upwards like it doesn't want to associate with my body. My thinking parts bulge forward like fucking Wagner. I better get some great art out of this shit. It does not attract beautiful self-absorbed women.

Literally the incarnation of Socrates, yet also a jewish sex pest.

>>19515822
post hairline

>>19507706
reminder that Hegel was always nothing but kind to Schopenhauer who's resentment towards the more popular philosopher arguably destroyed his own academic career.

>>19508583
>It is sort of hard to tell because much of his face was covered by a beard, but Marx was probably very ugly.

>>19516185
Kripke is a sex pest? Please tell me more

>>19516507
Cute and manly
Engels was handsome too

>>19516592
He looks like a fucking mutt though and IIRC he was nicknamed the moor because of his swarthy complexion. I honestly wonder if some of his seething at Lafargue (who, incidently, was pretty handsome and who, incidentally, also married (and fucked) Marx' daughter) for being a Jewish nigger wasn't just a classic case of projection.
Either way Marx is still a giant faggot.
>Engels was handsome too
Engels looked fucking bloated.

I look like curtis yarvin, same hair too, am I ugly bros?

>>19514861
>Jack Kerouac
What???

>>19516645
You’re average, like most people.not ugly, probably attractive to some.

Habermas and it's not even a contest. His philosophy also is as pretty as himself. I am anxiously awaiting his obituary on the news every day.

>>19517061
You're right, there's not enough women here; anons are fucking sexist as always.

>>19509491
He was also filtered by basic calculus so he couldn't have been that smart, lmao.

>>19507899
>His physical appearance in 1839 was described by the painter Friedrich Pecht: strikingly elegant, indeed aristocratic in his appearance, despite his somewhat short legs, and with such a strikingly beautiful woman on his arm (his wife Minna] that she alone would have sufficed to make the couple interesting, if Wagner himself had not had such an arresting head that one’s attention was involuntarily fixed upon him.

>Meeting him a few years later (1843), the author Eliza Wille described him thus: It had remained a fleeting encounter […]. But Wagner’s features had impressed themselves on my mind: his elegant, supple figure, the head with the mighty brow, the acute eye and the energetic lines around his small and tightly closed mouth. A painter who was sitting next to me drew my attention to his straight, protruding chin, which seemed to be carved out of stone, giving the face a special character.

>>19507488
ai mon dieu... la creature... le goblin de la france...

>>19516248
>I am tired of this earth. These people. I am tired of being caught in the tangle of their lives.

>>19507488
Anyone with messed up eyes automatically wins the ugly contest. You basically cease to appear human.
t. Messed up eyes

>>19507535
christ, what the fuck. He was cute.

>>19507647
Yeah, unfortunately “unique” is ugly 99% of the time and paintings always blur reality in a polite way.

>>19508338
>>19508499
sartre doesn't count because he just has fucked up wall eyes, i meant actual structural asymmetry. for example in this famous pic of poe you can most clearly see his orbital dystopia, his right pupil is lower than the other and his brows are all fucked up. i would bet poe seemed much uglier IRL than he does in pics because photographers look for your "good angles" but this type of thing looks way worse in motion and without the benefit of ye olde black and white clearing up your complexion.

t. orbital dystopia sufferer (although i did get surgery to fix this, it barely even worked lmao finna kms)

>>19517646
also his nose is kinda bent to the right as well.

>>19507955
>some people think he looks like Johnny Depp
TIL Schopenhauer’s mom is alive and well and knows how to use the internet.

>>19517061
bingo

>>19517623
From the profile when he was young*

>>19515796
Punchable.

>>19517646
Looks fucking rough colorized.

>>19517779
The next colorization I see that's an improvement will be the first. BnW already has a full color scale, so it just looks like corpse paint.

>>19517779
there's no way his complexion was like this, this is what i'm talking about. colorizers don't seem to take into account that most people (especially not in the 19th century) do not have clear skin, thus they make all white people the same generic tone and i'm sure for other races as well.

>>19507451
>coolest looking philospher

>>19514861
Jack Kerouac
>philosopher
>ugly

>>19516507
A-anon what’s happening in my pants??

>>19517875
True; they always give a euromutt warm tone to the skin even when like with Poe he was Irish/Anglo so it would have been pallid and pinkish.

>>19507451
you have a fucking visual defect if you think schopenhauer is uglier, or even comparable to, hegel

>>19507444
>>19509516
Socrates is the correct answer

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25553768/

>>19514861
Kerouac and Camus were both handsome men. This really isn't a controversial statement.

>>19518010
Camus is sexy, Kerouac is mid

>>19517076
Are you perhaps getting Zeno of Elea mixed up with Zeno of Citium?
Explain.

>>19516613
>He looks like a fucking mutt though and IIRC he was nicknamed the moor because of his swarthy complexion
So? He still was a swarthy cute and manly man
>I honestly wonder if some of his seething at Lafargue (who, incidently, was pretty handsome and who, incidentally, also married (and fucked) Marx' daughter) for being a Jewish nigger wasn't just a classic case of projection
Bad reading comprehension from your part. In that letter Marx was just mocking Lassalle for believing in phrenology, and he did so by applying ironically phrenological theory to him.
>Engels looked fucking bloated.
K, youre blind

>>19517076
Basic calculus does not solve Zeno's paradox, and the fact you think so proves you're a pleb.

Yes, limits can be defined and calculated. Calculus teachers like to make a big deal about how this supposedly solves Zeno's paradox. It doesn't. It's a common fallacy where people confuse two things: (i) naming and formalizing a phenomenon, and (ii) understanding that phenomenon. In exactly the same way, people think they understand gravity because they give it a name and formalize it with Newton's laws. But no-one genuinely understands gravity (hence why physicists still can't unify gravity and quantum mechanics in a single theory)

>>19517076
Calculus has not resolved any of Zeno's relevant paradoxes

>>19515796
Very German looking. Looks somewhat like Mainländer too.

>>19507444
me :<

bump

>>19510460
I'm surprised it took this long. His face makes him special, easy to caricature, but damn ugly.
>>19507451
Literally plebit tier

>>19508244
Brother?

>>19518548
Truly retarded chart. You have no taste

>>19507444
They look like their philosophy

>>19507488
Definitely this. Schopenhauer Vindicated.

>>19507488

No wonder he spewed such garbage. Ugly people should not be allowed to write

>>19508438
Old Guénon looks like my dad.

>>19507444
Me

>>19507462
>I wish I were the neighbor of a psycho who pushed his neighbor down the stairs because he thought she talked too much
Might wanna think about this one awhile Anon

>>19507488
¡AY! ¡El Ogro del Filosófia!

>>19519433
>Ugly people should not be allowed to write

They shouldn't be allowed to do anything but clean up after others, imo.

>>19507706
>is just a Heraclitus who read Kant
KEK

>>19519305
Guattari was ugly but Deleuze has a very masculine face and was quite good looking.

>>19517600
>the hairline is literally actually right in the middle of that mid-skull dip between the two lobe bulges or whatever the technical phrenology term is
Jesus Christ lad I thought you were exaggerating, waxing poetic

>>19514222
Aged like Richard Dean Anderson

>>19517646
Bros is it just me or does he actually have the exact face of John Holmes

>>19507444

>>19518658
That chat was pulled directly from reeedit
Proving that Schopenhauer as the king of ugliest is a simp chud way of thinking

>>19509516
He drove a man insane by sexually rejecting him

>>19515796
He looks cute. I am wondering what we think is attractive if some of these men are hideous

>>19507488
Why are pedoes always deformed in some way

>>19518034
Yeah, yeah I did.
>>19518061
>>19518062
Explain how it doesn't please. I already confused two philosophers even after anon posted the statue and specifically mentioned his stoicism so I admit to being something of a pleb; now prove that you aren't one as well by refuting my position. Go on, don't just say that I'm wrong, refute me. So far you claim that calculus only formalizes the problem but does not answer it, please show what difficulty still remains unresolved. I mean, it seems to me that Aristotle effectively realized essentially the same thing already (see Physics, Books V. and VI.) that motion over a magnitude must correspond with the magnitude and be continuous like it, so that instant does not follow instant like point does not follow point (in calculus we speak of infinitesimals or limits), and the quicker of two things traverses a greater magnitude in an equal time, etc., etc., seriously, was Aristotle just retarded? Am I really missing something?
> http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.5.v.html
> http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.6.vi.html (skip here if you like)

>>19509516
Anthony Hopkins?

>>19518057
>So?
So, the proportions of his face are all fucked up and ugly (cf. Lafargue who was a mutt but looked handsome).
Also, it seems that I have, in my original comment, misremembered the famously memed passage on Lasselle as having been about Lafargue instead (I thought I did, I should've double checked when I had some doubt) nevertheless, Lafargue was also a Jewish Nigger (boy, a lot of those guys were Marxists back then huh?) and Marx and Engels also called Lafargue a nigger many many times too, for example,
> My dear Laura, [Marx' daughter, the one getting blacked lmao]
> My congratulations to Paul [the candidate for the Botanical Gardens—and the animals]. Being, in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district.
Imho, Lassalle is unattractive but he has the advantage of looking very stately. There do not appear to be any photos or depictions of him when he was younger.

> Bad reading comprehension from your part.
1. Supposing what you say is true it wouldn't be bad reading comprehension on my part but simply a lack of context.
2. He was seething throughout the entire letter (which he opens by complaining about how shit costs money), you're coping so fucking hard right now. Marx was an anti-semite despite being a Jew and he hated niggers despite curiously looking like one. If he was alive today he would be another seething Jew mutt posting on /pol/ lmao. Seriously, pull up a collection of Marx' letters and ctrl.+f for "nigger" lol. This dude was fucking pathetic, the only reason he was fine with Lafargue marrying his daughter was because he was financially stable unlike him.

>>19518057
>>19521654
> In that letter Marx was just mocking Lassalle for believing in phrenology, and he did so by applying ironically phrenological theory to him.
No, Marx wasn't being le ironic he legit believed in phrenology and he was making an armature phrenological observation (him and Engels were enthusiasts).
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_01_11b.htm
from Wilhelm Liebknecht's "Karl Marx; biographical memoirs":
> Marx endeavored to make sure of his men and to secure them for himself. He was not such a zealous devotee of phrenology as Gustav Struve, but he believed in it to some extent, and when I first met him-I have already mentioned it - he not only examined me with questions,
but also with his fingers, making them dance over my skull in a connoisseur's style. Later on he arranged for a regular investigation by the phrenologist of the party, the good old painter, Karl Pfaender, one of the “ oldest,” who helped to found the Communist Alliance, and was present in that memorable council to whom the Communist Manifesto pras submitted, and by whom it was discussed and accepted in due form.
Marx fucking loved science, despite being too retarded to actually understand it, so ate shit like phrenology up.

btw, the full letter in question here:
> https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm
I don't see how this is a matter of my poor reading comprehension, just seems like you're coping hard bud.


>K, youre blind
No, you are fag. Engels is not "ugly" but the dude's face is fucking bloated. He literally looks like a fucking gamer, lmao.

>>19521264
Did you ever watch the "To Catch a Predator" show? They weren't really "paedophiles" but broke-ass loser guys who were looking for anything they could get and it just so happened an undiscerning child was all they could get (a fake decoy, in this circumstance, which is even worse).

I have a pet theory that most paedos aren't paedos at all but just desperate for anyone, and the youth are the most susceptible. Hence the deformity. Normal adults are repulsed by a deformity whereas children just shrug at it and treat it as nothing.

>>19514861
>Alcibiades
Yeah dude, fucking Pythagoras and Muhammad were ugly too, trust me bro I saw them with my own eyes.

>>19507886
Why is it always that picture, that's like the worst one. It's obvious you're doing this on purpose.

>>19509516
he looks like how this song sounds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCgcTxsF2P8

>>19518583
> That smile
Wow, she's pretty cute <3

>>19521288
>Explain how it doesn't please
It's kind of like trying to explain how the existence of chainsaws doesn't solve Russel's paradox: They're totally unrelated to each other.

Let's take Achilles and the hare. The paradox is that before passing the hare, Achilles must first close 1/2 the distance, then 3/4 the distance, then 7/8 the distance, etc. This raises questions about whether the universe is discrete or continuous, whether infinitely many events can take place in finite time, etc. These are not questions about calculus, these are questions about the nature of spacetime.

The calculus teacher pleb will say "limit as n goes to infinity of (2^n-1)/2^n equals 1, therefore Achilles catches up with the hare!" Well, duh, everyone already knows Achilles will catch up with the hare. That argument doesn't tell us anything.

>>19507451
hes not ugly per se. he honestly just looks like how a philosopher would look like to me

come on now people

>>19515796
i hate to use this word, but if the news showed this dude as an incel murderer or something i would not be surprised

>>19516613
young engels always reminds me of this ugly pubeface

>>19523107
schlegel was much uglier. Fichte looked like a cool old uncle who smokes and drinks too much and then harasses women

>>19523218
>pic related

>>19518017
camus is sexy, yes. but kerouac has this handsome ted bundy-esque psychopathic masculine look to him

>>19521332
inshallah haters will say its fake

>>19516613
>He looks like a fucking mutt though and IIRC he was nicknamed the moor because of his swarthy complexion.
Swarthy men are hot, dude. Look at Che Guevara. You're so buttblasted by Marx

Laffo

>>19523223
>>19523218
you're right i completely forgot about schlegel. looked like an inbred pedophile

>>19523107
he looks fine

>>19523246
>Swarthy men are hot, dude.

>>19517779
looks familiar

>>19523315
are you blind

>>19517061
Very true, however for me to agree with you require me to also acknowledge that she was a philosopher which I can't bring myself to do.

>>19523098
>It's kind of like trying to explain how the existence of chainsaws doesn't solve Russel's paradox: They're totally unrelated to each other.
You're exaggerating quite a bit here and it honestly comes off as slightly disingenuous.

>This raises questions about whether the universe is discrete or continuous
Indeed it does, but if the universe is discrete the difficulty is instantly resolved; the paradox really relies on the assumption that the universe is continuous (which seems to be the more attractive model for most people, I think, not many people can stomach the idea that we live in a pixel world).

>whether infinitely many events can take place in finite time
Well, we all know that time, being continuous, is made up of infinitely many instances, but the difficulty is in whether motion can be preserved in the frozen instant or whether an infinite set of distances can be traversed. Aristotle addresses the first of these here:
> Zeno's reasoning, however, is fallacious, when he says that if everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. This is false, for time is not composed of indivisible moments any more than any other magnitude is composed of indivisibles.
You see, the instant is being treated stealthily as a discrete object instead of as a point (following Euclid, that which has no part) and Aristotle calls this out. Calculus is careful to preserve the subtle distinction—recall the roundabout nature of the definition of the limit or Berkley's criticism of infinitesimals for being "the ghosts of departed quantities" (the distinction then, although preserved, was employed clumsily and infinitesimals consequently were mathematically suspect for many years hence, until they're legitimization as a non-standard alternative in the 1960s). This, together with some basic facts (e.g. the quicker of any two given beings being defined as traversing a greater distance in equal time, less distance takes less time to traverse, etc., etc.) kind of kill this paradox by reducing it to a simple math problem.

> Well, duh, everyone already knows Achilles will catch up with the hare. That argument doesn't tell us anything.
The conclusion is obvious to everyone but the logic of how it could be so is not—and there in lies the paradox—the use of calculus is meant to clarify this logic; you are, therefor, missing the point when you say "duh" because the point of such a demonstration isn't the conclusion but the very logic of the method, viz. taking the limit of a converging infinite series, being used to derive it.

>>19523660
Do you know what limits mean? When we say that
sum_{n=1}^{infinity}1/2^n = 1,
that is simply a shorthand for saying:
For every epsilon>0, there exists some N_0 such that for all N>N_0,
|1 - sum_{n=1}^{N}1/2^n| < epsilon.

Or in English: For any positive distance, the finite initial series eventually come within that distance of 1.

It doesn't say anything about zero distance. It just says the sum gets arbitrarily close to 1 (but it explicitly does NOT say the finite sums achieve ZERO distance from 1).

So what the calculus teacher is doing is taking the intuition everyone already has---duh, the arrow will reach the target---and obfuscating it with notation, and then claiming the paradox is solved. The paradox hasn't even been addressed. All you've done is formalize the dead-obvious intuition that the arrow will reach the target.

>>19523660
I just realized you're probably misunderstanding Zeno's paradoxes and that's why you're having trouble understanding.

You think Zeno's paradox is an attempt to convince people that Achilles will never catch up to the tortoise.

But that's not what it is. Everyone knows Achilles will catch up to the tortoise. No-one in the history of the world ever listened to Zeno's paradox and then said, "Ah! You've convinced me Achilles will never catch the tortoise." That has never happened. No-one is that dumb.

Rather, the paradox is: Zeno's argument *seems* to show that Achilles can't catch the tortoise. But that obviously can't be true, since Achilles DOES catch the tortoise. So where is the flaw in Zeno's argument?

Calculus limits don't address "where is the flaw in Zeno's argument" at all. They just attempt to prove what people already know---that Achilles will catch the tortoise. No shit, Sherlock

>>19523660
>>19523790
Here's an example to illustrate with a different paradox. Suppose someone argues like this:

"We know that (1-1)*(1+1)=0.
We also know (1-1)*3=0.
Thus, (1-1)*(1+1)=(1-1)*3.
Cancelling (1-1) on both sides, we get
1+1=3."

Now suppose we ask Person A and Person B to explain the above "paradox".

Person A says: "1+1=2. So 1+1 is not 3."

Person B says: "You can't cancel (1-1) on both sides because (1-1) is zero. Cancelling a common factor is only valid if the factor is nonzero."

Person B is correct. Person A completely missed the point. Everyone already knows 1+1=2. Person A isn't even addressing the real question at all.

But Person A is doing exactly what the calculus teacher does who claims to "solve" Zeno's paradox with a limit calculation.

Dude, he wrote "Ghost Hunters Adventure Club and the Secret of the Grande Chateau"!
It has 4.9 on Amazon, pleb!

>>19523740
> Do you know what limits mean?
Yes.
> It doesn't say anything about zero distance.
Never said it did. I brought up the definition of the limit because I was discussing the approaches used to talk about instances in the history of calculus, e.g. speaking of them as actualities as in infinitesimals or as potentialities as in limits. Please read my post again.
> The paradox hasn't even been addressed. All you've done is formalize the dead-obvious intuition that the arrow will reach the target.
Could you please address my, or better yet, Aristotle's argument?
>>19523790
> You think Zeno's paradox is an attempt to convince people that Achilles will never catch up to the tortoise.
Yes, that's exactly what it is
> Everyone knows Achilles will catch up to the tortoise.
Correct, and that's where the paradox arises from. That's where we start questioning if motion is just an illusion and stuff.
> So where is the flaw in Zeno's argument?
I've already discussed the flaw in Zeno's Argument, see the link to Aristotle's refutation.
>They just attempt to prove what people already know---that Achilles will catch the tortoise. No shit, Sherlock
Again, you are missing the point. The point isn't the conclusion but how we got there.
>>19523855
That's an awful example because the use of calculus formalizes the problem and shows how we got the answer whereas person A simply ignores the problem.
I don't understand why you are have such a problem with this basic demonstration; It's math, the fact that we got the conclusion we all expected proves that there could be no other logical solution to the problem and therefor that there is no paradox. If you like, you can say that the model being used is wrong but then you have to show WHY the model is wrong.

>>19523935
You are "Person A" from >>19523855

Everyone knows the runner will catch the turtle.

Zeno comes along and posts a trollface meme arguing that the runner will never catch the turtle. He clearly does not expect anyone to actually believe it. The point is that "something is wrong somewhere". Your objective, as a paradox-resolver, is to explain what went wrong.

Instead, you act as if the question is "Will the runner catch the turtle?" And then you double down on that question, trying to dazzle the audience with mathematical notation while proving that the runner will catch the turtle.

It's as if someone posted >pic related and you replied with a long autistic argument that pi=3.1415...

Congratulations. You are a sophist.

>>19523966
> The point is that "something is wrong somewhere". Your objective, as a paradox-resolver, is to explain what went wrong.
Indeed, and a legitimate way of doing that is formalizing the problem and coming to a solution (See: Hilbert's Paradox).
Like I said, it's math, if any solution(s) exist(s) it's because it is/they are the definite logical one(s). You have yet to show that the model is actually fallacious.

> You are a sophist.
> t. still hasn't refuted Aristotle's argument or shown why the mathematical model is inappropriate or what even remains to be resolved.
Legit question: Are you actually this retarded or are you just trolling rn?

>>19521288
Zeno's paradoxes do not deal woth formal treatments of infinites. For example, you can "solve" the Achilles' paradox with infinitesimals, and that's okay, as long as we stick to calculus. But when we get to the real world the problem brcomes entirely different. If you want to do a quick research on the topic, look for the keywords "actual infinity". So, for example, in thr case of the Achilles' paradox the problem is not to justify how Achilles will surpass the turtle given by positing an abstract notion of infinite infinitesimals step: the problem is that in the real world Achilles would have to perform an infinite number of actions in a finite amount of time, and how could that be done is simply not explained by calculus (calculs will simply posit that infinite number pf infinitesimals, without caring about wether such a quantity could exist in the real world).

>>19524068
Neither Aristotle nor the definition of the limit deals with an actual infinity though.

>>19524088
Aristotle didnt respond either, because he didnt account for the dialectical structure of Zeno's arguments. He has arguments for when time is seen as continuos, and arguments for when time is seen as discrete.
Also notice that Aristotle never refuted Zeno or Parmenides. I talked about it with an anon about this board a few weeks ago and he got very mad about it, but it's true. Aristotle is the first to say that movement can be explained only "by accident", and that Zeno's and Parmenide's argjments cannot be refuted in a purely rational manner. Aristotle's move was simply to ignore the critique of appearances made by the Eleatics, and assuming the existence of movement as a matter of fact through a reference to sense experience.

>>19517098
kek

>>19509440
Reminds me of John Hannah

>>19524059
Suppose someone showed the image in this post >>19523966 to a mathematician and asked the mathematician to resolve that pi=4 paradox. Suppose the mathematician responded by giving a proof that pi is approximately 3.1415. Would you, or would you not, consider the mathematician to have successfully resolved the pi=4 paradox?

>>19524843
Not him, but here's my objection.
I'll accept that your supposition is true, and that the mathematician has effectively given a mathematical proof that pi is approximately 3.1415. Now, suppose that the proof requires an infinite amount of operations (e.g. obtaining an infinitesimal through the limit function) for it to be successful. Granted that the mathematical proof is correct, would you still think that that proof could possibly be used to describe a non-purely mathematical state of affair in which it is impossible to grant an infinite amount of operations?

Basically, I dont think anyone here is contesting the mathematical validity of infinitesimal calculus, rather what is being contested here is the claim for which those proofs can be applied unilaterally outside of a mathematical context.

>>19525048
Can't believe a board of self-professed bookworms can miss the point so consistently.

It doesn't matter whether the mathematician's proof requires an infinite amount of operations. The mathematician proving that pi~3.1415 is totally irrelevant to the trollface comic in >>19523966. The whole reason the comic is funny in the first place is that everyone already knows pi. So proving the value of pi does absolutely zilch to resolve the pi=4 paradox.

I guess it's true, that old mathematician's fable. One day a math professor learned that his student was switching majors to poetry. "Good," said the professor. "He didn't have enough imagination for mathematics."

>>19525116
>It doesn't matter whether the mathematician's proof requires an infinite amount of operations. The mathematician proving that pi~3.1415 is totally irrelevant to the trollface comic in>>19523966.
I was just following the analogy you guys were talking about. It is clear from my post that what i really had in mind was the problem of motion of Zeno, and the supposed calculus-based objections. I don't care about the pi=4 example, feel free to replace it with the Achilles' paradox in my previous post.

>>19525182
Imagine a ship with two clocks.

The captain orders two officers to tell him the time.

The first officer looks at the first clock, and comes back to the captain and says, "Five o'clock".

The second officer looks at the second clock, and comes back to the captain and says, "Six o'clock".

The captain asks the first officer to resolve the contradiction. In response, the first officer doubles down, saying, "It absolutely is five o'clock! Look! Here's a photograph of the clock! Look, I'll even enhance the photograph so you can see it better! Look, the photograph is even cryptographically signed, you can be sure I didn't alter it!"

Surely you must be able to understand that the first officer is not contributing anything toward resolving the contradiction. When you insist Achilles will catch the tortoise and you whip out mathematical proofs of it, you're doing exactly what the first officer is doing in the above story.

>>19524126
> Aristotle didnt respond either
Are you alleging that Aristotle's refutation was wrong? how?
> because he didnt account for the dialectical structure of Zeno's arguments.
What do you mean?
> He has arguments for when time is seen as continuos, and arguments for when time is seen as discrete.
Oh really? What are Zeno's arguments for when time is discrete?

> Aristotle is the first to say that movement can be explained only "by accident"
I'm sorry? he appears to be saying the exact opposite here (Physics, Book V., Part i.):
> Everything which changes does so in one of three senses. It may change (1) accidentally, as for instance when we say that something musical walks, that which walks being something in which aptitude for music is an accident. Again (2) a thing is said without qualification to change because something belonging to it changes, i.e. in statements which refer to part of the thing in question: thus the body is restored to health because the eye or the chest, that is to say a part of the whole body, is restored to health. And above all there is (3) the case of a thing which is in motion neither accidentally nor in respect of something else belonging to it, but in virtue of being itself directly in motion.
and it goes on.

>and that Zeno's and Parmenide's argjments cannot be refuted in a purely rational manner.
Where does he say this? I admit, I haven't read this in a while. He seems to attempt what appears to be a purely rational refutation of Zeno so this seems absurd to me.

> Aristotle's move was simply to ignore the critique of appearances made by the Eleatics, and assuming the existence of movement as a matter of fact through a reference to sense experience.
Movement is simply change in spatial position through time. Aristotle accepts change, space, and time, so I see no reason why he shouldn't accept motion.

>>19525300
>What do you mean?
What I said immediatly after that bit, namely that Zeno brings different arguments depending on which premises his opponents are willing to defend. If the opponent, while arguing for the reality of motion, thinks that space and time are discrete Zeno will bring forth a specific argument, and if the opponent believes that space and time are continuos he will use other arguments, and so on.
>Oh really? What are Zeno's arguments for when time is discrete?
The moving row is the clearest example. I think it is explained really well here, at around 3.30 (unfortunately it is often misinterpreted, to the point of reducing it to a very dumb sophism)
https://youtu.be/aoKAmWiYM_Q
The moving arrow paradox is also compatible with a picture of the world which involves discrete space.
>I'm sorry? he appears to be saying the exact opposite here (Physics, Book V., Part i.):
I havent said that all motion is accidental, I have just said that the motion can only be explained by accident (which means, by reference to experience, rather that pure reasoning). In other terms, Aristotle takes it as a datum that must be explained, while Zeno and Parmenides take it as an appearance that must be explained away. This is mostly a difference concerning their starting points (it should be remembered that Aristotle said, iirc in the Parts of Animals, that any istance of pure reasoning that is devoid of empirical confirmation is mere dialectics, which is the virtual opposite of what Parmenides meanr with the First Way)
>Where does he say this? I admit, I haven't read this in a while. He seems to attempt what appears to be a purely rational refutation of Zeno so this seems absurd to me.
Check 263 b3-9 of Physics
"Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible; if they are potential, it
is possible.*** For in the course of a continuous motion the traveller has traversed an
infinite number of units in an accidental sense but not in an absolute sense; for though it is an accidental characteristic of the distance to be an infinite number of half-distances, it is different in essence and being.***" (asterisks for emphasis)
>Movement is simply change in spatial position through time. Aristotle accepts change, space, and time, so I see no reason why he shouldn't accept motion.
I think it begs the question, since this is exactly what is contested by the eleatics. Of course if you accept that there is space, time and change then you'll have no problem accepting motion (and in the same way, if you accept Parmenides' theory it only makes sense to reject all those things as false appearances).

What the hell is OP talking about?

The cake goes to Spinoza, as depicted by his Jewish brothers.

>>19525830
He looked better younger, as most people do, but he still looks pretty ugly IMO

>>19525880
Dunno, to me young Hegel looks regal, authoritative. His facial structure is also excellent. No wonder he managed to get himself a beautiful 20yo as a poor 40yo

>>19525846
Spinoza was very cute in his portraits

>>19525236
You're preaching to the choir buddy

>>19509516
>alcibiades wanted to be dicked by THIS

>>19518548
Why do you retards keep using that picture of Beckett as Steiner?

>>19507706
Stop making me want to like Hegel.

>>19507706
God, what a reddit image. Who would post this thinking it would make Schopenhauer look good besides maybe a 16 year old girl?

>>19525816
>What I said immediatly after that bit, namely that Zeno brings different arguments depending on which premises his opponents are willing to defend.
Oh I see, interesting; still, Aristotle did respond to all of Zeno's arguments.

>The moving row is the clearest example.
Ah, yes of course. I must admit that I forgot about that one because like Aristotle I never really took it very seriously, and despite what the woman had to say (really just a summary of the problem again) I was not convinced to change my opinion.
> The fallacy of the reasoning lies in the assumption that a body occupies an equal time in passing with equal velocity a body that is in motion and a body of equal size that is at rest; which is false.

>The moving arrow paradox is also compatible with a picture of the world which involves discrete space.
Yes, this seems to be true, and in point of fact, the arrow paradox is really only intelligible under a discrete interpretation of space & time.

>Check 263 b3-9 of Physics
This quote does not appear to even imply that Aristotle is incapable of making a purely rational refutation of either Zeno or Parmenides; rather, he characteristically bases his refutation on a philosophical distinction which he makes between actual infinity--which he seems to believe would bring credence to Zeno's arguments--and potential infinity--which he asserts is the only possible kind that can exist in nature and which he uses to refute Zeno.

>I think it begs the question
Aristotle dealt with Parmenides in Book I though

>>19527044
>Oh I see, interesting; still, Aristotle did respond to all of Zeno's arguments.
I haven't denied it, Ive said that Aristotle does not take account of the dialectical structure of Zeno's argumentation. I dont deny the existence of these arguments, just their validiry. Anyway, do you speak Italian? There's an absolutely incredible source on this debate (a set of lectures by Giorgio Colli, I don't think I've ever found anything better on this topic) that you should totally check out
>This quote does not appear to even imply that Aristotle is incapable of making a purely rational refutation of either Zeno or Parmenides
I think he is explicitly making my point.
"For in the course of a continuous motion the traveller has traversed aninfinite number of units in an accidental sense but not in an absolute sense": the only kind of motion Aristotle can defend can be called motion only in the accidental sense, which is to say, only on the ground of contingent sense-experience. In the absolute sense of motion, Aristotle has not refuted Zeno (in fact it should be said that he had already wholesale rejected it when he claimed that the Eleatics never worked on physics, but only on first philosophy).
>Aristotle dealt with Parmenides in Book I though
I have no idea what argument are you referring to. iirc in Book 1 Aristotle just summarized incorrectly Parmenides (since he thought that Parmenides accepted the Second Way as path toward truth, which of course is a claim rejected by all Eleatics).

Planck basically showed that the universe is actually probably discrete, not continuous

>>19526281
He's a Camusposter so not very smart.

>>19527421
No he didn't

>>19527421
Dude, stfu lmao. This is like the Physics equivalent of fags invoking Goedel.

>>19508220
kierkeggard

>>19508438
he looks like luigi

>>19527421
The appearance of discreteness is brought on by the holographic barrier which underlies reality. It is truly the cave allegory and is completely impenetrable. Don't worry though, it is the origin of all and so you will find it just out of sight.

>>19527919
What do you mean by "holographic"? Could you expand on this concept? I'm very interested

>>19527179
>I haven't denied it, Ive said that Aristotle does not take account of the dialectical structure of Zeno's argumentation.
By dialectical structure you mean how the dialogue tree branches depending on whether you consider time to be discrete or not right? What I'm saying is Aristotle visited every branch and refuted every argument he came upon so his acknowledgement of the structure of Zeno's argument hardly seems necessary. He's managed to (or attempted to if you like) cut off all of the heads of the hydra, so to speak, and that's the important thing.
>Anyway, do you speak Italian? There's an absolutely incredible source on this debate (a set of lectures by Giorgio Colli, I don't think I've ever found anything better on this topic) that you should totally check out
No but I downloaded it anyway, idk, I'm still relatively young so I might end up learning the language though I admit this rather optimistic. I'm going to try my hand at Latin soon so Italian might come easily afterwards if I'm successful; 'till then it will just kind of sit there (although Italian is supposedly easy to pick up as an English reader/speaker, idk). Anyway, I'll read more about these paradoxes and the Eleatics soon though, this was an intriguing conversation.
>I think he is explicitly making my point.
The Eleatics were attempting to show that motion was an illusion; Aristotle, being a physicist, already rejected this position from the beginning (as I'm sure we're all naturally inclined to as well) but as a philosopher he wanted to at least make sure that there was no real logical contradiction in these paradoxes, since that would have threatened his whole program; luckily he was, I believe, able to uncovere much of the fallacious thinking that gives rise to these paradoxes in the first place. Aristotle refuted these arguments against motion in one sense but for his purposes it really only made sense to refute it in the one sense since he was studying nature and it was his opinion that there is no actual infinity in nature. I honestly, find it odd anyway that you would object to his preference for potential infinities but also object to the "real-world"ness of infinitesimal quantities here >>19524068; would you deny the existence of both? Doesn't seem very tenable to me, since calculus has the same dialectical quality you were talking about as regards approaches to handling the concept of infinity.

>>19527179
>>19528830
>I have no idea what argument are you referring to. iirc in Book 1 Aristotle just summarized incorrectly Parmenides
In book one he begins by saying
> Now to investigate whether Being is one and motionless is not a contribution to the science of Nature. For just as the geometer has nothing more to say to one who denies the principles of his science-this being a question for a different science or for or common to all-so a man investigating principles cannot argue with one who denies their existence. For if Being is just one, and one in the way mentioned, there is a principle no longer, since a principle must be the principle of some thing or things.
> To inquire therefore whether Being is one in this sense would be like arguing against any other position maintained for the sake of argument (such as the Heraclitean thesis, or such a thesis as that Being is one man) or like refuting a merely contentious argument-a description which applies to the arguments both of Melissus and of Parmenides: their premisses are false and their conclusions do not follow. Or rather the argument of Melissus is gross and palpable and offers no difficulty at all: accept one ridiculous proposition and the rest follows-a simple enough proceeding.
This is reasonable since, as long as the axioms or principles of the physicists do not lead to any contradictions as Zeno would have you believe, there is nothing which makes the principles the physicist starts out with any worse than those with which the Eliatic or the Heraclitan starts out with--and in this sense they are all equal--but it is the Physicist, though all their systems may be sound, whose system actually agrees with what is seen; and that is his distinct advantage, which is what affords him the ability to speak with authority about what exists or what doesn't in nature. He then goes on to refute their understanding of the concept of change.
> the Eleatics never worked on physics, but only on first philosophy
And this is undoubtedly true for the reasons above.

>>19528659
Not him but it's clear that "events" aren't really happening in the sense that they're defined by time. Events are projected by time like a hologram. Similarly, it's often said that free will doesn't exist because of the circumstances controlling a man's life. Of course it's more complicated than that: experience is like a holographic projection of events.

It's called holographic because there's a distance, an inauthenticity to the connection between one layer and another. Instead of the root of reality, our sensors can only perceive things stilted by time. Instead of the totality of events, our minds see choice and freedom. Instead of certainties, we have hosts of half-adequate symbols and symbers jostling for authority.

>>19521264
they are ulgy in the inside and the outside

>>19507488
His eye isn't the only problem

Why is this my most popular thread I literally asked myself whether I should post it or not.

>>19531924
4chan works in mysterious ways
I once posted a picture of a minecraft creeper to /v/ and it got over 700 replies

>>19531959
>>19531924
I have successfully lobbied 3 Whoopie Pie generals on /lit/ before. Most with 60+ responses.

I want to become a philosopher, what should I do ?