/lit/ - Literature

the thought of a child dabbling in something he isn't meant to read.

>>4335209
>tfw you realize that if God doesn't exist life is a complete joke

gj so many people worship gods even if they call themselves atheists

>>4335206
Most atheists aren't nihilists. They have beliefs and values, just very shitty rationalisations for it and heaps of cognitive dissonance. Like most religious people, really. It's mostly confused grunting.

you really don't get nietzsche at all if you think his image is relevant to your statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNoQ5NY7Z_8

Try actually reading some of the work of the chap you posted and you might realise that the lack of a God does not automatically lead to nihilism.

>>4335279
Try reading my heart and you'll realize it's broken.

>>4335319

Oh, uh... what? You should probably leave now.

>>4335321
I'm on /lit/, 4chan. Isn't this where you go when you 'leave'? Sorry if it's not.

>>4335279
Nietzsche dabbles into moral and epistemological nihilism. Not to mention that he doesn't believe there's an inherent meaning of the existence of the world in a way most people believe and they're likely to label him as an existential nihilist.

OP here
>>4335265
>Most atheists aren't nihilists. They have beliefs and values,

Yes they are. All atheists are nihilists and all nihilists are atheists, which is why I said that nihilism is a fancy word for atheism. You may agree to the latter proposition, but you state that you don't assent to the former. Here's the thing: all atheists effectively are nihilists because without a belief in a God in which to ground their values, their values are purely vanity. This is how my original statement relates to Nietzsche. He was one of the only self-consistent atheist writers in that as soon as he got away with God he immediately adopted a form of relativist in respect to morality and truth. Nietzsche was write when he spoke of George Eliot, who rejected Christianity and yet her morality was and her moralistic books were entirely and thoroughly Christian. Same goes with Christopher Hitchens. His moral indignation and value for "the truth" was fundamentally Christian.

>>4335389
"I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!"

>>4335397
>Nietzsche was write when he spoke of George Eliot
was right*

>His moral indignation and value for "the truth" was fundamentally Christian.

As Nietzsche himself said, "why truth? why not rather, untruth?" The only consistent answer to that question is, "because God says so". Hitchens relied on a naive appeal to nature, "we're moral because that's our intuition --- to be moral." In that case the belief in "nature" or "intuition" has effectively usurped the place of God, which is why I would never be comfortable calling moralistic people atheists in any strict sense.

>>4335389
>>4335400
He saw nihilism as something to be overcome.

>>4335404
Don't fool yourself, nihilism can't be overcome.

>>4335397
>>4335402

you need to read some Max Stirner

>>4335415
My spooks and I disagree.

>>4335397
I think you misunderstand me. Just because you don't consider their values to be inconsistent, flawed, faulty, irrational etc. doesn't mean that they don't have them. Perhaps they should be nihilists to be consistent according to your train of thought, but they aren't. People adhere to inconsistent belief systems all the time. Doesn't make them less real.

But when it comes down to it, assuming God out of nothing and hanging values off him is pretty much the same as hanging values in thin air. All beliefs rely essentially on the same leap of faith. Even the logic and rationality you employ to dismiss their beliefs is based on arbitrarily assumed axioms that are themselves faith based. Empiricism is faith based. Any positive claim to knowledge is. When you approach them with rational rigour all believes are equally valid or invalid, including the belief in rationality itself. The only way not to talk shit is to keep quiet.

>>4335397

The opposite of atheism is not Christianity.

>>4335402

You don't understand that argument. Just because you know something has natural origins doesn't negate its perception. Knowing that colors are frequencies of electromagnetic waves don't stop people from seeing them.

Buddhism or some forms of it could also be interpreted as nihilism

>>4335449
>The opposite of atheism is not Christianity.

Agreed, it's theism.

>>4335436
>ust because you don't consider their values to be inconsistent, flawed, faulty, irrational etc. doesn't mean that they don't have them. Perhaps they should be nihilists to be consistent according to your train of thought, but they aren't. People adhere to inconsistent belief systems all the time. Doesn't make them less real.


My contention is that they aren't atheists. That their "values" are grounded in gods/spirits. For example, those in our society who base their life around the accumulation of wealth could be said to be worshippers of Mammon. This may seem like sophistry, but psychologically there is truth in it. They imagine desirable wealth and they set their mind and will to getting it. Even if they don't do any explicit worship of Mammon in the form of ceremonies they still look to "Wealth" as a source of "value", meaning. They are pagan, not atheist.

>>4335511
According to that definition, who would you consider a proper atheist/nihilist. Max Stirner and his gang?

>>4335528
The New Atheists often make the sarcastic remark, "you (Christians, Muslims) are as atheist as we! You reject Zeus, Thor, etc. We only reject one god more!" There's more truth in this than I think they recognize. Nihilism for Nietzsche is a sign of decay. It's an absence of something rather than something positive. In that sense Christians converts in the 1st century were atheists in that they lost their belief (assuming they had those beliefs and weren't nihilists themselves) in the pagan gods. However, the God of Abraham is so all-encompassing that one can lose their belief in a thousand gods and feel that they have gained more than they have lost by believing in the jealous God of Abraham. The problem is that this God is One God, and so if you lose belief in Him you immediately plunge into nihilism.
Atheism/nihilism isn't really the rejection of any particular god, it's the rejection of the principle of divinity --- that there is anything divine, transcendent, superior, etc. Going back to Hitchens (because he's a good example that everybody knows), he often described in his interviews the human need for the "numinous", in other words, the divine. The difference between monotheism and polytheism is that monotheism worships the divine itself, whereas polytheists take the divine essence and add it to many beings. From a monotheistic perspective that adding the divine essence to beings is abhorrent because it would mean that there is something higher or more fundamental than divinity --- Zeus has divinity like he has a beard, meaning his divinity is just an attribute of his greater being. Plato discusses this in his Republic and comes to an essentially monotheistic view, deriding the idea that the divine can change itself or assume any other form (as the divine changing would mean that it would become something less than itself, which is impossible as the divine does not wish to make things less good).
IMO the real nihilists are the people that say "what's the point?", "my life has no meaning", etc., they are utterly bored, "disenchanted", apathetic. This seems like a cliché, but, again, there's truth in it. If Stirner was really a nihilist where would he get his enthusiasm for writing his books? Nietzsche distinguishes between active and passive nihilism. IMO active nihilism isn't really nihilism, it's a worship of nothingness or destruction whose end is nihilism but which is not nihilism in itself.

>>4335579
so basically you're using both nihilism AND atheism in exceptionally strict fashions different from their common modern meanings and the meanings of the person pictured in your OP and just announcing to the board that you're using these words for the same thing

okay

>>4335593
:-)

What I mean is that most so-called atheists have just retrogressed into worshipping worldly things like wealth and sex like the pagans did in a more explicit manner.

>>4335603
that's kind of an aside from your original point, though

>>4335579
>IMO the real nihilists are the people that say "what's the point?", "my life has no meaning", etc., they are utterly bored, "disenchanted", apathetic. This seems like a cliché, but, again, there's truth in it. If Stirner was really a nihilist where would he get his enthusiasm for writing his books? Nietzsche distinguishes between active and passive nihilism. IMO active nihilism isn't really nihilism, it's a worship of nothingness or destruction whose end is nihilism but which is not nihilism in itself.
Here you show how much of a believer you are still yourself, since you intuitive associate nihilism with boredom, disenchantment and apathy. There is no inherent link between a lack of belief and being miserable. Active, jolly, roguish nihilism is just as valid as the woe is me kind. Nihilism isn't bound to a set of emotions, unless, like you intuitively seem to do, mourn the loss of former values.

Also, you make the mistake that actions, desires etc. need to have a rational source routed in some sort of belief. Stirner wrote his books because he felt like it. No spooks needed.

>>4335649
>tfw people don't even know that their pre-entombed stuff is their best

>>4335603
Oh my god you are so fucking stupid please stop posting until you at least graduate highschool.

You clearly haven't read Beyond Good and Evil, you can't write for shit, and you just used the word "retrogressed"

STOP POSTING

>>4335652
I don't even listen to Entombed, Nihilist all the way. It has that strange old fashioned rock & roll hint to it while being brutal as fuck. Like a brief transitional intergenre touchstone of glory.

>>4335579
I follow your way of thinking, but I think you are giving too much importance to those terms as you try to define what a true atheist or nihilist would be.

>The New Atheists often make the sarcastic remark, "you (Christians, Muslims) are as atheist as we! You reject Zeus, Thor, etc. We only reject one god more!" There's more truth in this than I think they recognize.
I absolutely agree with you. And the irony is that a lot of these atheists are also in denial of only one or two Gods. The Christian God as one criticizes the Bible for example. The rebutal is that "no, as an atheist I deny the existence of all gods", but then, for the lack of a theological definition, the statement is nullified. One may only deny all gods if you stretch a line between of what all of them represent and I see that is usually theologically weak. They may not use the name of God, but they believe in underlying truths that work in the same way. Likewise, some self proclaimed theists might not be as rushed as to imagine any prescriptivist intake from this God. An atheist sees God as an unnecessary addition to reality, while a theist might not even see God as an addition, but an atribute of things as they are.

cont

>>4335700 cont

It's not that the atheist will have pagan values. But there are new ideologies working here to guide their lives. For example, a lot of people today work on the assumption of contributing to scientific tradition, in the "advancement of civilization", of taking mankind elsewhere. And it's not much different from any religious ideology, though the point is that both religious and not-religious people should become aware of the implications of their believes. Theology raises those points for the religious, the study of mythology gives insight into how we relate to our world. Whereas to the atheist, that sort of questioning is sometimes disregarded. To what point are we really contributing to anything? What's the goal here? And a common response is "we don't need God, just be good to people and contribute positively to the world and do the best with the time you have", but that doesn't answer anything and is, in fact, the same questions that religion pose. What does it mean to be good? What is the best way to live our lives? The answers to these are quite often following nothing other than common sense, both to the religious person who is not engaged in theology and is only there to follow traditional dogmas and to the atheist who is blind to his own ideology. Both believe blindly that they are following the only natural route, not really thinking about what their actions imply.

>>4335702
That's why I see that putting in terms of atheism vs theism is useless. One uses the word God, the other doesn't. But how much are they really thinking about their own lives and world? How much are their actions in tune with what they say?

>>4335415
Max stirner is shit

>>4335407
>tweenager on the harshness of life

>>4335265
Nihilists don't have values?

>tfw you're just another whiny contrarian who should go back to /pol/

>>4335700

>They may not use the name of God, but they believe in underlying truths that work in the same way.
>underlying truths

Then parsimony cuts gods. It's would be the religious aping 'atheist' underlying truths.

>NY is just a fancy word for USA

>>4335735
While OP is wrong, contrarian isn't the word to describe it.

>>4335579
this nihilism is perfectly captured in the buddhist anattalakkhana sutta which actually says that one should become disgusted [nibbida] with all phenomenon and view all things as suffering, impermanent, and not-self. this disgust is said to lead to nirvana, as the yogis meditate and overcome all attachment to phenomena and attain desirelessness.

i agree about stirner, to me he's just armchair philosophizing. he hasn't really lived it.

>>4335206
>tfw you realize existentialism is irrelevant
if you think it is relevant you are a mental masturbator, and should become a scientist, or philosophize about morality, work ethic, and try to improve society so we can find out how the world works better.

>>4335436
Dat filename

>yfw you only read the title to nishitani keiji's book "the self-overcoming of nihilism" and was awakened from your self-pity fest and made euphoric by buddhism

nietzsche should've sat down and meditated. could've been a great buddha. instead he lost his mind like a fag.

>>4335785
are you drunk, anon?

>>4336074
>that creepy feel when you see someone who has never taken their eye off materialism even once

You idiot, religion is based of traditional values, not the other way around.

>>4335389
Nietzsche calls himself an ontological nihilism. There is no thing in itself.

>>4336121
i have experimented with eastern stuff, but scientifically everything is matter, even thoughts.

>>4336198
o yeah? show me a pi number that i can touch.

>>4336217
You can touch the arc of a circle (well, the side of a very flat cylinder, technically).

>>4336217
crack open your retarded skull and feel around in your brain autist, if you give me some line about "trips" its plausible that you are seeing dark matter, or any matter through different perceptions, and they arent actually real trips.

>>4335206
>mfw I realised that nihilism is merely an imaginary position in which a human mind is incarnated into a lifeless rock floating around in I-don't-have-an-opinion-because-I'm-a-rock-space
>mfw I was also 16 years old upon this realisation
>mfw also looks slightly older than 16 but this is besides the point

>>4336142
thank schopenhaur and buddhism for this view of things.

>be madhyamika buddhism
>try to tell world this for ages
>no one listens

>>4336258
>mfw your only experience of nihilism is watching the big lebowski.

>>4336074
Existentialism is a myth. Hardly anyone, especially not the thinkers who are typically considered its formulators, accept the term. The terminology Existentialism is usually a leveling force that destroys the ability to fairly interpret these thinkers. There is far less commonality between Nietzsche and Camus than their connection through this term would imply. Can you really dismiss the work of anyone who made an effort to understand how things exist? This is an area of investigation many if not at all philosophers of all eras and schools explore. The so-called existentialists were simply trying to re-evaluate existence without the crutches on which their predecessors relied (God especially).

>>4336292
im not dismissing it at all, it is the foundation for science; im just saying its not relevant to try to contribute to anymore.

>>4336283
>Not experiencing everything in life first through the Coen Brothers

So pleb it hurts.

>>4336340

>being this much in the society of the spectacle

>>4336246
>crack open your retarded skull and feel around in your brain autist
pure poetry

>>4336283
Well, no. Same dude here as before.
What I'm suggesting is really that everything has a context in which it can be thought of, including nihilism. If you cling to nihilism philosophically, you have ruined what it means to be human; you have extended the context beyond your human boundaries. No longer in that circumstance are you a package of everything that being human includes - at this point you are a logical machine getting stuck in an infinite series of decimals. You are now observing through a magnifying glass, blinded to a bigger picture by your superfluous carefulness. You are taking the hypothetical position of something like a rock that cannot hold values, because it cannot be conditioned.
When you return to humanity, you realise that, indeed, as a human being, such a thing as values exists, whether or not they are inserted seemingly preemptively under your magnifying glass in your mechanical fixation. Values are projections and not necessarily objectively justifiable, but nonetheless exists just as legitimately as the outside world exists to the skeptic.

>>4336336
Philosophy is a living thing. We can't afford to neglect a whole aspect of it simply because a large body of work has already been published. Continual criticism and interpretation are necessary to maintain the intelligibility of ideas. Otherwise we run the risk of developing bastard philosophy that does not acknowledge its own foundation. *coughdawkinscough*

>>4336421
thanks for restating what I just said

>>4335319

lmao

>>4336433
Then you're being confusing as fuck. You stated that so-called existentialism should be accepted but not contributed to. My point was that on-going contribution is necessary for intelligibility, which acceptance depends on.

>>4336458
there is barely anything left to contribute to it that would matter today, science is trying to answer the questions asked by it.

>>4336106

does this book require any previous reading? I got my self Tao The Ching but I really can't seem to make anything out of it..

>>4336485
forgot to add this.

It would make sense that on-going uncreative contributions would only skew the older original thoughts.

>>4336275

well, tell me anon, I'm really curious

what should I read? captcha: arbtsn sapientia

Why is philosophy so anti-scientific? Seriously, nobody cares about your teenaged babble regarding ethics, death or the meaning of life. All these issue have been settled by biology, psychology and economics. Learn to science and stop being pseudo-intellectual.

>>4336510

are you fifteen years old?

>>4336515
No, I am not. I'm a 21 year old woman with scientific education. Will you please answer the question and address the argument instead of spouting infantile ad hominems?

>>4336526
>grill

nothing to see here. woman can't into philosophy cus they don't have semen being reabsorbed to their brains fueling lofty philosophical genius tier thoughts.

>>4336537

>hating girls

lmao enjoy your cold and lonely life faggot. you're acting like a 7 year old boy with your 'grills are stupid, I don't like them' attitude.

>>4336526

you made a very stupid claim, that's why i thought you were fifteen years old. philosophy is not anti-scientific at all, you'd know that if you had read a book by an actual philosopher. reading a dissertation and reading a philosophical essay are two very similiar experiences. philosophy does not have anything to do with the earthly sciences, but that doesn't make it anti-scientific, it makes it not-scientific.

>>4336548
>lmao enjoy your cold and lonely life faggot. you're acting like a 7 year old boy with your 'grills are stupid, I don't like them' attitude.

>implying i don't have a qt 3.14 trap boygirlfriend who reads Dostoevsky and Nietszsche when he's not posing for me

>>4336485
If we do not make new contributions, at least in the form of criticism and reinterpretation, these questions will become meaningless. Consider the following: Heidegger makes the argument that Nietzsche in his philosophy was actually accomplishing something very similar to Plato. However, the passage of time, with the evolution of language, society, psychology and interpretive contexts in general, obfuscate the meaningful intent/intentional meaning of Plato's work. For Nietzsche, as can be especially seen in his later work like Twilight of the Idols, Plato is a kind of shadowy antipod in whose presence Nietzsche is at once clarified and frustrated. If this shadow of frustration is indeed best understood as the ineluctable passage of time, then it goes to show how vulnerable we are as thinkers, no matter how modern we are. I would go so far to say that the very success of science makes it more vulnerable than ever. The modern deluge of information demands extreme diligence in how we organize and interpret it. Look at the amount of bullshit there is now that advertises itself as science. It seems there is a study to support every conclusion and at least one knucklehead to insist on it. To preserve the sanctity of Science, we must be especially diligent in how good science is distinguished from bad science, which in turn requires a reexamination and consideration of the pre-scientific formulations of science itself. Maybe I'm being too particular with terms, but the slipperiness of the slope of pseudo-science warrants being especially conscious. Don't forget that money has a real influence in how science is done, at least in America. Science may be easily used as a pretext for malicious purposes, if we're not careful.

>>4336510
>>4336526

>>4336526
>women
>science and anything related to logic and rational reasoning

Women are innately hysterical and sentimental.

>inb4 fedora tips

>>4336548

>cus they don't have semen being reabsorbed to their brains fueling lofty philosophical genius tier thoughts

He was joking. It was obvious.

But I understand that people with autism have trouble picking up on social cues like this, so instead of hating on you I'll try to be more understanding towards "people" like you.

>>4336537
unless they swallow enough semen

>>4336510
I'll just lay it on you blatantly-
Without understanding philosophy, you don't understand science. Epistemology.
Don't be surprised of the hate you'll receive around here when you're spewing such nonsense as philosophy being anti-intellectual.

>>4335206
*tips fedora*

>>4336567
*tips fedora*

>>4336570
>grills
>understanding humor
>not waiting until someone laughs to do the same

>>4336570
Just dropped by because I saw your "reply" in the thread and wanted to tell you that you're an asshole. Go fuck yourself. If you have any difficulty to pick up on this. someone who strips the personhood of someone away for the sake of argument, that fast, is more likely to be an autist than him.

>>4336491
>can't seem to make anything out of it

One of three things could be going on here. One, you could have a lousy translation, two, you could be completely missing the importance of passages in their cultural context, or three, you could be a shallow reader.

>>4336567

what a truly enlightening post! let us raise our whiskey glasses, sit on our fat lonely asses, spout euphoric bullshit, be a fedoraist fuckwit!

>>4336570

lmao yes it was very obvious he was kidding and so was I, why don't you relax your ass and have a nice laff you fat faggot

>>4336616

thanks babe i appreciate ur support xx

>>4336620

I don't know how good the German translation is. I usually read a few passages, think about them, try to get something out of them but they seem very vague to me.

>you could be completely missing the importance of passages in their cultural context

This is probably most likely. So, how do I make sense of it?

>>4336537
I'm glad my brain - unlike yours - isn't full of semen. Perhaps that's why I can clearly understand science and math while people like you have to resort to the pseudo-intellectual escapism of philosophy.

>>4336548
A lot of philosophy is anti-scientific. Metaphysical untestable claims about qualia, consciousness, god, solipsism and the meaning of life directly contradict the assumptions of the scientific method. People like Feyerabend and their "cannot know nuthin" wannabe epistemology and denial of scientific objectivity are just as anti-science as creationists.

>>4336567
>bawww, the friend zone is sexist
Go back to your "men's rights" subreddit where you can circlejerk with equally bitter virgins.

>>4336586
The issue of epistemology has been settled with the invention of the scientific method and the formalization of logic by math. Logic and science are the methods of gaining objective knowledge.

>>4336637

Read the cultural context. imo the Tao te ching is kind of shit, but you'd probably understand it better if you were literate in its precursors in Chinese philosophy. Read the Analects of Confucius, maybe the Book of Songs, and Zhuang Zi's book.

>>4336616

Wow. It's amazing that I even need to explain this to you. He was using exaggerated humour to mock neckbeards who would set themselves above women for something as happenstance as what gender they were born. It was satire.

Either you're riled because you totally misunderstood this basic as fuck gag, or you're riled because humour that isn't politically correct annoys you.

Either way you are a fucking unbelievable cumguzzler and you need to shut the fuck up.

>someone who strips the personhood of someone away for the sake of argument, that fast

Someone who "strips the personhood"? Jesus fucking christ, lol. You're that overly politically correct faggot that bores the fuck out of anyone that is unlucky enough to be caught in a conversation with you but you're too fucking stupid to know it.

Don't you have an episode of The View to be on? Faggot.

>>4336640

daily reminder that Feyerabend argued that astrology and homeopathy were just as reliable as scientific thought

>>4336640
>the formalization of logic by math
you mean the formalization of math by logic. your idiocy is showing.

>>4336662
>He was using exaggerated humour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
Educate yourself, autist.

>>4336672
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
>Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics
Educate yourself, dumbfuck.

>>4336640

>I'm glad my brain - unlike yours - isn't full of semen.

#shotsfired

Any people think scientists are incapable of decent witticisms. You're proving them wrong one barb at a time. Aren't you, sweetie?

>the pseudo-intellectual escapism of philosophy

You're absolutely right. Find the next doctor you see and tell them that you've officially absolved all licentiate of the Hippocratic Oath because you are too fucking stupid to understand real world applications of philosophy.

I'm sure they'll give you a pat on the head and an understanding smile of pity.

Stop posting you dumb hole.

>>4336510
>economics
>science

>>4336679
>educate yourself
>poe's law
poe's law is just a tongue in cheek way to say that it's harder to communicate on the internet
i guess you treating it as an actual postulate or rule tells a lot about you actually having a disorder in the autistic spectrum

>>4336679

If you knew anything about mathematics or philosophy you'd know that mathematics was to be grounded in logic and not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism.
Morality without God is impossible.

>>4336640
It is always a pleasure to read amusing and brainwashed retards of contemporary Scientism who naturally have no arguments other than genuine shitposting, because, ironically, they loathe and do not read philosophy--the one and only discipline--that makes you actually think, articulate and construct coherent rationale for whatever one happens to be arguing against. But don't give up, guy, as I believe that deep in your sobbing heart you probably yourself believe that philosophers have a better understanding of how the world works than angry prepubescent teenagers such as yourself (judging solely by your writing). Try imagining a professor of Philosophy grading your essay on any topic whatsoever. Can you sense the horror? I can.

As well as: I bet you have no deepened knowledge of any of the fields that you so eagerly name-drop in your posts. The Wiki-"knowledge" and shitposting that you here demonstrate can be spotted from a mile away.

>tfw you realize that nihilism is just a fancy word for autism

>>4336720
>pls sky daddy tell me how to behave

>>4335511
The definition of atheism is not someone who is rational, it is someone who disbelieves in god. Try using a dictionary every now and then.

>>4336685
>Hippocratic Oath
More like hypocritic oath. Doctors do their job for the money. That's why they started studying medicine in the first place.

>>4336694
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics
>Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

>>4336706
I'm sorry I have to dumb it down once again for your underdeveloped mind. Unfortunately there is no "simple" version of the wiki article, so try to read carefully (or ask your mom to read it to you, in case you happen to be illterate). If you behave like a retard on the internet, we will call you a retard, no matter whether your foolish comment stems from actual cognitive impairment or from your ineptitude to produce socially acceptable forms of humor. Social or intellectual deficiency - whatever you have, it will be ridiculed on the internet. Go cry me a river, fucktard.

>>4336716
I know more about math than you ever will. The pipedream to base all of math purely on logic was shattered by Gödel's incompetence theorems.

>>4336740
It is always amusing to see self-proclaimed philosotards fail the hardest in their own discipline. Your only job is to construct sound and valid arguments, yet this is the skill at which you are most incompetent. Not only did you fail to read and understand my post and to analyze it in the context of the conversation, but even worse, you didn't even manage to post anything remotely resembling a rational thought. Reading your reply wakes memories of a boy in kindergarten who used to cry, flail his arms and shout obscenities whenever he was confronted with reality not obeying his fantastic delusions. If your only intention was to exhibit a huge mismatch between your mental and your physical age, then you succeeded. Congratulations.

>>4336806
>I'm sorry
Apology accepted, now leave.

>>4336806
>It is always amusing to see self-proclaimed philosotards fail the hardest in their own discipline. Your only job is to construct sound and valid arguments, yet this is the skill at which you are most incompetent. Not only did you fail to read and understand my post and to analyze it in the context of the conversation, but even worse, you didn't even manage to post anything remotely resembling a rational thought. Reading your reply wakes memories of a boy in kindergarten who used to cry, flail his arms and shout obscenities whenever he was confronted with reality not obeying his fantastic delusions. If your only intention was to exhibit a huge mismatch between your mental and your physical age, then you succeeded. Congratulations.

All those multiple fallacious assumptions per sentence. Wow.

Thanks for, well, proving my point.

>>4336806

>>Hippocratic Oath
>More like hypocritic oath. Doctors do their job for the money.

If this is your best attempt at damage control for a point you are unable to refute then you've downgraded yourself from a typical shitposter to a little objet d'art that the rest of us in the thread can prop up for amusement - the STEM who took a swing and missed.

>>4335212
i don't think they worship gods but i think they still believe in something, even if it's slightly unconscious.

>>4336848
The depths of insightful thought a philosopher puts into his arguments can never be represented better than by a childish one-liner platitude reply. Your post is truly a magnum opus of philosophy, the pinnacle of rhetorical skill and logical clarity.
/sarcasm (<<--- that tag is obviously needed nowadays that our boards are infested by the savage hordes of socially inept wannabe philosotards like the person I'm replying to)

>>4336867
Refute what? Your grotesque misunderstanding of medicine? Your inability to form an actual argument? Your urge to resort to infantile insults because your feelings were hurt by factual truth? I cannot refute anything as long as you don't even have an argument. Come back when you know how to debate. You're an embarrassement to the academic field of philosophy.

>>4335436
>adhering to inconsistent belief systems could be common
>doesn't make them less real
Only consistent beliefs can be real.. "truth".

>On the Profit of Believing
http://youtu.be/8dfDDOR717k

>Is Oneness the Way out of Skepticism?
http://youtu.be/fs1MeDUgEOA

>The End of Cause and Effect: What's More Than Logic?
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/thread/4286631

is OP implying that Nietzsche was a nihilist?
also
>nihilism is just a fancy word for atheism
lolwut

>>4335389
yeah no.
I fucking hate faggots pretending to understand Nietzsche.

>>4336936

>Doctors do their job for the money.

That you would infer that doctors only ever get into the profession for cash and absolutely none of them would ever possibly have a genuine interest in wanting to help people speaks volumes about your character.

You come across as an impetuous child who wants the world to bend to the ignorant notions you've fashioned for it. This is never going to happen.

You state that philosophy is only ever "escapism", yet when I cite a real world application of philosophy that is objectively beneficial like the Hippocratic Oath you try to sidestep the issue because you have no answer for it, but those with the least discerning minds can see that you're simply a poor poster.

But I'll humour you. Tell me why the Hippocratic Oath isn't a viable answer to the charge of escapism. I'll wait.

>>4336955
same, which is why i hate your post

>>4336955
He's actually right.

>>4336963
Quick question, are you the slightest bit self aware when you insult people?

>You come across as an impetuous child who wants the world to bend to the ignorant notions you've fashioned for it.

You fufil your own statement, nigger.

>>4336995

I'm not just insulting the anon, I'm completely mocking the anon.

I know I'm an asshole, but I'm not an asshole who is trying to speak in lofty absolutes and reason away the very notion of human solidarity like this naive little fuck is.

>Doctors do their job for the money.

Because there is so much fucking cash for the taking if you work in an Emergency Ward.

>>4337006
you can also mention that america is not the whole world and doctors in other countries make a lot less money.

>>4336963
>speaks volumes about your character.
Ad hominem.

>who wants the world to bend to the ignorant notions you've fashioned for it
I am only posting factual truth. Your hurt feelings do not change facts.

>You state that philosophy is only ever "escapism"
Useless pseudo-intellectual musings without any impact are no better than masturbation.

>yet when I cite a real world application of philosophy that is objectively beneficial like the Hippocratic Oath
I admire your wealth of ignorance. Do I really have to explain this once again for you, simpleton? The Hippocratic Oath is not an application of philosophy. A doctor saying "I want to help people" doesn't make him a philosopher and doesn't require him to know anything about philosophy. Let's try this with an example you might know from your profession: When you say "I want to clean toilets", is that a deep philosophical statement? Is it the essence of ethical reasoning that makes you solemnly exclaim this sentence? Yeah, in your twisted perception of reality it probably is. lol. But in all seriousness, what kind of brain damage did you suffer that made you believe the existence of people who want to help other people is an argument in favor of philosophical pseudo-intellectualism? Altruistic behaviour is explained biologically and psychologically. It exists independent of whatever verbal diarrhea a wannabe philosotard like you erroneously wants to project into it.

>>4336995
Are you completely aware of tu quoque fallacy?

>>4336963
>>4337006
Thanks you for doing what the rest of us couldn't be bummed doing.

>>4337011

>The Hippocratic Oath is not an application of philosophy.

There goes any credibility you could've possibly had.

>A doctor saying "I want to help people" doesn't make him a philosopher and doesn't require him to know anything about philosophy.

A meaning less statement. Someone working within a democratic government doesn't need to know philosophy or be a philosopher but they are still working within a construct that has its genesis in philosophical dialectic.

Dynamite call there, ace.

>>4336965(You)
>>4336974(You)
samefag
also NOPE!
ive read enough Nietzsche to know that he was not a nihilist. maybe try reading more than just "Nietzsche in 90 Minutes" unless your're trolling like this faggot >>4336720

>>4337011

>>4337011
>ad hominem

this troll learn new words.

>>4337035
you clearly haven't read enough of anything at all or you'd be better able to comprehend the post your were originally replying to

>>4335389
>he doesn't believe there's an inherent meaning of the existence of the world IN A WAY MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE
i.e "virtue", "truth", "god"
> and they're likely to LABEL him as an existential nihilist

this post isn't fucking calling him a nihilist. I don't know why I'm even responding to you, you haven't read anything by Nietzsche except for posts on /lit/ (correctly) claiming he isn't a nihilist, so you misread posts thinking that they're claiming he's a nihilist and go "UGH i hate fags who don't understand Nietzsche"

>>4337030
>There goes any credibility you could've possibly had.
Why? Because I shattered your childish world view by posting facts? Why do you even keep replying? Do you crave the humiliation?

>A meaning less statement.
It conveyed information and was therefore not meaningless. Unfortunately I cannot say the same about your statements which evidently become increasingly empty the more emotional distress you face when having to deal with your cognitive dissoance.

>Someone working within a democratic government doesn't need to know philosophy or be a philosopher but they are still working within a construct that has its genesis in philosophical dialectic.
Governmental structures arose from 1. the biological and psychological predisposition for hierarchical societal structure and 2. the economical necessity to optimize efficiency. They didn't arise from philosotarded pipedreams. Throughout history Platon's Politeia has been a laughingstock.

>>4337035
Maybe read his entire oeuvre once or twice to realise that he did dabble in those things. If anything your "he was not a nihilist" sort of oversimplification is more of the 90 minutes variety than what that guy posted.

Anyone up for psychological analysis? Let's analyze the dynamics of a person who is so emotionally unstable that he runs himself into more and more embarrassment.

>>4336685
>oh no, that poster said something that upsets me emotionally
>better don't waste time thinking of an argument
>prematurely post the first thing coming to my uneducated mind
>Hippocratic Oath!
>>4336867
>oh no, rhetorically superior she destroyed my weak non-argument
>muh feelings are so hurt, I'll go into full ad hominem mode
>>4336963
>I have just been told epically, but I must keep arguing because the cognitive dissonace is eating me up
>>4337006
>if I pretend being a badass, nobody will notice how weak and desperate I am
>>4337030
>my point has been destroyed and ridiculed by her
>I wish I could be a mature adult who can admit being wrong
>but unfortunately I am mentally a child and I value my demonstrably incorrect world view higher than everything else

Continue the futile struggle, little boy.

>>4337121

3/10

Your trolling was pretty obvious but this post really gave it away. Better luck next time.

>tfw you realize that communism is just a fancy word for fascism

>>4335397
Wow, you are a pathetic non-thinker "value for 'the truth' was fundamentally christian", oh yes fag on faggot how deep can you get, uhuh indeed this is the first time ive heard the without a god all is lost shit and your #rekt-ing my worldview, #peontriestopissyouoff #ohwowImnotkillingmyselfiffaggotslikeyouthinkthatthoughtisworththinking,youfirstshitbirdthatsnihilism

>>4339429
lols at berlusconi at the lower right corner

your tfw is not really cogent though.

oh good

another thread where a bunch of people who don't know what nihilism is can argue over what the definition of nihilism is.