[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 41 KB, 500x796, large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

4663367

Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:42:52 2014 No.4663367 [DELETED]

[DELETED]

[Reply] [Original]

What is the most Aesthetic philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:42:52 2014 No.4663368 aesthetics

>>	« 零 » !Ry9.kM3RY. Fri Mar 14 20:45:52 2014 No.4663375 File: 86 KB, 600x586, AREIZOO II.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "THE MOST AESTHETIC PHILOSOPHY"? >>4663368 "AESTHETICS" IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY; "AESTHETICS" IS A BRANCH OF PHILOSOPHY.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:46:52 2014 No.4663379 >>4663375 implying "a philosophy" is a real phrase

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:46:52 2014 No.4663380 What's with the influx of /fit/ pseudo-intellectuals all of a sudden? You have your own homoerotic platform to shitpost in. >>>/fit/

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:49:51 2014 No.4663392 >>4663375 The most objectively beautiful construction of logical proofs in any branch of philosophy to date.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:52:37 2014 No.4663397 >>4663392 Pure Mathematics I find myself drawn to Set Theory in particular

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:52:38 2014 No.4663395 >>4663392 spinoza yeah, i said it

>>	« 零 » !Ry9.kM3RY. Fri Mar 14 20:55:38 2014 No.4663405 >>4663392 YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT "AESTHETICS" IS, AND APPARENTLY YOU CAN BARELY THINK. COMMIT SUICIDE, STOP TRYING TO APPEAR AS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE NOT, RETURN TO "fit/, AND/OR REMEDY YOUR IGNORANCE.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 20:56:38 2014 No.4663406 >>4663367 Nietzscheanism. It's objectively 2deep for people who admire Zyzz though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:00:37 2014 No.4663422 >>4663392 >answers his own question >the PROCESS of constructing a logical proof and not it's logical STRUCTURE >beautiful; moreover, OBJECTIVELY beautiful Didn't know mouth-breathers frequented this board too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:02:37 2014 No.4663428 >>4663405 >implies to have some degree of philosophical knowledge >wont point out what is wrong with the post and why but instead replies with ad hominem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:06:37 2014 No.4663437 >>4663422 The word "construction" can be past-tense and present-tense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:10:37 2014 No.4663440 >>4663428 Stick to /fit/ until you've surpassed your "pinpointing informal fallacies" phase. No one here is impressed by your baby "logic" and shallow attempts at a questionnaire.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:13:37 2014 No.4663444 >>4663437 I think what you meant to say is "The word 'construction' can mean the act of construction or a structure"

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:14:37 2014 No.4663448 >>4663437 le epik trolle tense applies to verbs, not nouns.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:14:37 2014 No.4663449 File: 270 KB, 806x1024, Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:38:38 2014 No.4663508 >>4663392 Kierkegaard

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:39:38 2014 No.4663513 >>4663367 Objectivity. Why? > Don't care about anything but yourself (if you happen to care about others, that's your problem) > If you like it, you can buy it. No exceptions

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:47:37 2014 No.4663534 >>4663513 If it's so aesthetic, why was it founded by an ugly Jew?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:49:37 2014 No.4663547 >>4663534 Jewish features have been mathematically proven to be the most aesthetically pleasing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:50:38 2014 No.4663553 >>4663513 Mike Mentzer was an objectivist

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:53:37 2014 No.4663563 >>4663513 >Objectivity. There is no such philosophy. Surely you meant Randian "Objectivism". >>4663534 >>4663547 >>>/pol/ >>>/sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 21:57:37 2014 No.4663581 >>4663563 Yeah, I did. But, really, who would take it for anything else? The most similar thing to it, Rothbardian Libertarianism (based on the Non-Aggressive Principle), couldn't be confused for it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 22:12:37 2014 No.4663611 >>4663581 You are right that there are likely few who would think that Objectivity is anything but rand's, unless it was some obscure philosophy but it also shows that you likely have no clue what you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 22:14:38 2014 No.4663617 >>4663611 > Because you are right, you probably know nothing Lel

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 22:23:37 2014 No.4663635 A number of philosophers viewed aesthetic experience as important in life. Take your pick...

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 22:29:37 2014 No.4663649 >>4663617 It shows that you likely have no clue what you are talking about because you used the wrong term.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 14 22:33:38 2014 No.4663656 >>4663649 Ok... But you, and presumably anyone else who read what I said knew what I was taking about. You assume too much.