mfw Kierkegaard invented the NPC meme

[Anonymous No.11915538]

>Moreover, these trends were accompanied by a propensity to identify with amorphous abstract entities like ‘humanity’ or ‘the public’, people thereby absolving themselves from individual responsibility for what they thought and said. To put it crudely, there was safety in numbers: ‘everyone can have an opinion; but they have to band together numerically in order to have one’ (PA 91). And somewhat similar considerations applied at the level of practical behaviour. People were ready enough to talk of doing things ‘on principle’, but they were apt to treat the principles they appealed to as if they were endowed with a purely external or impersonal authority, unrelated to the agent's own preferences and concerns; in this sense, one could ‘do anything “on principle” and avoid all personal responsibility’ (PA 85). As Kierkegaard remarked elsewhere, ‘no man, none, dares to say I’; instead, a species of ‘ventriloquism’ had become de rigueur – the ordinary person had become a mouthpiece of public opinion, the professor a mouthpiece of theoretical speculation, the pastor a mouthpiece of religious meditation. All were in different ways submissive to abstractions to which they attributed an independent reality. Rather than confront the fact that everyone is finally accountable to himself for his life, character, and outlook, they took refuge in a depersonalized realm of reified ideas and doctrines.

Where do I start with this beautiful madman's books?

[Anonymous No.11916160]

>>11915538
Bump because interested also

[Anonymous No.11916170]

>>11915538
BASED

[Anonymous No.11916185]

>>11915538
based

[Anonymous No.11916195]

>>11915538
Didn't Descartes invent it? Apparently he would sit at cafes watching people trying to decide if they were machine or human

[Anonymous No.11916198]

>>11916195
Well probably not cafes but something of the sort

[Anonymous No.11916215]

>>11916198
There were cafes in France during Descartes’ time

[Anonymous No.11916221]

>>11915538
>translations

[Anonymous No.11916275]

Memes aside, sometimes when I listen to certain people talk they seem to have 'it' -some sort of quality, whereas most people do not. What's up with that? Is it just autism on my part?

[Anonymous No.11916770]

>>11915538
Dosto beat him to it with his scathing description of the average socialist.

[Anonymous No.11916780]

>>11915538
Superior.

[Anonymous No.11916938]

>>11916780
Is that from oblomov?

[Anonymous No.11916958]

>>11916938
Anna karenina

[Anonymous No.11916961]

>>11916275
some people engage in critical thought, other's don't
many people literally lack self-awareness, p-zombies are not just a hypothetical

[Anonymous No.11916995]

>>11916958
this, its towards the beginning, prob first 50 pages

[Anonymous No.11917000]

>>11915538
No he didn't, great thinkers and writers have been talking about this for ages.

[Anonymous No.11917884]

>invented
Not even close

[Anonymous No.11917902]

>>11916958
>>11916995
Reminded me of oblimov, haven't read either in a few years though

[Anonymous No.11917965]

>>11916195
It actually sound like a funny thing to do

[Anonymous No.11917972]

>>11917965
Descartes was a funny guy :)

[Anonymous No.11918130]

>Stodderkonge oversættelse af Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.11918188]

>>11915538
To me, this sounds like an argument in favor of individualism and an indictment of sheep-like behaviour, if anything.

[Anonymous No.11919531]

>>11915538
>taking the abstract metaphors of christianity more literally than christians

[Anonymous No.11919553]

>>11916780

I would call the man being described the opposite of an npc though, he clearly is more of an opportunist. NPCS usually actually believe in what they preach and follow.

[Anonymous No.11919639]

>>11917972
obligatory for todays shitpost quota

[Anonymous No.11919662]

>>11919553
The opportunism is entirely sub or un-conscious though. The belief in whatever is convenient or popular is sincere enough, in an unthinking way. The NPC way.

[Anonymous No.11920354]

>>11915538
For Kierkegaard, NPCs are "objective thinkers" as far as they succeed to think themselves as objective beings, as opposed to subjective, existing individuals. If they don't succeed they are mere fools, and there's far less harm in being a fool than succeeding here.
>secondary sources
Less than useless in Kierkegaard's case. He makes a conscious effort of addressing a singular, subjective individual, and as he points out, it's impossible to do so by any sort of objective thought, but only by art and subjectiveness -- to which end he employs different pseudonyms, irony, fooling around and formal contradictions. Anyone who tries to sum up his points "objectively" is missing them so badly he doesn't even notice he missed them.
>where do I start
You want to eventually arrive to "Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments". To that end you'd need Philosophical Fragments themselves, Sickness Unto Death and Fear and Trembling. You can probably skip "Either/Or" but I'd advise to read it regardless.

[Anonymous No.11920548]

Sometimes I wish I could be an NPC

Thinking for yourself is stressful and the results are often underwhelming

[Anonymous No.11920568]

>>11920548
By propagating the NPC meme you have revealed yourself to be one so congrats

[Anonymous No.11920614]

>>11915538
Kierkegaard is brilliant. Start with Fear and Trembling like most people I'm sure will tell you. It's accessible and easy to find.

[Anonymous No.11920636]

>>11916195
is there a source on this? because this is hilarious

[Anonymous No.11920680]

>>11916275
Do you feel that people that have regressed to solipsistic autism-like or schizoid states as a result of deep trauma have that "it" ?
(asking for a friend)

[Anonymous No.11920701]

>>11920548
It isn't that noble. It's a necessity for maladjusted suffering PCs to find some stable ground they can stand on. Their quest's purpose is to arrive om the psychological state of the NPC

[Anonymous No.11920874]

>>11920568
>that NPC -tier response

yikes

[Anonymous No.11920913]

>>11920614
>Fear and Trembling
>accessible
Nigger what? It is literally incomprehensible unless you have a solid understanding of Hegel and the Hegelians which penetrated the Danish Lutheran Church. Starting with Fear and Trembling is one of the most retarded memes I see here.

Opie, start with Either/Or; use the Hong translations, which are pricey but well worth it.

[Anonymous No.11920936]

Plato talks of dronelike behavior in his Republic.

[Anonymous No.11920946]

>>11920913
>It is literally incomprehensible unless you have a solid understanding of Hegel
You keep sprouting this meme, I see. Point me to a single passage in Fear and Trembling that cannot be comprehended without a solid understanding of Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11920995]

>>11920946
His whole ethical system is lifted from Hegel, which — due to its being Hegelian — is counterintuitive. This lack of reading is why you get retards who totally misunderstand the teleological suspension of the ethical, since ethics is not being used in its ordinary sense. Moreover, his philosophical notion of duty comes indirectly from Kant, by way of Hegel.

A similar mistake would be reading the first Critique without having first read Hume. It is a brainlet-tier move not to seek the historical contexts of demanding and worthwhile texts.

[Anonymous No.11921004]

>>11920636
If the thread is alive later I'll try find them

[Anonymous No.11921031]

stinky bean

[Anonymous No.11921038]

>>11921031
You are a dumb retard

[Anonymous No.11921043]

>>11916780
stiva is based and redpilled, NOT an npc

[Anonymous No.11921047]

>>11920995
>His whole ethical system is lifted from Hegel, which — due to its being Hegelian — is counterintuitive
Aren't numerous examples of a Tragic Hero enough to get an understanding of his ethical system? I mean, it sure is Hegelian, but unless I'm missing some critical subtleties, it's enough to understand Hegel on the level of "dude Universal lol" for the purpose of reading Fear and Trembling, because Kierkegaard spells the rest out.

[Anonymous No.11921049]

>>11915538
I thought of the specimen-man months ago in relation to the bugman, but it describes the NPC, too.

[Anonymous No.11921716]

>>11921049
Damn, Kierkegaard was a prophet. Given his attention dealt to anonymity, he is the perfect philosopher for 4chan.

[Anonymous No.11921903]

I'll learn Danish one day to read him

[Anonymous No.11922113]

>>11921903
even danes would think thats retarded

[Anonymous No.11922164]

>>11921903
Danes didn't read him when he was around and I doubt they are even less retarded now than they were then, so who cares about what they think

[Anonymous No.11922168]

>>11922164
meant for >>11922113

[Anonymous No.11922210]

>>11922164
> I doubt they are any less retarded now
selffix

[Anonymous No.11922824]

>>11915538
>I am a unique person with personal responsibility and control!

[Anonymous No.11922952]

>>11922824
>i'm such an individual because i reject individuality

[Anonymous No.11922962]

>>11916780
>>11916958
Is this seriously from Anna Karenina? Boy oh boy I should start reading fiction again! Those classics might be worth my while after all.

[Anonymous No.11923749]

>>11920913
It's clear you haven't read it, my only understanding of Hegel was from /lit/ memes and I had literally no trouble. Sickness Unto Death - now that's a book you need Hegel for.

[Anonymous No.11923804]

Guys how do I tell if I’m an NPC or not?

[Anonymous No.11924047]

Isnt the whole idea of enlightment to be more NPC like?

[Anonymous No.11924060]

>>11924047
What enlightenment are we talking about, self help enlightenment ?

[Anonymous No.11924433]

>>11921903
German is more worthwhile. It's close enough to make the translation more fluid - I think Kierkegaard wrote a bunch in German even - and if you still want to learn Danish after having learned German you're given a head start.

[Anonymous No.11924516]

>>11919553
>NPCS usually actually believe in what they preach and follow.
I disagree in many cases. The NPC describes the run-of-the-mill, entirely unremarkable person who repeats talking points they are programmed to say, and reacts to stimuli in ways they are programmed to. They don't really believe in anything because they never bothered to. Why would they? There are some really hardcore NPCs like rabid antifa or leftists but they are more like the monsters in the world you kill for experience (or would, but the elites use the NPC Police Force to protect them)

[Anonymous No.11924521]

>>11923804
If you're human you're an NPC.

[Anonymous No.11925453]

>>11924521
This is true, but just because you're a human doesn't make you human.

[Anonymous No.11926382]

>>11923749
Actually, you don't need Hegel for all of TSuD — only for the first paragraph or so, which states K's intentions to go beyond Hegelianism. The rest is pretty clear from the character sketches.

[Anonymous No.11927295]

That, 'it' quality you guys keep speaking about. I believe only certain people have it, and it's a kind of mental faculty, its not like math smarts or anything, its more like a sense of awareness, a capability. It's an interesting subjective phenomenon I've been obssessed with developing and exploring my whole life yet it seems to lead me further and further into an alienation from the outward world. My inner experience is so immediately rich and complex that its become so painfully incommensurable with the outer world, its given me the ability to percieve social and emotional things supernaturally and to avoid delusion or trivial things. So while its given me the ability to understand other to the point that I can and have made many friends and meaningful relationships there is a part of me that is always unresolved or unrequited. It has no place in the world except for within me, yet it seems that for this experience to be realized as truth and let go of it requires the outer world, it simply festers and becomes a ruinous inner tension and manic frustriation while It remains concealed. I've always read K books with this kind of isolation being subtley implied, and when I read concluding postscript the whole fucking thing seems to directly philisophically understand it. I think its my favorite K book, hopefully when I finish it I can find a way out.
Also do you think this is why God is needed? Because the only way for this experience, which is what is essential in man that he be spirit, can only be realized or experienced by something totally omnipresent? That other finite humans are necessarily unable?

[Anonymous No.11928549]

>>11924047
No, it's just because most NPCs hold enlightenment ideals to be true because of liberal indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.11928559]

>>11915538
Wow an elegant and incisive look at collectivism reduced to an insipid public domain meme for low iq niggers like OP, ironic and depressing.

Disregarding OP's propensity to suck cock and be a faggot, what is the best Kierkegaard work for his discussions of the Self? I can't get into Christianity but his thoughts on individualism are enticing and I dig his diction.

[Anonymous No.11928638]

That's funny. I've always enjoyed Kierkegaard's work though I'm far from an expert and I find the NPC meme hilarious.

[Anonymous No.11928738]

/lit/ already had the term p-zombie, why is everyone using NPC? It's ultra vague in comparison, and makes clear discussion impossible

[Anonymous No.11928756]

>>11928738
Because /pol/ has turned NPC into a meme and /lit/ is filled with idiots from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11928758]

>>11928738
Both are shit, machines is the stuff.

[Anonymous No.11928765]

>>11928559
Low IQ niggers are preferable to above average IQ pseuds like you.

[Anonymous No.11928777]

>>11921049
Imagine glorifying your discontentment and alienation lmao

[Anonymous No.11928792]

>>11915538
>Depressed neet discovers subconscious and ego

[Anonymous No.11928793]

>>11916170
We live in a society.

[Anonymous No.11928845]

>>11915538
Nietzsche also shit on it and would have no respect for people who perpetuate it:

>To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart—it is simply his duty....

And who are the people who perpetuate it? The lowest of the low:

>Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

[Anonymous No.11928921]

>>11928845
Reads like Peterson

[Anonymous No.11928928]

>>11928921
It would be the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11929030]

>>11928845
Imagine being in such emotional pain and psychic dysfunction that leads you to such gross misunderstanding of the teachings of the church.
Plain love that enriches the giver without waiting anything in return is incomprehensible to the guy.

It's no wonder why proponents of these cruel views were physical weaklings. They hate themselves and the only way they can rise out of this is by exercising force to others that remind them of themselves

[Anonymous No.11929045]

>>11915538
I thought it was Plato, with Republic (born into a specific role, thinking not necessary) or with the cave allegory. Heck, you could make the argument that Parmenides made it with his famous quote: from nothing nothing comes.

[Anonymous No.11929048]

>>11922824
I have very little agency over the sins I still commit, but otherwise I seem to be quite free.

[Anonymous No.11929075]

>>11929030
>Plain love that enriches the giver without waiting anything in return is incomprehensible to the guy.
Yes, much like how his ideas are incomprehensible to you.

[Anonymous No.11929088]

>>11915538
Is this from the Oxford VSI? It sounds very familiar.

Anyways read him chronologically, it hints at a change in his worldview he denied in his later years, so keep an eye out for that.

[Anonymous No.11929110]

>>11928765
why are you so upset faggot? did i reveal something ugly to you?

[Anonymous No.11929124]

>>11929075
If one thing is most clear in all he has written is his narcissistic rage .He can't wrap his head around how Christian love functions and thinks it's a slave's envy doctrine

[Anonymous No.11929147]

>>11928921
Peterson took everything N said and repurposed it
>>11929030
>Plain love that enriches the giver without waiting anything in return is incomprehensible to the guy.
its physiologically impossible
>It's no wonder why proponents of these cruel views were physical weaklings
So everyone in the SS was a physical weakling? The men of Greece and Rome were weaklings? Why do you specifically target their physical prowess if it doesn't matter in the end?
>psychoanalysis shit about hating yourself
>>11929124
Well it seems like a surrogate for love for one's family, Self, children, Wife, friends etc. Really seems like exactly what Kierkegaard was discussing in the OP except instead of principles its an emulsifying milquetoast love instead which can be conveniently assumed to be both satisfactorily alimentary for whoever is "graced with it" and sufficiently distancing so that no real intimacy is established, and more perfectly can sublimate any other love in one's vicinity so that its all an extension of it that way if you're incapable of one type you can always pivot to the others. Seems like pure cowardice and since you assume you're partaking in an omnipotent being's concern for his creation that he tortures constantly, thus acting as an agent of his mercy, you're a grander narcissist than any psychopathic machiavellian or nietzschean ever could hope to be. That's just what it looks like to me anon desu senpai

[Anonymous No.11929284]

>>11929147
I have fleetingly experienced this type of love and it is nothing like what you describe. It's essentially a reverence for life and all beings, on the exact opposite side of adversarial worldviews that narrow love to transactional self benefit.

[Anonymous No.11929323]

>>11929284
That's just a mixture of wonder and happiness; agape at best. Like most religious sophistry, it all comes down to hiding behind words whose boundaries have intentionally been expanded and blurred to allow dogma to seem irrefutable (which it is, because it has no clear meaning, shifting to whatever is necessary to maintain confidence in the "obvious" wisdom of superstitious faith). I'm so fucking tired of all the jesusfags on this board.

[Anonymous No.11929371]

>>11929323
And so what? Do you think that because Greeks autistically broke it down and imperfectly described transcendental meanings, it has now no value?
Because some fag thought about it in passing first?
Dogmatic truth isn't a rigid positivist value you can reach by extensive pseudo scientific examination. I'm so tired of logical positivist that see the world through their stained magnifying glass, oblivious of their psychological biases

[Anonymous No.11929396]

>>11916961
>tfw lack self-awareness but am aware of myself lacking self-awareness in real time

[Anonymous No.11929399]

>>11929371
>psychological bias
like presupposing the existence of a spirit that created everything who can communicate with his followers but that can't be detected miraculously by empirical inquiry of any kind? Sounds arrogant and suspicious to me.
>>11929284
>exact opposite of adversarial worldviews that narrow love to self benefit
wait what? All i said was that love is usually oriented towards one's kin and lovers nothing about the other thing. Unless you're grouping the other reply in where I said its not possible to just give love without expecting anything in return. I mean a man loves his wife because she loves him, and she makes him happy. Parent loves child because its their child, its constantly affirming their goodness as a human. What you're pretending is to be like a solar body of love that just gives it without even thinking about it, but that's fucking insane and not possible. You're feeling infatuated with some of reality and extending it using abstract reasoning to what you think is all of reality. But you couldn't if you wanted to conceive of even most of reality on Earth much less the universe. Its all complete bullshit and extremely self important, you flatten and coarse grain reality, love and endless feelings and relationships so you can construct a relationship with an all powerful being and ultimately that being does your and your fellow faithful's will. Every aspect of it is insane and narcissistic. You're really in fact condemning anyone who has good instincts to being suspected of being just like you.

[Anonymous No.11929439]

>>11929396
That's what self awareness is for most of us anon. Nirvana doesn't come so easy.

[Anonymous No.11929498]

>>11929371
>transcendental meanings
You mean fiction?
>Dogmatic truth isn't a rigid positivist value you can reach by extensive pseudo scientific examination.
You are the only one making claims to dogmatic truth.
>I'm so tired of logical positivist that see the world through their stained magnifying glass
Pointing out that your worldview collapses under the most cursory scrutiny isn't logical positivism.

You are trying to dismiss a critique of religious doctrine because you believe in some fanciful notion of
>Plain love that enriches the giver without waiting anything in return
as if all "love" (or anything that is actually love) christians approve of can be understood this way. This is the same sophistry that jesusfags use with the word "faith". The love between mother and child is very much transactional. The child wants warmth, human contact, and milk. The mother wants warmth, human contact, and for her milk to be received. (Among a bunch of other transactions, of course.) Transactions result from inequality, and some of these transactions can be described as love. Nietzsche explores some of the consequences of these transactions as well as the inherent stupidity of those who would try to make everyone equal so that there can be no transactions, pointing out how christians do this. One of the ways they do so is by framing all love in the way you have, which is patently false. If it weren't, and if christian love indeed wants nothing in return, your mother could just have easily tossed you in the nearest dumpster for love of the dumpster itself, or fed you to the nearest dog for love of the dog, or left you to rot in a ditch for love of the soil. Perhaps she should have.

[Anonymous No.11929512]

>>11929399
There is immense value in the moral philosophy alone, it's not a means to arrive to supernatural ends.
Collectivist egalitarian societies are the manifestation of the part of us that is the most virtuous.
Empirical inquiry with egoist character structure goggles will trick you to justify your most destructive parts. Power structures and narrow self interest which you call love will seem the most natural thing in the world.

You should extend the love in the whole of reality and you should love your enemy not because he has done something to deserve it, but because it benefits you to be a constant stream of never ending love. And at the end benefits him too.
Your assumptions about the reason of the irrational love feel like strawman. My equally arbitrary assumption is that you hide behind positivism and empirical claims that can be interpreted only in a very comforting outcome: reinforce your lack of love early in your life and project it to all of reality

> What you're pretending is to be like a solar body of love that just gives it without even thinking about it, but that's fucking insane and not possible
Oh yes it is check pic

[Anonymous No.11929556]

>>11929512
There are at least two people responding to you, doofus. Respond to each post relevantly, and stop making claims and start making arguments.

[Anonymous No.11929590]

>>11915538

>All human effort tends towards herding together – Let Us Unite, etc. Naturally, this happens under all sorts of high-sounding names, love and sympathy and enthusiasm and the carrying out of some grand plan and the like. This is the usual hypocrisy of the scoundrels we are. But the truth is that in a herd, we are free from the standard of the individual. So, millions of men live and die. They are just numbers and the numerical becomes their horizon. That is to say, they are just copies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQlhRaXO110 2:30

[Anonymous No.11929615]

>>11929512
>Your assumptions about the reason of the irrational love feel like strawman.
No one said love was irrational.

[Anonymous No.11929627]

>>11916215
Isn't coffee from the New World? The plant I mean.

[Anonymous No.11929636]

>>11929512
>Oh yes it is check pic
That's Mr. Rodgers, right? You don't think he felt good about being nice to someone less fortunate than him? If he felt remotely good about showing that kid some special attention, then he gained from it. You know what that's called? Empathy. It's an inherent quality of mammals, no faggot on the cross needed.

[Anonymous No.11929640]

>>11929627
Nah it's from E Africa IIRC, introduced to the West by Muslims.

[Anonymous No.11929675]

>>11929498
>Pointing out that your worldview collapses
The worldview is based on a tried moral system.
I fail to see how you think it collapses under your naive examples that you laughably call scrutiny.
As for the mother, destroying the baby would mean she doesn't love it. So much for your example.

The whole thing is based on the idea that there is abundance of goods and love, that one can maximize those for the benefit of others, that spiritual fulfillment is preferable to materialism, that ultimately you can't achieve true happiness by the selfish adversarial model.
>>11929636
> It's an inherent quality of mammals,
I don't think your mustachioed hero would agree with you.

[Anonymous No.11929843]

>>11929675
>The worldview is based on a tried moral system.
>I fail to see how you think it collapses under your naive examples that you laughably call scrutiny.
See >>11929498. I explained it quite clearly.
>As for the mother, destroying the baby would mean she doesn't love it.
Why should she love you in particular since she expects nothing in return? Why not just deliver you in the backyard and let the flies and crows eat you? She loves everything equally and expects nothing in return, right? Why should she love you MORE than the flies?
>I don't think your mustachioed hero would agree with you.
And what makes you think I agree with him? There are multiple people responding to you, and I couldn't care less if I Nietzsche agrees with me, I'm just pointing out that everything you've said is the same old retarded religious bullshit based on incoherent philosophy and braindead dogma.

[Anonymous No.11929955]

>>11929843
She respects and protects everything as far as it doesn't threaten the existence of another being. Humans have privileged position in the kingdom of God. So it literally boils down to: don't hurt others, don't exploit, there is enough for everyone, if you find yourself in advantage reduce it. Is it that complicated or are you completely morally eroded from the "everything is conflict" doctrine?

I'm ,in turn, pointing out your cheap scientism and positivism that you use to observe the world through tainted glass. You are bankrupt and project this, claiming it's the way the world goes round and should go round.

A moral philosophy that helps man leave in peace with others and the world is not a dogma. Just because you can't access these truths with your misanthropic pseudo-naturalism doesn't mean they don't hold value.

[Anonymous No.11930115]

>>11929955
>She respects and protects everything as far as it doesn't threaten the existence of another being.
So she's going to let those crows, bacteria, and worms starve to death?
>Humans have privileged position in the kingdom of God.
According to the writing of your sacred sheep fuckers. Why do you think I care about your circular logic, brainlet?
>So it literally boils down to: don't hurt others, don't exploit, there is enough for everyone, if you find yourself in advantage reduce it.
Okay, so why haven't you cut off any of your limbs? There are people in this world who are missing limbs, but you still accept your advantage over them. And how does a baby not exploit it's mother? Only one can survive without the other, so this is a clear case of exploitation. Or is it "unchristian" for babies to breastfeed?
>Is it that complicated or are you completely morally eroded from the "everything is conflict" doctrine?
That's not my doctrine; transaction is not conflict, it's cooperation.
>I'm ,in turn, pointing out your cheap scientism and positivism that you use to observe the world through tainted glass.
I have no idea why you think your baseless assumptions about my philosophy/ideology are going to stick. Is this how they teach you to argue with "heathens" in bible school?
>A moral philosophy that helps man leave in peace with others and the world is not a dogma.
No, but the interpretation of the writings of sheep fuckers who died over two millennia ago is dogma. Once again, empathy does not require a faggot on the cross.
>Just because you can't access these truths with your misanthropic pseudo-naturalism doesn't mean they don't hold value.
More buzzwords you're hoping will substitute for an argument. The only truth you've made clear is that you're a pitifully stupid faggot who can't think for himself.
>misanthropic pseudo-naturalism
Just because I think you're a faggot doesn't mean I dislike the rest of humanity. As for "naturalism" (pseudo or otherwise), I've made no arguments based on this principle; all I've done is point out that your notions of christian benevolence are utterly incoherent.

[Anonymous No.11930261]

>>11926382
Oh lol turns out I am actually the pseud, I just assumed the rest of the book would be like that first page, just put it away until I'd read Hegel.

[Anonymous No.11930265]

>>11930115
You have proved you are a fedora lord that doesn't get that his silly 'clever' refutations prove he watches the finger pointing to the moon and argues about the qualities of the finger. Literally flew over your head.
You are spoiled by modernity you dolt. The great truths are beyond your comprehension.

>argument
>all I've done is point out
>teach you to argue
>I've made arguments
>circular logic
Guess how I know your brain is empty chub

[Anonymous No.11930508]

>>11930265
Not him but..
The world is a conflict. Humans however, made sports out of it, and morality is always a part of any sport.

[Anonymous No.11931454]

>>11930265
>You are spoiled by modernity you dolt.
I haven't relied on a single modern logical or philosophical principle. There are plenty of classical greek civic philosophers who would have pointed out the bullshit of your non-arguments.
>The great truths are beyond your comprehension.
That all comprehension is beyond you is quite obvious.