/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14114020]

There are three tiers of thinkers.

On the third tier you have people like Jordan Peterson. These people fare well enough when confronted with trifling issues—like whether a language should have ten personal pronouns or ten thousand, for example—and for this they are lauded by the rabble as geniuses. But when it comes to the genuinely tough subjects—the definition of truth say—they can talk nonsense for 20 hours without getting anywhere—and that's why their opinions on these subjects never survive the test of time: they are so confused and sprawling, while simultaneously worthless, that no one can bother memorizing them.

Then we have the second tier, that comprises people like Aristotle, whose definition of truth, while next to useless, really, is at least concise enough to be memorable: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true". This is merely common sense transcribed in a kind of formula that makes autistic people feel they've understood something, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if Aristotle was on the spectrum somewhere. All "analytic philosophers" are in the same boat/spectrum, and all their writings are equally commonsensical and worthless.

And finally, on the first tier, we have the bona fide geniuses. Consider Nietzsche's "Truth is will to power". Doesn't it make Peterson's 20-hour verbal diarrhea on the subject seem ludicrous? Even more so considering the latter comes a whole century after Nietzsche, and Peterson has read him? Not to mention the analytic autists, who still pathetically try to pretend that Nietzsche never existed.

And there you have the three tiers of thinkers. In summa, barely a few dozen people in the history of the species deserve to be carefully read from start to finish, and you won't find any of them on YouTube.

[Anonymous No.14114036]

You write like a fucking faggot. I hope this is copypasta and the implicit joke of the copypasta is that a faggot wrote it. What you said is also shallow and stupid but the main problem is that you said it like a faggot who has no self-awareness. So I hope it's copypasta and I'm missing the obvious joke otherwise you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.14114341]

Into which tier does Joe Rogan fit?

[Anonymous No.14114384]

>>14114341
tier 4, the ascended tier
"it's entirely possible''

[Anonymous No.14114439]

>>14114020
I think Pilate achieved a tier loop when ironically remarking, Quid est Veritas? Putting him in an ever oscillating loop from highest to lowest tier and around and around, generating so much energy he started turning like a dervish, then faster like a drill bit burrowing himself into the earth, where he dwells to this day, creating furrows and popping up every once in a while (now like Bugs Bunny) to jestingly insert himself where needed, whispering in your ear just when you think you've got truth quivering in a corner, pinned down and ready to blast with your double-barreled wisdom shotgun, 'ehhhh, what's truth, doc?'

[Anonymous No.14114464]

>>14114036
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.14114527]

The definition of truth is not a difficult subject.

Truth is a word that we ascribe meaning to and we are limited, and thus any definition of truth is necessarily limited. Any one person's definition will be limited by their personal competence and our collective understanding of truth as a society of thinkers will be limited insofar as we are collectively similar to each other and individually limited. A perfect definition of truth is likely unattainable by limited creatures and moreover is unnecessary for us to achieve our typical goals. The use of a word has a purpose and the merits of a definition of the word can only be considered relative to the purpose of it.

You can disagree with this, but you'd be wrong - and thus the "difficulty" of philosophical subjects is revealed to not actually be the difficulty of the subjects but the annoying reality that philosophy attracts a lot of fucking retards with unfalsifiable, but bullshit, ideas.

>Consider Nietzsche's "Truth is will to power"
Meaningless self-referential bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14114537]

>>14114527
>The use of a word has a purpose and the merits of a definition of the word can only be considered relative to the purpose of it.
but, I meant to add, definitely CAN be considered relative to the purpose of it - some definitions can be more correct ("useful") than others relative to the purpose of the use of the word. We can create objectivity out of subjectivity with shared axioms.

[Anonymous No.14114827]

Truth is subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.14114866]

>>14114527
When two Names are joyned together into a Consequence, or Affirmation; as thus, A Man Is A Living Creature; or thus, If He Be A Man, He Is A Living Creature, If the later name Living Creature, signifie all that the former name Man signifieth, then the affirmation, or consequence is True; otherwise False. For True and False are attributes of Speech, not of things. And where Speech in not, there is neither Truth nor Falshood. Errour there may be, as when wee expect that which shall not be; or suspect what has not been: but in neither case can a man be charged with Untruth.

Seeing then that Truth consisteth in the right ordering of names in our affirmations, a man that seeketh precise Truth, had need to remember what every name he uses stands for; and to place it accordingly; or els he will find himselfe entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twiggs; the more he struggles, the more belimed. And therefore in Geometry, (which is the onely Science that it hath pleased God hitherto to bestow on mankind,) men begin at settling the significations of their words; which settling of significations, they call Definitions; and place them in the beginning of their reckoning.

[Anonymous No.14114881]

>>14114020
Based. Except you’re a little gay boy for thinking Nietzsche is valuable.

[Anonymous No.14114903]

Chad Aristotle on spectrum ? Mental patient's rambling the best form of philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.14114910]

And where does this based dog fit into all that ?

[Anonymous No.14114914]

Or even this Nazi cunt ?

[Anonymous No.14114925]

>>14114527
>The definition of truth is not a difficult subject.
Behold! This man just solved epistemology!

[Anonymous No.14114936]

>>14114910
Not OP but according to OP's categories, I would say he fits at the very top of rank 2 thinkers. Schopenhauer, on the other hand, uses Kant's system to its end and is on rank 1.

[Anonymous No.14114950]

>>14114925
It's almost as if the "difficulty" of philosophical subjects is revealed to not actually be the difficulty of the subjects but the annoying reality that philosophy attracts a lot of fucking retards with unfalsifiable, but bullshit, ideas.

[Anonymous No.14114957]

>>14114527
Untrue.

[Anonymous No.14114958]

>>14114020
Full of so much envy and resentment that it breeds an overwhelming feeling of impotence, and the only way to express that hatred is to mask it behind claims of equality.

[Anonymous No.14115000]

>>14114020
>Nietzsche is the greatest thinker ever

You exposed yourself as a pseud, if not a full on retard.

[Anonymous No.14115040]

>>14114036
OP BTFO

[Anonymous No.14115167]

>>14114527
Not to pick on you my friend but why do you damn Popperites use the term "unfalsifiable" like it's a bad thing, the fact that a claim can't be shown to be false doesn't make it irrational or unjustified. "Unverifiable" or "indemonstrable" would be a much preferable term for that purpose.

[Anonymous No.14115179]

>>14114036
Oh, you didn't know?

http://orgyofthewill.net/

[Anonymous No.14115193]

>>14115179
>954. Probably nothing enrages me more than when turd worlders pretend to castigate the West for its "dysfunction" and "decadence". It's like a caveman making fun of the Wright brothers because one of their planes exploded. Motherfucker we are building FLYING MACHINES, OF COURSE we'll run into problems that you in your disgusting, smelly caves would never even imagine! This insane attitude of savages pretending to be above the West is utterly intolerable and the only proportional response to it is genocide. Kill them all, and let the Great Spaghetti Monster in the sky sort them o

[Anonymous No.14115197]

>>14115179
> Politics may be a dirty word today, but in antiquity that's all that men were concerned with. If you were not into politics back then you weren't a man, you were a child, a woman or a slave. It was understood that the naturally masculine occupation was politics. So how did we get from that to today, where there's hardly a less masculine, more contemptible occupation for a man than politician?
The crucial moment came when politics was divorced from war and combat training. What the Greeks and the Romans called politics was an almost entirely different thing than what we mean today. It meant "campaigns of conquest against barbarians", with internal conflicts only really occurring in order to determine who would lead the phalanxes and legions in battle. The "politicians" themselves were present in and led all the campaigns, and combat and tactical/strategic training were at least as important skillsets for them to possess as rhetoric. But at some point someone somewhere decided to separate the warmaking from the politicizing, and lo and behold all the new politicians from that point on were faggots. And that point we call the birth of democracy.

so is this based or not based

[Anonymous No.14115202]

>>14115167
>unfalsifiable, *but bullshit*, ideas

[Anonymous No.14115205]

>>14115179
>951. Women are the original faggots. Compared to their level of faggotry, actual faggots may as well be straight.

The plot thickens

[Anonymous No.14115335]

>>14115179
229. It's always a bright and sunny day on planet earth, it's just a question of having enough elevation.

[Anonymous No.14115752]

>>14114827
so even this self-refuting statement of yours is rendered subjective, and therefore not ultimately true. good job, genius.

[Anonymous No.14115779]

Why don’t we try to pin down what truth is while we’re here, or at least give it our best try. I’ll give an argument, which will most definitely be refuted, and then someone else will give an argument, and so on and so on, until we have reached a satisfactory definition of truth.

Let’s sidestep the solipsistic argument that nothing is really true and try to find things that are absolutely true to help pin down our definition. For example, the sky is blue, grass is green. These are things which every human being on the face of the Earth, no matter language or any ocular peculiarities, will agree on. So perhaps our first definition of truth should be anything which no person could reasonably deny?

I eagerly await your responses.

[Anonymous No.14115789]

>>14115179
Took some time.

[Anonymous No.14115803]

>>14115779
hnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnghghgh

I tried

[Anonymous No.14115824]

>>14115803
It’s okay, you did your best.

[Anonymous No.14116790]

>>14114020
nietzsche is a dumbass