/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17327544]

No one can refute him.

[Anonymous No.17327547]

I can't believe I ever tolerated this charlatan

[Anonymous No.17327555]

>>17327544
KEK

>>17327547
His work is ok, but he is pure KEK on media.

[Anonymous No.17327556]

>>17327544
He’s write about belief (or rather knowledge) in God, but his definition of God is probably awful. He’ll use it to justify belief in his Semitic desert spirit rather than accepting a pure rational and impersonal God
Also, not literature, kys illiterate newfag

[Anonymous No.17327563]

>>17327544
Wait so the axiom is necessarily faith in God? What? I don't get it

[Anonymous No.17327570]

>>17327563
It’s cryptojew mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.17327573]

>>17327563
he would equate any absolute with god
I'm sure he would make the tired argument scientific faith is religious

[Anonymous No.17327574]

/lit/cel pseuds hate him because they see their pseud natures within his milquetoast pop-philosophy

[Anonymous No.17327577]

>>17327556
>denying a personal God
have fun being damned for eternity.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17327581]

>>17327570
>cryptojew
You mean Christian

[Anonymous No.17327582]

>>17327563
>>17327573
2/2

it's loose definition for the sake of cheap argument

[Anonymous No.17327589]

Shoo in candidate for the grifter hall of fame.

[Anonymous No.17327590]

KEK triggered.

[Anonymous No.17327608]

>>17327555
That's how I feel. I don't necessarily have a problem with his self-help books or maps of meaning, even some of his lectures are quite decent. His persona or image, however, irks me beyond words. His pseudo-shamanistic ramblings are probably the worst. His "wisdoms" consist of the most basic advice; clear your room, get a job, wash your penis, etc...
And he reaps an enormous profit off of incels who are probably hopelessly doomed anyway, extracting neetbucks from sad, pathetic losers whom he convinces can be saved by his Christian pop-psychology.

[Anonymous No.17327610]

>>17327547
>>17327555
>>17327563
>>17327570
>>17327573
>>17327574
>>17327577
>>17327581
>>17327582
>>17327589
>>17327590
>>17327608
>no refutation

[Anonymous No.17327618]

>>17327544
He's correct that without an objective and transcendental source of legitimacy nothing in this world has any value, but none of these pseudo-bugmen can explain why an objective and transcendental source of legitimacy should actually be considered meaningful, valuable and legitimate from a subjective perspective.
>>17327577
You are literal human cattle.

[Anonymous No.17327634]

Well, he’s right that the implication that the scientific atheist viewpoint, which denies God and subscribes to empiricism, is self refuting. It also lends credibility to the idea that God does exist. You absolutely cannot be a scientific atheist or skeptic and flatly deny the existence of God while maintaining any sort of logical coherence. Whether that necessarily proves God is a prerequisite for proof itself or the specifics about the God, I don’t know.

[Anonymous No.17327636]

>>17327544
>atheist intellectual in charge of logic

[Anonymous No.17327640]

>>17327608
I think that he does this kind of thing mainly to appeal to those people. There is that too, anon. If he was some sort of 'hippie good vibes' psychologists it wouldn't have the same appeal to his audience. That seems more like a marketing strategy than anything else, and honestly? It is not like I feel bad about it, consider everything else. His stuff is not that bad, and some people behave in a similar way to sell utter shit, things that will be harmful to your life. That is why I don't really hate him, but I definitely understand why some people despise him.

[Anonymous No.17327641]

>axioms are necessary to conduct research
>therefore God

[Anonymous No.17327651]

>>17327544
But this isn't even an original thought, so anyone attempting to refute him, isn't actually refuting him.

[Anonymous No.17327652]

>>17327544
This is just the Transcendental Argument and it's true.

[Anonymous No.17327658]

>>17327610
You will never find an actual refutation let alone an argument. We had a thread a month ago where I presented basically this argument. I was dog piled so I challenged others to present any argument to refute it. We made it to 120 replies without a single argument whatsoever so I left the thread. And that’s what happens. You will notice that the default is either to purposely have debate breakdown and resort to things like insults, ad hominem, etc. or else they’ll just try to escape but presenting as if they were just arguing “I don’t deny. I just don’t know.” the whole time. This should be expected though because the whole premise of the argument is that people here are subscribing to an ideology and adamant about it which is illogical. One shouldn’t expect to have logical debate then.

[Anonymous No.17327669]

>>17327641
Nothing has axiomatic value in and of itself, anon. That's the problem. "God" is just a cope that allows some people to sneak this axiomatic value in through the back door.

[Anonymous No.17327672]

Rawr X3 *nuzzles* How are you? *pounces on you* you're so warm o3o *notices youhavea bulge* someone'shappy! *nuzzles your necky wecky* ~murr~hehe ;) *rubbies your bulgy wolgy* you're so big! *rubbies more on your bulgy wolgy* it doesn't stop growing .///. *kisses you and licks your neck* daddy likes ;) *nuzzle wuzzle* I hope daddy likes *wiggles butt and squirms* I wanna see your big daddy meat! *wiggles butt* I have a little itch o3o *wags tails* can you please get my itch? *put paws on your chest* nyea~ it's a seven inch itch *rubs your chest* can you pwease? *squirms* pwetty pwease? :(

[Anonymous No.17327673]

>>17327652
We need to be clear about it though. It doesn’t necessarily prove that God exists or what the specifics of that God are. It only proves that it’s illogical to subscribe to things like empiricism, science, etc. while also denying the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.17327676]

>>17327556
>He's write

[Anonymous No.17327681]

KEK anons unironically triggered by this shit.

[Anonymous No.17327689]

>using epistemological trix to troll brain/lit/s
AND YOU KEEP FALLING FOR IT HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[Anonymous No.17327730]

>>17327658
You sound like a whiny pseud.

[Anonymous No.17327732]

>>17327581
same thing

[Anonymous No.17327792]

>>17327730
You sound like exactly the type of mental midget I’m describing. No argument. No refutation. Just pathetic.

[Anonymous No.17327828]

>>17327544
I'm embarrassed that I thought this guy was the premier scholar of our time. I am grateful, however, that this charlatan set me on a path of genuine interest in knowledge and literature.

[Anonymous No.17327846]

>>17327792
This is also me, though.
>>17327618
>>17327669

>>17327828
Same deal here, though I've abandoned psychoanalysis entirely now, Jung was a good entry point into more serious thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17327989]

>>17327544
havent kept up with JBP, why is everyone in here calling him a charlatan?

[Anonymous No.17328078]

>>17327544
Huh?! That doesn’t make any sense. I’m not even saying there’s no God, just that the logic doesn’t track.

Maybe faith in the validity of your axiom is necessary for proof, or faith that things can be proven is necessary for proof, but faith does not always equal faith in God. There are lots of things people can have faith in that aren’t religious. Faith is just an assumption that there’s a kind of stability and continuity that can be used as a platform to build a structure. It can be transcendental or finite, material or spiritual— or whatever. None of these are necessarily God.

And Godel has very little, if anything substantial, to do with it. This is some pretty seriously weak Deepak Chopra new age self help missapplied faux-logic bullshit.

Wow. Just, wow.

[Anonymous No.17328147]

>>17327544
Can’t imagine anyone who knows about his retarded coattail riding daughter would take this incel father figure seriously.
His self help books follow the same gay formula of “common sense advice written like an academic”.
He is cute though and I wish he would be my dad