Are there philosophers that weren't just losers and outcasts?

[Anonymous No.18763545]

>To this day, my whole philosophy totters after an hour's sympathetic conversation with total strangers: it seems so foolish to me to wish to be right at the price of love, and not to be able to communicate what one considers most valuable lest one destroy the sympathy.
Why do philosophers do this? This is from some letter by Nietzsche, btw.
>don't actually take part in the world around yourself
>feel qualified to describe it
>get praised by other people who don't take part in the world around themselves

[Anonymous No.18763577]

Hmm let's see

>59 Intellekt und Moral. - Man muß ein gutes Gedächtnis haben, um gegebene Versprechen halten zu können. Man muß eine starke Kraft der Einbildung haben, um Mitleid haben zu können. So eng ist die Moral an die Güte des Intellekts gebunden.
This seems like an entirely accurate observation

[Anonymous No.18763653]

>>18763577
>here's how you should live
>i can't do it, and the only reason I even dreamed it up and wrote it down stems from the fact that I can't actually do it myself

[Anonymous No.18763667]

Derrida was an absolute chad

[Anonymous No.18763670]

>>18763545
He had more friends than you though.

[Anonymous No.18763680]

>>18763545
Philosophy is not for you. Go read something else.

[Anonymous No.18763684]

The philosopher is forever on the outside looking in. They're able to analyse, describe, and prescribe, specifically because they don't partake in it. After all, most philosophers were either shut-ins, ivory tower academics, or monks. This is no coincidence. Someone who actively partakes in society among the common people, without being a part of some insular circle, would most likely not gravitate towards philosophy, but to social activism instead instead (not that you couldn't do both per se).

[Anonymous No.18763728]

>>18763545
guys pls stop making philosopher threads
I don't really like talking about this but I habitually get visions of dead philosophers who are attempting to reenter into this material plane in order to right the misunderstandings and misapplications of their theories. Apparently there is a very specific naraka ( नरक) made for philosophers who are the greatest fiends in the sight of the Divine due to their inordinate hubris and so their torment is more than what most will suffer (we all suffer eternal torment the only difference is in degree).
and so the philosophers are always appearing to me and supplicating me to tell the world what they actually meant or to give up on their ideas completely since the more people adhere to their ideas the more they are tortured. but they can never pass me since apparently one of the archons made me into a sort of inadvertant psychosomatic-boundary which the spirits of philosophers cannot pass. they also can't communicate their reformed systems of thought to me either since their words always spill out as garbled static noise, but i sometimes pick up intuitive understandings of what they mean.
Deleuze in particular has been attempting to cross through me into the material world lately but the archonic impediment won't let him. one of the fallen angels (they're all fallen) explained to me that Deleuze's philosophy is directly responsible for the push towards transgenderism and in the future will be adopted as fundamental to the regime as they slowly mutilate humanity down into a confused rhizomatic herd mass. Deleuze was given premonitions that this would occur and that his works were directly responsible for it and so that's a big reason why he killed himself. he literally spent his last hours being psychically attacked with lucid visions of mutilated penises and other HRT-induced horrors and he couldn't take it.

[Anonymous No.18763733]

>>18763653
This has nothing to do with my post. Maybe consider reading a book next time you want to make a post

[Anonymous No.18763743]

>>18763670
WRONG.
>>18763680
I'll read philosophy, just by people who have actually lived human lives, instead of academic manchildren living in completely sterile environments debating with other spiritually sterile, safe academics about what the true way of life is. There's probably plenty, they just don't resonate with the early 20s intellectuals of lit.
>>18763684
Partially agree. But I think there's a large aspect of historical bias, due to academic, aristocratic and other intellectual circles, who would naturally gravitate towards the type of philosophy I'm talking about and perpetuate it. I think it's plentiful in forms that aren't pure philosophy, like fictional literature.

[Anonymous No.18763744]

>>18763728

[Anonymous No.18763749]

>>18763743
>WRONG.
Prove it

[Anonymous No.18763765]

>>18763728
...
Go on please...

[Anonymous No.18763766]

>>18763728
holy. based.

[Anonymous No.18763774]

>>18763733
I just skimmed through this foreign language, and interpreted it the way I wanted to. What's the problem, do you expect me to just know German?
>>18763749
picrel is me about to enter your mom and my 4 friends cheering me on.

[Anonymous No.18763775]

>>18763743
Now that you bring it up, I'm curious as well, who are some philosophers that WEREN'T shut-ins/academic elites/etc. Philosophers that actually were pretty social with commoners. I know some of the Greeks were, but in modernity, no one really comes to mind except for Tocqueville.

[Anonymous No.18763781]

>>18763775
Ye, it's the crux of what I'm asking. But you don't really get answers unless you're being an annoying prick on here though. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.18763783]

>>18763774
>I just skimmed
Yeah and evidently didn't understand a single word. Dude's talking about the relation between the intellect and morality, not whatever oogabooga "argument" you thought you were making

[Anonymous No.18763786]

>>18763774
>only 4 friends
ngmi

[Anonymous No.18763791]

>>18763783
I just said I don't speak german.
>the relation between the intellect and morality
woah dude that's deep...I really need to read more of this guy to understand this.

[Anonymous No.18763793]

>>18763775
You have to consider also that society wasn't egalitarian during most of the modern period of philosophy, so "commoners" weren't really in their circle. Plenty of modern philosophers frequently interacted with the aristocracy (Schopenhauer comes to mind).

[Anonymous No.18763798]

>>18763791
You give me your opinion on the matter then :)

[Anonymous No.18763803]

>>18763728
Now we just need someone else to say "read the Bible" and another "start with the greeks" and together with bringing up transgenderism we will have covered all our bases in terms of obsessed posters who say the same thing in every thread

[Anonymous No.18763826]

>>18763793
Schopy was an aristocrat himself, many continental philosophers were, ever since the enlightenment period. I think it started maybe in the 20th century that you've started having more non-elite philosophers.

[Anonymous No.18763837]

>>18763793
Sure, but there had to have been aristocrats, who were just interested in the human condition.
>>18763798
>One must have a good memory to keep promises made. One must have a strong imagination to be able to have compassion. That is how closely morality is tied to the goodness of the intellect.
Dumb people can be good in social situations, and if this guy ever spent time around dumb motherfuckers like me he'd know. An irrelevant connection, unless you're automatically labeling socially competent people as smart, and socially incompetent people (like himself) dumb. People's memories tend to be better about things that they attach emotional importance to. Me promising my mom for the 50th time in a row that I'll clean my room when I was 12 or me promising my kids I'm taking them to the park are worlds apart in terms of perceived emotional importance. If I 'm about to break up with my girlfriend I'm less likely to fulfill my promise of taking her on a really expensive date.
Nietzsche had the emotional capacity of a frog, and obviously saw social interactions and friendships as transactions, so he had to use his intellectual capacity to navigate social situations, that real people navigate with ease.

[Anonymous No.18763847]

>>18763837
I'm retarded, and forgot to develop my point when responding to
>>18763837
I'm talking about aristocrats, who were either impoverished, or lived with the commoners out of some morbid curiosity. There's plenty of poor people writing novels and scarily accurate depictions of regular people after the 19th century, but no philosophers? It's hard to believe. I'll wait a bit, but so far it does seem that /lit/ themselves are mostly only attracted to shut-ins or aristocrats-of-the-soul academics.

[Anonymous No.18763856]

>>18763545
Philosopher king moment

[Anonymous No.18763864]

>>18763837
>Nietzsche had the emotional capacity of a frog
So he's literally /me/, the epic anonymous? whoah.....no wonder I like him so much! HE'S ONE OF US! WHOAH!! WOW!! I LOVE NIETZSCHE SO MUCH BROS!! HE'S JUST LIKE ME!! HE'S JUST LIKE ME!!

[Anonymous No.18763887]

>>18763864
SAME BRO!! HE'S JUST LIKE ME TOO!! I LOVE NEETCHA!! HE'S JUST LIKE ME!!

[Anonymous No.18763905]

Protestants are so funny. Maestro is completely on the right when he says you faggots needed to have sex.

[Anonymous No.18763916]

>>18763864
>>18763887
Idk if you're mocking me, but that's what I'm trying to say. Popular pure philosophy (from my limited understanding and knowledge) seems to be for the outsiders looking in, by outsiders looking in. I remember when I was 16, and wasn't allowed to go to parties. So when there was a party I couldn't get to, I rationalized all types of stuff about how parties are lame, the people there are just uninteresting, and that I'd rather just play video games alone, and get the highlights from my friends on Monday. And I completely changed my mind when my best friend got a driver's license and I was finally taking part.
I know I'm abusing anecdotes to get my point across, but assessing something in vacuum while not understanding the unvoiced intricacies that you only learn through experience is damaging, and therefore flawed.
And there has to be a connection between consumers of philosophy, who seem to suffer from the same afflictions of an overly safe and streamlined lifestyle and lack of experience with people different from them.

[Anonymous No.18763930]

>>18763916
>Idk if you're mocking me
lol don't know about the other guy, but it wasn't directed at you, more so at /lit/fags who identify with the kind of person nietzsche and also philosopher console wars in general

[Anonymous No.18763973]

>>18763916
Yeah basically >>18763930

It is a genuine criticism to bring up against philosophers who have more experience with books than with people, and it really fosters the image of anti-sociality being associated with intelligence, when really a lot of the anti-social people I know are generally dumb as fuck. Just look at 4chan for a direct example. I'd love to see philosophies developed off of social interactions, like how Socrates developed his method by debating people in public, rather than some old guys sitting in their rooms all day navel-gazing and ruminating without testing anything out against the reality of society and human interactions.

[Anonymous No.18764028]

what is this weird neurotic mutt urge to only consider the worldviews of thinkers that stacy would want to ball gargle, it's so bizarre. you're all slaves to appearances, that's why those outside the ring of social approval and disapproval frighten and confuse you

[Anonymous No.18764036]

>>18764028
>outside the ring of social approval and disapprova
What does this mean, hermits? Everyone is either accepted or not

[Anonymous No.18764041]

>>18763916
>philosophy is just sour grapes
>this fucking high school anecdote maps onto 2000 years of thought
Dude you can't be serious

[Anonymous No.18764048]

>>18764041
>>18764028
>missing the point this hard

[Anonymous No.18764055]

>>18764036
hermits, outsiders, aliens, strangers.

>>18763973
>It is a genuine criticism to bring up against philosophers who have more experience with books than people

lol no it isn't, you're just an early 20 something projecting his incel neuroses on long-dead intellectual titans, philosophy is serious and hard work and all this dumb peacocking you're supposed to leave at the door.

[Anonymous No.18764060]

>>18764048
>hey Nietzsche bro, ever like, considered, like, I don't know.... uh, hold on... that like you're kind of a shut-in?
>Mein gott I have never conzidered it!
Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.18764075]

>>18763847
Why would those higher classes want to associate with the lower classes? I'm saying modern philosophers were usually social with their own classes. With the exception of a few hermits like Spinoza or giga academics like Kant, most were social. Descartes had to isolate himself during his writing sessions because he said he likes socializing too much that it doesn't leave him time to write; Locke and Leibniz had political posts; Berkeley was a bishop; Schopenhauer had aristocrat friends all over Europe; if you consider Jung a philosopher, he too was also social, and maybe as a clinician spent more time with """commoners""" than the others.

[Anonymous No.18764080]

>>18763728
It’s scaring me how much I can sympathize with this…

[Anonymous No.18764086]

>>18764075
No, even Kant was a hit at dinner parties, confirming that, once again, Americans and their pornification of everything are a cancer.

[Anonymous No.18764097]

>>18764086
Agreed. Even the academics were social in their own academic circles. Teaching students and spending time with fellow academics is itself socializing.

[Anonymous No.18764105]

>>18763930
>>18763973
Alright, I don't come here often, so I'm not sure if the things I'm saying were refuted often. But yeah, my thread was trying to be 2 pronged. Find philosophers who weren't like that, and discuss this criticism.
>>18764028
Oh damn, here he comes, proving my point. We're social animals, you being rejected and shunned isn't self-imposed and you're not enlightened because of it, just a loser.
>you're all slaves to appearances,
Hearty chuckle at this one though.
>>18764041
>lol bro i won't actually even try to refute it but i'll comment anyways
Do anecdotes of real experiences anger you? I'm not saying they're badly thought out. They're extremely intelligent people with really interesting idea within their frameworks of thinking, which usually ignores the human factor. Therefore philosophers that try to explain the human experience without living the human experience automatically provide less value to me. And of course this type of criticism doesn't apply to spiritual philosophers debating afterlife, connection with God, since those are personal, abstract that probably benefit from constant introspection. It feels like you just got a knee-jerk reaction because you're not used to seeing anything but
>smart person smart, therefore he's right
So far /lit/ seems very inbred in its thinking, disappointing.
>lol no it isn't, you're just an early 20 something projecting his incel neuroses on long-dead intellectual titans, philosophy is serious and hard work and all this dumb peacocking you're supposed to leave at the door.
I'm not that guy but lol. Straight for the ad hominem. Same with
>>18764060
Just discuss the topic at hand, because at this point it's been developed.
>>18764075
It's funny you mention Jung because I do find his philosophy much unlike that of Nietzsche, and I would definitely not apply my criticism to him. And Jung spent time with indigenous tribes, was his friend almost died to a snake bite in the wild. I cannot apply "not having lived" to Jung and his philosophy exudes it. Compare him to Freud.
>>18764086
Stop being a retard, I'm not even American. Your insistence on tying yourself to people whose only connection to you is the geographical area you were born in is beyond sad and pathetic though. Losers like you would be exactly the philosophers I'm talking about if you were rich in the 18th century. Of course you don't have the intelligence to really catch on, but you'd be there.

[Anonymous No.18764117]

>>18764105
How is it possible to not have the human experience while living as a human being?

[Anonymous No.18764118]

>>18764105
>It's funny you mention Jung
Well then. What about the other philosophers I mentioned? Seems like most modern philosophers were pretty social.

[Anonymous No.18764123]

>>18764105
>Therefore philosophers that try to explain the human experience
This is an assumption. That is not necessarily what philosophers are after.

[Anonymous No.18764124]

>>18764105
Nietzsche served as a paramedic in the Franco-Prussian war I'm sure he had plenty of "human experience"

[Anonymous No.18764133]

>>18763775
Camus and Jünger at the top of my head. But even Nietzsche himself was around normal people for his teens and 20s, he was a combat medic in the Franco-Prussian war

[Anonymous No.18764148]

>>18764105
>the only human experience is social experience
>actually using the word "loser" unironically
Your debased feminine culture will be the death of you. And you don't know what ad hominem is you reddit dork

[Anonymous No.18764201]

>>18764118
I haven't read enough of those to be able to pretend I'm an expert. Maybe I'd like their philosophy? Who knows. I know I liked Summa Theologica. Like I said, some forms of philosophy need introspection. The social forms, that discuss how humans interact need social experience.
>>18764117
I've said this before. Sanitized lifestyle in academia is a safe, unchanging environment where you're almost exclusively encountering other smart people with a much more complex social structure than everyone else. Same with Vatican. Those priests operate on very different social paradigms from everyone else, and I'd be very worried to read priest's essay on human interaction.
>>18764124
Then he must have regressed over time in the comforts of academia.
>>18764148
Just fuck off from this thread already. I'm not saying its the only fucking experience you absolute mongoloid. I'm saying it's an important aspect when someone's philosophy touches on someone's interactions with others.
>Your debased feminine culture
Ye bro I'm sure reading books and moving around in overly safe and streamlined social circles is definitely not a construct by feminine men. Please for the love of God, transition and stop spewing your frustrated bullshit on everyone else. Filthy urbanite.
>>18764133
Camus is who I was thinking of too, but I was wondering if I'd get too many
>philosophy
Tolstoy especially seemed to understand the plight of the average person a lot, that's why I love his character depth so much.

[Anonymous No.18764206]

>>18764201
>Then he must have regressed over time in the comforts of academia.
He became a professor extremely early on in life and then left academia forever. How much Nietzsche have you actually read?

[Anonymous No.18764215]

>>18764201
>falling for Tolstoy's peasant schtick
fake "worldly" detected.

[Anonymous No.18764216]

>>18764201
>I haven't read enough of those to be able to pretend I'm an expert.
But these are the main "modern" philosophers? How are you going to make judgments about modern philosophers if you aren't familiar with them? Also, Nietzsche an academic only for a few short years; he wasn't "in the comforts of academia". I'd be ending this conversation if I were you.

[Anonymous No.18764217]

>>18764201
dogshit-for-brains honorary mutt still projecting his incel soul on a titan like nietzsche. apparently gritting your teeth and pushing through terrible daily migraines and sickliness to write highly vitalized sophisticated life-affirming philosophy doesn't count because some bitch didn't suck nietzsche's dick from the back.

>nietzsche regressed into the comforts of academia

What the fuck are blabbering about you fucking shitwit cunt, he died a wreck and despised the academic establishment. Meme shitting cretin

[Anonymous No.18764230]

>>18764206
>>18764215
>>18764216
>>18764217
Frothing at the mouth at this gotcha, while still not addressing the argument or attacking the strawman.

[Anonymous No.18764234]

>>18763803
Read the Bible in Greek, geek

[Anonymous No.18764235]

>>18764230
Fuck off to PornHub and leave us in peace, midwit.

[Anonymous No.18764238]

>>18764201
>Sanitized lifestyle in academia is a safe, unchanging environment where you're almost exclusively encountering other smart people with a much more complex social structure than everyone else.
Do you think that academics live in walled cities? Their students are normal people. Their neighbors are normal people. They have to pay taxes, take their children to school, deal with administrators, and deal with their relatives. Further, most philosophers have not been "academics."
>Same with Vatican. Those priests operate on very different social paradigms from everyone else, and I'd be very worried to read priest's essay on human interaction.
They don't live separately from others, and even if they do, they began among the common people and have risen through the ranks.
You don't seem to have thought this through very well, if at all.

[Anonymous No.18764248]

>>18764105
>anon thinks himself above historical intellectuals because he once got to orbit stacy at a party and now he will overcompensate on that basis for the rest of his life
>his absolutely plebeian superficial teen impulse means that he is qualified to smugly psychoanalyze philosophers and question their understanding of "the human experience" like some woman
>blatant projection of cynical insecurity
>>Stop being a retard, I'm not even American
it's obvious, canadian hands typed this

[Anonymous No.18764259]

>>18764230
>while still not addressing the argument
The word you were looking for is life-philosophy (Lebensphilosophie). Sure, if someone wishes to write life-philosophy, psychology, or sociology, he better have frequent contact with society. Most philosophers do not specialize in those topics, and the two life-philosophers we considered in this thread, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as well as the psychologist Jung and the sociologist Tocqueville, all did have the required experience to be qualified. If you still believe there is a philosopher who specialized in those topics who was not qualified, the burden of proof is on you. Until then there is no argument.

[Anonymous No.18764277]

>>18763545
No and even today, most people who study for philosophy degrees are sheltered, middle class, arrogant and over-estimate their importance etc.
Personally I don't care much for it. Morality arises spontaneously within any community, so what's the point? Metaphysics is just proto-science anyway.

[Anonymous No.18764283]

someone post the photo of young hegel and nietzche looking like chads

[Anonymous No.18764295]

>>18763545
We all tread the same path, but you... You are disconnected from the reality that binds us all and in the process, you have left this world entirely, to the point where a drowning man can't be drowning, because it doesn't appease the ideals and virtues you have built on your own observation.

And when you come back to the world from which you disappeared, you act as if you're not the alien here, but rather as the one and true observer of this mere and subjective hell, we call reality.

[Anonymous No.18764301]

>>18763545
Don't see the point in them myself. I don't think philosophy is that relevant outside of the shared morality that spontaneously arises from interactions within a society.
Even today, philosophy students tend to be very sheltered, middle class etc. Again, none of them actually live according to the prescriptions they hold about it, because they're just middle class LARPers who don't actually have to be morally accountable to anyone.

[Anonymous No.18764308]

>>18764301
Everything else covered by philosophy ultimately just seems like a waste of time to me. Fucking Aristotle is not better than modern scientific study.

[Anonymous No.18764312]

>>18764295
>what is perspective
wow anon you're so smart

[Anonymous No.18764318]

>>18764308
modern scientific study is a neurotic exercise in egoism. t. academic, everyone is a broken insecure autist and this field is hell

[Anonymous No.18764325]

>>18764206
>He became a professor extremely early on in life and then left academia forever. How much Nietzsche have you actually read?
I've read plenty. I just wrongly defined the term. He was a NEET, which somehow changes anything?
>>18764216
Never said a single thing about "main modern philosophers" or any blanket term like that.
>>18764235
>projecting projecting projecting
Stop. Notice how the people with the best arguments in this thread aren't raging fuckers like you.
>>18764238
>Do you think that academics live in walled cities?
Yea, effectively. They're upper middle class people, interacting with other people, that feel safe, and generally want to learn. They build complex social structures, and make up taboos, that "less civilized" people don't. There is next to no variance in terms of intellectual and emotional capacity among academia.
>>18764248
>>anon thinks himself above historical intellectuals because he once got to orbit stacy at a party and now he will overcompensate on that basis for the rest of his life
No I don't. The opposite. These people are much more intelligent than me, and I'll never be able to accomplish anything of such permanence. I never fooled myself with that. I am talking about a specific subset of philosophy, that is generally made by a specific subset of people with a specific set of traits, for other people of this specific trait. Also what's with this /int/ tier banter.
>>18764259
Well I think you're the reasonable one in the thread. So I'll concede this, The thread was mostly started because of Nietzsche, and I have already admitted that Jung is pretty much exactly who I loved reading and think he's qualified. Schopenhauer to a lesser degree, and Nietzsche I still think none. Although at this point, I'm cherry picking his life and his philosophy to prove my point. Nor do I possess the knowledge to argue this further. I'm sure there's more interesting discussion to be had though.
>>18764301
I think philosophy impacts are much greater when they're from the bottom up. Like the Christian philosophy and its consequences were much more felt and easily measured than the aristocracies movements.
>>18764318
I'm a farmer that spent a lot of time in academic circles when I was studying (admittedly it was engineering). And yeah, the contrast was massive. People in the villages seem so full of life in comparison.

[Anonymous No.18764341]

>>18764325
How the fuck someone can think Jung is more "down to earth" than Nietzsche (or anyone else in existence) is beyond comprehension. he is the most schizo, up-in-the-air, inapplicable, confabulating, make-believe writer I can think of.

[Anonymous No.18764347]

I think OP is trolling us here.

[Anonymous No.18764409]

>>18764341
filtered

[Anonymous No.18764475]

>>18763728
What about the greeks