/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19461141]

>Pick up philosopher
>Look into their life
>Depressed
>Angry at god(s)/life/government/parents/women/etc.
>Bitter person
>No friends or family
>No job
>Mediocre life
>Not respected in their time
>Died alone
>Died penniless
>Died unfulfilled
>Any combination of the above
Dropped, obviously whatever you're trying to tell me doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.19461178]

>>19461141
'tis the fruits of ascetic ideals, lad.

[Anonymous No.19461193]

>>19461141
Damn you got filtered

[Anonymous No.19461216]

>>19461141
>going to philosophy for self-help
Back to Juden Peterstein with ye

[Anonymous No.19461233]

>>19461141

[Anonymous No.19461266]

>>19461193
I'll read their writings, but I'm not taking any of their ideas to heart lol.
>>19461216
If your philosophy has no practical value or wisdom relating to living life then it is at best useless and probably flawed. Knowledge is a means to an end, living a better life, not an end in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.19461337]

>>19461266
Knowledge is a means but it's not to a better life, it's to understanding more fundamental things and those things can lead to a better life.

[Anonymous No.19461364]

>>19461141
>Died penniless
well yeah, it wouldn't be wise to spend time earning money you'll never use lmao

[Anonymous No.19461368]

>>19461266
"Better life" is itself a philosophical concept. You can't measure philosophy against some type of predetermined standard of "good life" before you philosophically come to define what 'better life' is.

[Anonymous No.19461371]

>>19461141
Philosophy isn’t for you

[Anonymous No.19461465]

>>19461178
Not really. Some of the most ascetic people on Earth have also been described as content, happy, and fulfilled. Most of them were also widely respected with lifelong friends. Just look at the writings of many Buddhist, Taoist, Catholic, Orthodox, or Hindu ascetics.
>>19461337
But if your understanding of fundamental things does not lead to a better life then it's probably flawed.

[Anonymous No.19461475]

I agree partly with you.
Philosophers who condem all forms of bodily and material pleasure as a source of suffering and strife and yet never adhered to the intensity and fullness of their own teaching are inherently flawed. The same goes for the ones like Nietzsche, although I will admit I might not perfectly understand him. This preaching of a worldview that will grant you fufillment and "happiness" with the only requirment being a through understanding and immense will never ceases to dissapoint in results with themselves and others. I think they are the true reason many people think of philosophers as pompous retards. The amount of rationalisation a man who doesnt want to admit how basic and simple his thoughts are, and who wants to present his inherently irrational and human thoughts as transcendental divinations is astounding.

[Anonymous No.19461492]

>>19461465
Yes I don't disagree just it's not the end goal necessarily. Plenty of ppl like Goddard revolutionized a field like rocketry and weren't accepted. Now you may think if he was good he would supercede their issues but this isn't necessarily the case because it's usually very inefficient when you could be showing applications in your work. Galileo is a good example. On that, even early presidents died poor. Their concept of being a gentlemen was generally not working or trading. You can still live a fulfilling life. Obviously Jesus is a good counterexample.

[Anonymous No.19461519]

>>19461141
TFW reducing philosophy down to self help shit.

[Anonymous No.19461543]

>>19461266
>no practical value
Cool story bugman

[Anonymous No.19461544]

>>19461465
If you notice one thing, its that those ascetics were monks who separated themselves from their society, while those philosophers who lived in their societies and intermingled with their people fit the description of the OP. Ascetic ideals have no place in modern society and should die and make way for the ubermensch.

[Anonymous No.19461548]

>>19461364
Seeing as how Marx mooched off friends and Nietzsche was basically poverty stricken I definitely think they could've used some more money.
>>19461368
If you can't instinctively know the broad strokes of what a good life is then you're probably retarded. This sounds like cope from someone trying to justify their shitty life.

[Anonymous No.19461551]

>>19461141
MENTALLY UNTOUCHABLE

[Anonymous No.19461558]

>>19461543
Based
>>19461548
>blessed be a little poverty! a free life is free
t. Zarathustra

[Anonymous No.19461567]

>>19461548
>instinctively
Pack it up boys we're talking to an animal

[Anonymous No.19461584]

>>19461548
>I definitely think they could've used some more money.
Once you possess a certain tipping point of "wealth" it starts really possessing you, it has to be guarded and managed and tended to constantly like livestock, which were once the original form of wealth themselves

[Anonymous No.19461589]

>>19461465
>But if your understanding of fundamental things does not lead to a better life then it's probably flawed.
Ok but how do things like epistemology and other branches of philosophy fit in this most of philosophy isn't directly concerned with how to make your life better.

[Anonymous No.19461887]

>>19461584
>If you're not poverty stricken, living in flophouses and sending letters to your friends asking for cash you're in danger of greed
I agree to a certain extent but it's not so black and white.
>>19461558
I wouldn't really call a life where you don't have the material means to do anything but be mentally agonized "free". Freedom without the means to enjoy it leaves you no better off than before.
>>19461567
Spoken like someone who's never used his instincts. Denying the viability of them is retarded anon. Even if their utility is decreased in the modern world they are still useful.
>>19461589
Just because they aren't directly concerned with it doesn't mean they can't help you love a better life. Knowledge of fundamental things in a field like epistemology often contributes to or reinforces other parts of your worldview.

[Anonymous No.19462713]

>>19461543
Wtf ants have philosopher ants?

[Anonymous No.19462748]

Taoists had the best ratio of high quality life, enjoyed high social status without attempting to have any, and legit badassery such as telling rulers they can take their positions, bribes and rewards and shove it where the sun don't shine.

There is something fiercely empowering in participating in society but actively refusing to own anyone anything due to not needing anything from anyone and resisting temptations offered by those in power.

On the other end of the spectrum you have these miserable grifters who take advantage of all opportunities presented and still try to make themselves appear as holier than thou characters (lmao even the dumbest guy can see you're full of it and do his part to ostracize you)

[Anonymous No.19462749]

>>19461141
>Pick up philosopher
>Look into their life
>Happy
>Pleased with god(s)/life/government/parents/women/etc.
>Pleasant person
>Many friends and big family
>Working man
>Great life
>Respected in their time
>Lived with constant companions
>Lived with money filling his pockets to overflowing
>Lived a fulfilling life
>All of the above and more

How did Plato do it, bros? Pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.19462766]

>>19462713
So much for "just follow your instincts" being an anti-philosophy

[Anonymous No.19462769]

>>19462749
Think this was also Hume too. Maybe Hegel, idk, I know he was pretty successful. Maybe Kant and descarte too, idk.

[Anonymous No.19462835]

>>19462749
Many religious thinkers lived good lives, no matter their faith. While obviously poverty stricken and without a family many of them still had many friends, were respected, were pleasant people to be around, and lived happy and fulfilling lives.

[Anonymous No.19464102]

>>19461141
Philosophy has always been a cope