Why should I care what any of these retards have to say?

[Anonymous No.21547832]

I have better understanding of human mind and the physical nature around it. Whatever subject you can name that can be built into someones philosophy I know it better than any of these people. They are just some historic villagers who were naturally curious about the meaning of everyday things, just like everyone on this board. Difference is I live in a time where I can access almost any information I want, scientific discoveries that these faggots just didnt have access to. Whenever I read their work it is all predictable and dumb. People I know who read philosophy and care about it just turn into mindless quoting machines, exposing themselves as retards who think they can just borrow someones conclusions without deeper understanding of the background behind them. It’s just outdated, it serves no purpose except the analysis of what’s the most human race can figure out with limited amount of knowledge. I can assure you it’s not much.

[Anonymous No.21547942]

>>21547832
Why should I care about your "opinion" if you have never or almost never read philosophy?

[Anonymous No.21547953]

>>21547942
I read a fair amount of it
question would still stand if I didnt

[Anonymous No.21547962]

>They are just some historic villagers

Aristotle
>Tutored Alexander

Machiavelli
>Senior Florentine official who defeated Pisa

Confucius
>Fervently respected diplomat

Regardless of what you may think of their philosophies, it is categorically false to call any of these Great Men "some historic villagers". Some have been remembered for well over 2500 years, and you will be forgotten well before you are even dead.

[Anonymous No.21547965]

>>21547832
huh? have you read any of them?

IDK about some, but the ones I have read usually don't talk about specific physical things declaratively unless for an illustrative analogy purpose to explore more conceptual stuff.

Can you please name one that you disagree with on a philosophical point and why? It sounds to me like you are accusing Historian for not writing papers on Chemistry.

[Anonymous No.21547973]

>>21547832
filtered by Aristotle before even reading him. many such cases.

[Anonymous No.21547979]

go away chatGPT fag

V FVNY

[Anonymous No.21548026]

>>21547965
Not having a deep understanding of rigid science is exactly what Im talking about
For example Marx, he has no understanding of thermodynamics, game theory, evaluation from psychological perspective, why should I even bother reading his ‘theory of value’?

>>21547962
I consider these guys closer to villagers than modern humans, legacy has nothing to with it

[Anonymous No.21548068]

>>21548026
Yes anon, but rigid science is a subset of philosophy, its a subset of empiricism.

For example, id say you'd probably agree with hume. and from there I think you could then appreciate most philosophers. Hume is most definetly an empiricist, but he also distinguishes between is and aught. a science cannot say what "aught to be" in a moral sense, because the predicates for what "aught" consists of is not set. Hume believed that "aughts" mostly come down to Human custom and leaves it there. But being scientific, you cannot say what is morally correct, as that is not an empirical subject.

So you should probably take most philosophers as explorers of "shoulds" and explorers of pre empirical things. which can get all looped aroung because you must be motivated by things before you even start the empirical process. Often times post empericalities can be used to explore pre empericalities. Just like a Marxist might with all the things you mentions, or an thomists or a Hegelian.

[Anonymous No.21548099]

none these guys knew how to use the internet

[Anonymous No.21548236]

For pleasure.

[Anonymous No.21548636]

>>21547832
>historic villagers
The fact that you don't know the difference between historic and historical is reason enough to read what those people said. Get educated.

[Anonymous No.21548642]

>>21548636
OP's a low tier midwit, but pointing out slight grammatical aspects that still read perfectly fine is probably even lower than that.

[Anonymous No.21548648]

>>21548642
t. embarrassed distant reader

[Anonymous No.21548649]

>>21548642
It's not slight. It's the bare basics. If you can't even get the simple things right, then you are in no position to look down upon the greats from the past who have shaped everything you know and are today.

[Anonymous No.21548682]

you shouldn't. It's just a circlejerk for humanities undergrads who read these authors as part of a typical Curriculum. None of them have been relevant for the past 100+ years and there's a massive circlejerk in these departments trying to extoll the greatness of these authors to retain relevance

[Anonymous No.21548785]

>>21547832
If you werent so arrogant maybe that girl you fancy would actually notice you.

[Anonymous No.21549269]

>>21547832
midwit

[Anonymous No.21549317]

>>21548636
Is that all you have, being equivalent to grammar checker whoch I didnt even bother to turn on?
Most of these ‘great people’ also werent english speakers so I guess their work is invalid then

[Anonymous No.21549335]

>>21548649
It is very slight. It used to even explicitly have the same meaning as historical some time ago. I would not call it incorrect, just crude or clunky.

[Anonymous No.21549340]

>>21549335
>>21548649
That said, OP did make basic grammatical errors which you could've picked up on instead of that. It's a little mindboggling you'd fixate on that in particular.

[Anonymous No.21549350]

>>21547832
(You) shouldn’t, they’re not for subhumans which I can tell from you’re post that you are.

[Anonymous No.21549372]

>>21548068
I’m not saying theres no value in philosophy itself. An organism dropped in some surrounding should drop their primitive urges and develop their philosophy of life. What Im saying is that most of these people have weak understanding both of themselves and their surroundings. A lot of premises they use to synthetise more complex conclusions are plain wrong. Should I just play along and continue reading? Whats the point of that? There are enough theories built today from 0 up that dont have these mistakes.

[Anonymous No.21549402]

>>21547832
Hey it’s this thread again

[Anonymous No.21549407]

>>21548068
>rigid science is a subset of philosophy, its a subset of empiricism.
How is science rigid? It's supposed to be rigorous. And science borrowed a lot from both Rationalism and Empiricism.

[Anonymous No.21549422]

>>21549407
Science that is based on firm logic and data, that is not open to interpretation, like natural sciences

[Anonymous No.21549433]

>>21547832
For trivoa night. Sometimes you can win cash prizes or at least win some coupons.

[Anonymous No.21549509]

OP is 100% correct.

There is a reason why medical doctors, physicists and engineers and so on have created trillion dollar industries like semiconductors, while what the fuck have philosophers done recently?
Meanwhile doctors, real/hard scientists and engineers continue to advance the mankind, cure diseases, create new trillion dollar industries, solve problems etc, philosopseuds keep reading these stone age dogmas.

This is all philosophers do. Dogma. Its all dogma. Cargo cult pseudointellectualism. They have severe science envy because scientific revolution made them obsolete. Their cargo cult academia is trying to copy journals and laboratories and customs that real intellectuals do, but they still dont have a method, they still dont have tests, no predictive power, its all a fucking meme.

[Anonymous No.21549513]

>OH MY SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.21549544]

>>21548068
Free will is like god. It hides in what we can't explain. It doesn't exist. Without free will there is no "aught". Without "aught" there's no need for philosophy

[Anonymous No.21549545]

>>21549509
So true philosophy has not created nearly the amount of dollars that science has checkmate pseuds

[Anonymous No.21549562]

>>21549509
>while what the fuck have philosophers done recently?
Through Hegel every major event that happened in the 20th century
>Dogma. Its all dogma
Its literally the other way around retard, dont confuse the history of philosophy with philosophy

[Anonymous No.21549655]

>>21547832
Anon. It just so happens that, coincidentally, the guy on the middle right is the one who created modern science. All this information and discoveries you refer to only exist due to him. This is just one guy on your chart. So, basically, I am afraid that you are the provincial villager retard, after all, since you don't seem to understand what the very root of this science you brag so much about really is.
As to the philosophers you've posted, I am not especially concerned with them either, because they were mostly interested in dumb material shit (the kind of stuff that you probably think is the peak of human knowledge and achievement). I'd choose to read Plato and Laozi over Aristotle and Confucius any day.

[Anonymous No.21549699]

>>21548642
It's not a grammatical error, it's a vocabulary error and is therefore very emblematic of OP's general stupidity. Since he cannot even properly define and use words in an everyday context, how do you expect him to use words philosophically in order to attain knowledge and intellectual growth? It's impossible. Hence why he's been filtered.
>>21549545
Yep, everybody knows that correctness and knowledge is measured in dollars. More dollars = better. It's basic truth that even the most primitive mind can perceive. Or perhaps, rather, a "basic truth" accessible solely and exclusively to primitive minds.

[Anonymous No.21549751]

>>21549699
>grammatical rules
>definition
>attain knowledge
>everyone knows
Youve never had an original thought in your life, have you?
All you can do is recite ideas youve read and compare them to formally defined rules
Youll always be an npc, no matter how many historic faggots youve read

[Anonymous No.21549762]

>>21549751
The easiest way to become irremediably retarded is to dispense with precise and accurate terminology. In this way, you will ensure that you always miss the mark when you take aim at truth, because you can't even focus on the target, but at best on its general vicinity.
You seem to well on your way to irremediable retardation.

[Anonymous No.21549789]

>>21549762
You forgot to cite that quote anon. How will I know if its right or wrong?

[Anonymous No.21549800]

>>21549789
By using your critical judgement, but I am not surprised you were confused, seeing how that faculty is entirely absent in you.

[Anonymous No.21549806]

>>21549800
retard

[Anonymous No.21549821]

>>21547832
for the same reason you care about what you have to say
not that i would expect you to understand it

[Anonymous No.21549834]

>>21548026
>Marx has no understanding of game theory and psychology

For a second I thought you were having a laff, but it seems like you're actually just retarded. what's next, faulting Aristotle for not being aware if the theory of relativity? I'm sure you can make an even dumber statement if you tried

[Anonymous No.21549836]

>>21549821
Empty statement

[Anonymous No.21549842]

>>21549422
>Science based on logic

Are you retarded? Science is an empirical project, it has nothing to do with formal logic. Logic is for solving problems in a situation where you know all axioms, which almost always means in a hypothetical

[Anonymous No.21549846]

>>21549834
Thats precisely what im talking about

[Anonymous No.21549860]

>>21549806
I accept your capitulation. It must suck being you - not just outbrained but also outbants'd.

[Anonymous No.21549862]

>>21549842
Math is solely responsible for removing meme status of natural sciences and it is based on pure logic on an almost autistic level

[Anonymous No.21549869]

>>21549860
dumb and predictable, just like i said

[Anonymous No.21549897]

>>21549834
>Aristotle for not being aware if the theory of relativity
Exactly, that gay faggot Greek didn't know about quantum mechanics either, so why should we listen to what he had to say about the good?
OP outed himself as a retard most impressively, I must say.

[Anonymous No.21549902]

>>21549372
>What Im saying is that most of these people have weak understanding both of themselves and their surroundings
What I'm saying is that you're a retard who's never tried to understand the Republic, Nicomachean Ethics, or First Meditations.

[Anonymous No.21550012]

>>21549897
>>21549902
Howerer flawed it may be, moder law will always be 10 steps ahead of any ethical philosophy thats 2000 years old

>meditations
lol

[Anonymous No.21550018]

>>21550012
goddamn, you really are stupid as shit. I'm honestly impressed