/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22321765]

>tranny enabling philosophers
Empedocles, Plato, Origen, Augustine, Plotinus, Aquinas, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Hegel, Fichte, Schelling, Marx, Jung, Pascal, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Berkeley, Bataille, Cioran, Klages, Camus, Sartre, Deleuze, Debord, Guenon, Evola, Gentile, de Chardin, Heidegger, Laurelle, Baudrillard

>anti trans philosophers
Laozi, Democritus (PBUH), Socrates, Aristotle, Pyrrho, Ockham, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Kant, Stirner, Wittgenstein, Mill, Peirce, James, Russell, Ryle, Churchland, Newton, Darwin, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Schopenhauer, Quine

Platonism is the disease. The pragmatic maxim is the cure.

[Anonymous No.22321774]

>>22321765
i support my trans friends

[Anonymous No.22321780]

>>22321765
Obsessed. Go outside.

[Anonymous No.22321785]

>>22321765
>Democritus
>not followed up with Epicurus or even Lucretius
>pretends Marx and Nietzsche go in the pro trans section.
1/10
Go read a book

[Anonymous No.22321789]

>>22321765
All atheists are tranny enablers. Most philososhitters are atheists.

[Anonymous No.22321801]

>>22321785
Democritus’s ethical thought is completely different from those two. Epicurus basically picked Democritus’s metaphysics out of a basket because it enabled him to get rid of superstitious notions, which he saw as causing suffering and fear; his whole purpose was ethical and practical, whereas Democritus was in the pursuit of knowledge.

Maybe Marx himself is not tranny enabling, but Nietzsche definitely is. It doesn’t matter if you claim to be against trannies when you use their exact same thought process to arrive at your conclusions.

[Anonymous No.22321834]

>>22321765
>Georg Friedrich Willhelm "women are basically plant, and should have no civil authority, since they're only capable of caring for their children" Hegel is pro-trans
Filtered

[Anonymous No.22321919]

>>22321765
Nah Democritus sucks and I’m a 40 year old straight man with facial hair.

[Anonymous No.22322016]

>>22321765
>no romans
>no playwrights
ovid and aristophanes alone have each done more damage than all the "trannysophers" combined

[Anonymous No.22322031]

Trannies wouldn’t be so annoying if they didn’t spill their spaghetti at every opportunity, searching for the slightest chance to groom minors. The same applies for tranny haters, who never shut the fuck up about the tranny menace taking over the world that they have to retroactively ascribe certain philosophers to fit the dichotomy. Interesting how when you ignore it the problem just seems to go away.

[Anonymous No.22322072]

>>22322031
>when you ignore it the problem just seems to go away.
Obviously not since this shit continues to infiltrate more and more.

[Anonymous No.22322135]

>>22321774

[Anonymous No.22322187]

>>22321765
The only things that enable transgenderism is capitalism to provide the tools, and marxism to provide the excuse. And if you were a MAN, you'd seperate the phenomenon from the people, but I guess you're quite the lady yourself

[Anonymous No.22322202]

>>22322187
>ranting about the made up concept of “capitalism”
>calling me, a male, a woman
You’ve fallen for tranny propaganda.

[Anonymous No.22322207]

>>22322202
I just stated that I'm against transgenderism, can you fucking read?

[Anonymous No.22322220]

>>22321765
>The pragmatic maxim is the cure.
Pragmatism says what's useful is true. Seems pretty transpositive to me.
>Wittgenstein, Ryle
They might oppose it for entirely different reasons. The OLP crap doesn't like innovations in language.

[Anonymous No.22322225]

>>22322207
It doesn’t matter if you say you’re against it when you’re already thinking like a tranny.

[Anonymous No.22322233]

>>22322220
>Pragmatism says what's useful is true.
It says that a concept can be fully understood through its effects. Thus a “transgender female” is merely a biological male who attempts to behave in ways traditionally associated with biological females and gets others to use female pronouns to refer to them. It means there is no platonic “gender” or “self” that they are being true to.

[Anonymous No.22322262]

>>22322225
How am I already thinking like a tranny? Explain it please

[Anonymous No.22322274]

>>22322262
See>>22322202
You’re using made up bullshit like “capitalism” and “marxism” to analyze reality instead of looking at reality itself. A transgender does the exact same thing.

[Anonymous No.22322291]

>>22322274
Capitalism and Marxism are established philosophies that a large number of people in society subscribe to. Do you seriously want me to analyze a societal phenomenon without two of just about the biggest philosophies that drive that society? Are you fucking mad?

[Anonymous No.22322319]

>>22322291
Concepts don’t drive things, they describe them. Take your meds platotard.

[Anonymous No.22322338]

>>22322319
Describe and predict, I should say.

[Anonymous No.22322348]

How so?
Aren't those Platonists supposed to be objectivits?

[Anonymous No.22322391]

>>22322348
They believe that the “objective” world is really the made up world of ideas. Thus you could make the objective world whatever you want because the ideas don’t have to have any basis in empirical reality. Thus “gender” becomes an objective concept. Meanwhile the other philosophers believe that these concepts are only valid if they’re justified by a reality which stands beyond any individual’s reason.

[Anonymous No.22322432]

>>22321765
Here's ur philosophy:

[Anonymous No.22322463]

>>22321765
Continental trannyism vs. analytic incelism

[Anonymous No.22322578]

>>22321765
All of them are tranny enablers. There is no anti trans philosopher because trannyism is a prerequisite for becoming a philosopher.

[Anonymous No.22322625]

>>22322391
Retard. Read Plato.

[Anonymous No.22322655]

>>22322625
And turn into a tranny?
No thanks

[Anonymous No.22322673]

>>22322655
imagine not being a tranny in fuckin 2023

[Anonymous No.22322702]

>>22321765
JS Mill
>"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called."

David Hume
>"No man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping."

Switch these two right now

[Anonymous No.22322760]

>>22322702
Transgenderism is not individuality. You’ve already fallen for tranny propaganda.

[Anonymous No.22322829]

>>22321765
Hegel is neither a Platonist nor an Aristotelean but he is even less so a Platonist.

[Anonymous No.22322840]

>>22321765
plato literally whines about trannies in laws.

[Anonymous No.22322855]

>>22321765
>the anti trans philosophers are mostly Anglo-Americans
lmao, they are the most trannified

[Anonymous No.22322857]

>>22322855
Trans ideology was imported from the continent

[Anonymous No.22323521]

>>22321774

[Anonymous No.22323554]

>>22321789
>Most philososhitters are atheists.
Plato and Aristotle aren't (and those are the only ones that matter).

[Anonymous No.22324238]

>You’re either with us or against us!
Kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.22324251]

>>22321765
Explain how you have read Wittgenstein and how he is "anti-trans". Not a fan of troons but I'm waiting....

[Anonymous No.22324288]

>>22321765
Locke is the philosopher who I can’t find a flaw with. He’s just perfect and not elitist at all. Just the natural order of how things should play out. It’s crazy we never got it right until America

[Anonymous No.22324297]

>>22321765
>philosophers I know nothing about but hate = bad thing
>philosophers I also know nothing about but like = good thing

[Anonymous No.22324314]

>>22321765
>Locke
>Kant
>stirner
>Wittgenstein
massive x to doubt on all of those

[Anonymous No.22324570]

>>22321765
Evola and Fichte refuted trannies, idiot.

[Anonymous No.22325512]

>>22324251
wittgenstein is against made up concepts with no basis in reality, there'fore he's antitrans.

[Anonymous No.22325514]

>>22321765
This board’s obsession with troons is weird

[Anonymous No.22325520]

>>22325514
op here. this is the only post i've ever made about trannies, except in other threads where other people brought it up first.

[Anonymous No.22325521]

>>22321765
We won Stirnerbros
>t. Waldunchad

[Anonymous No.22325525]

>>22324314
most fans of stirner are trannies but to be fair they were trannies before they ever heard of stirner and only latched onto him because he is vaguely associated with the weird political shit they're interested in. Stirner himself would laugh at transgenderism as an obvious spook and not having any basis in the individual but in societal delusions and brainwashing.

[Anonymous No.22325534]

>>22321765
Democritus has got to have been the biggest dogmatist of the greeks

[Anonymous No.22325541]

>>22322202
>the made up concept of “capitalism”
lmao

[Anonymous No.22325543]

>>22325525
I don’t care about them. If they want to LARP as the opposite sex, so be it, I just won’t think of them or address them as such because they are my property.

[Anonymous No.22325546]

>>22324288
Evidently you haven't read his actual philosophical works and only his childish political fantasies.
Pic rel tore him open a new one on that front.

[Anonymous No.22325551]

>>22322857
and the aids was imported from the africa but still

[Anonymous No.22325552]

>>22325546
>>22325546
>accepts Locke's philosophy in its entirety except for one ancillary distinction between types of qualities
>OMG HE COMPLETELY DESTROYED LOCKE!
why are christcucks like this?

[Anonymous No.22325559]

>>22325552
Locke was a christcuck though. He tried to awkwardly ham the ressurrection into his system.
Also, that one anciliary distinction is pretty much the pillar in his philosophy and its massively retarded.

[Anonymous No.22325566]

>>22325559
christcucks are dogmatic christians who live AFTER the 20th century. Locke was neither dogmatic nor a modern, so he is just a christian, not a christcuck.
>is pretty much the pillar in his philosophy and its massively retarded.
they're only necessary for his realism, which is actually still true even if primary qualities are only in the mind.

[Anonymous No.22325599]

>>22325566
>they're only necessary for his realism
Indirect realism which it hinges on entirely. If they are all in the mind then he's just being dogmatic and making metaphysical abstractions. Even without being a christian, he'd still be dogmatic and just making shit up.

[Anonymous No.22325607]

>>22325599
lolwut? he's obviously not making up the distinction between the qualities, since you can observe yourself that different people can have different perception of primary qualities, whereas secondary qualities tend to be more stable and the same no matter who perceives them. that's really all the distinction means, and it's not dogmatic, though it does rely on common sense.

[Anonymous No.22325609]

>>22325566
I mean ffs. How the hell can primary qualities be said to liken to the things in themselves if they are all in the mind? It's just bullshit metaphysical abstraction.

[Anonymous No.22325619]

>>22325607
whoops I mixed up primary and secondary qualities in this post
>>22325609
literally all it means is that the perception of secondary qualities is altered while the primary qualities stay the same, and that the primary qualities are perceived the same by everyone, whereas the secondary qualities are perceived differently. it doesn't matter if the mind constructs them because those statements are still true.

[Anonymous No.22325648]

>>22325619
With the added caveat, which you try to ignore, that the primary qualities resamble objects as they "really are"
That is what Berkeley is saying is bullshit. That is a metaphysical abstraction. Also, those qualities aren't even perceived the same way by everyone since they depend on things like distance and size. I.e. they depend on the subject.

[Anonymous No.22325658]

>>22325648
reality is defined as something that's common and the same for everyone, the same no matter who perceives it. the primary qualities literally are that, so that's what it means to say they are the thing as it really is.

[Anonymous No.22325662]

>>22325648
>those qualities aren't even perceived the same way by everyone since they depend on things like distance and size. I.e. they depend on the subject.
distance and size are perceived by the eye though, that's a secondary quality.

[Anonymous No.22325671]

>>22325662
i guess i should say, DISTANCE is always relative to a place according to Locke, and distance isn't perceived immediately but has to be empirically learned, so it could be a primary quality as long as you specify what place it's relative to. size though is surely a secondary quality insofar as it's perceived by the eye.

[Anonymous No.22325698]

>>22325658
>>22325662
I'm starting to think you haven't even read Locke that well. Locke assumes that the things as they are do not really have a color. They're just extended things. Berkeley says the distinction itself is meaningless drivel since shape without color is impossible.
>>22325662
And I assume shape and extension are simply apprehended by the mind and not perceived by the eye?

[Anonymous No.22325708]

>>22325698
meh I disagree with the idea that it's impossible to have an idea of extension without color. you can't imagine an extended body without color, but you can pretty easily combine the concepts of extension and colorless. just because you can't embody that concept in a visual image doesn't mean that the concept itself is invalid.
>I'm starting to think you haven't even read Locke that well
Locke himself based his realism on primary/secondary qualities, I never said I'm being true to Locke, only that I'm being true to his realism without necessarily needing there to be a primary/secondary quality difference.
>And I assume shape and extension are simply apprehended by the mind and not perceived by the eye?
this doesn't even matter.