ITT: we name the biggest retards in the history of philosophy

[Anonymous No.22326287]

I'll start with an easy one

[Anonymous No.22326297]

>>22326287
plato

[Anonymous No.22326305]

Unironically Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.22326493]

Malebranche

[Anonymous No.22326721]

hello

[Anonymous No.22326950]

>>22326305
No need to qualify that. Schopenhauer was an incel who fought with his mom and couldn't woo a qt teenager because he fell for the "silver fox" meme, Stirner was a cuckold who couldn't manage a business, and Marx was a NEET leeching off of his friend. German "philosophy" really hit a low point.

[Anonymous No.22326976]

>>22326950
>Marx was a NEET leeching off of his friend
this has always been the most tawdry criticism of Marx
anybody who wouldn't consider such an arrangement idyllic is a faggot

[Anonymous No.22327029]

>>22326287
>"Bro, just obey your rulers, even if they're corrupt. You need them."

I despise this rodent.

[Anonymous No.22327143]

>>22326976
It is comfy but why would I read a neet kike when I could read men of action. (Not that I'm going to)

[Anonymous No.22327175]

>>22326976
It's because it's ironic that someone who greatly complains about the oppresion of the lazy bourgeoisie on the poor, hard working proletariat is, a lazy neet who does nothing himself

[Anonymous No.22327176]

>write Leviathan
>die
>three hundred years later the country that championed your opposition’s ideas is now a fragmented, crime-ridden state with the most bloated bureaucracy in history
>select portions of this country’s population annually revert to a state of nature
He was right.

[Anonymous No.22327181]

>>22326287
His formulation of the lex naturalis is genius. His “nominalism” (even though it’s basically realistic since it admits the similarities we use to group things under names are real) is kino as fuck. His absolute insistence on the incomprehensibility of God due to his infinity is also beautiful. You probably only think he’s retarded because he didn’t believe in non-corporeal substance. lol, kys.

[Anonymous No.22327189]

Derrida, I’ve only read of grammatology but there is nothing in it worth taking seriously, no rigor and hardly inspired. Deconstruction as a concept was about as “new” as Rand’s “objectivism”. Into le bin he goes

[Anonymous No.22327194]

All of them except me and I'm not even a philosopher

[Anonymous No.22327237]

>>22326493
Come on

Anyways my pick

[Anonymous No.22327239]

>>22326305
>but muh suffering
kek
Almost as bad as Nietzsche.
It's little wonder that that mustached faggot was heavily influenced by the retarded incel.

[Anonymous No.22327240]

>>22326287
Marcuse ruined everything

[Anonymous No.22327246]

>>22326721
Good pick.

[Anonymous No.22327247]

>>22327181
He was a redditor. He basically invented the upvote forum system.

[Anonymous No.22327250]

Picrel is the most based one btw (no, you can't change my mind and your arguments will have little merit).

[Anonymous No.22327257]

>>22327247
Redditors are oversocialized and bend to whatever the status quo and brainwashing by the government and the plutocracy is. Hobbes on the other hand was universally demonized by all “respectable” society because his thought could not be contained in their overton window. He is the original 4chan philosopher.

[Anonymous No.22327265]

>>22327257
>He is the original 4chan philosopher.
>Meanwhile
>Picrel
>Shitposting IRL since the 4th century B.C.

[Anonymous No.22327269]

>>22327257
Not true: redditors, like Hobbes, engage in contrarian groupthink such as r/mechanicalkeyboards

[Anonymous No.22327271]

>>22327265
>cals Hobbes reddit
>posts about diogenes, the most common reddit meme
lol. Diogenes was not even really a contrarian. He just took Athens weird urban degeneracy to its extreme. Even the most powerful Greek of all time loved him.

[Anonymous No.22327273]

>>22327269
>contrarian groupthink
Hobbes was not engaging in groupthink because there was literally no one else who shared his opinions you moron

[Anonymous No.22327277]

[Anonymous No.22327432]

>>22326976
>idyllic
Ah the idyllic days of begging your friend for money because every paper you work for gets shut down and your entire family is sick.

[Anonymous No.22328558]

>>22327271
>He just took Athens weird urban degeneracy to its extreme
>Diogenes
>Degenerate
whew lad
Also I never said Hobbes was reddit.

[Anonymous No.22328568]

>>22326976
Lmao, found the seething bolshie

[Anonymous No.22328569]

>>22326287
Easy. Karl Marx.

[Anonymous No.22328579]

Any "philosopher" that emerged after the last World War has been a retard concerned mostly with unimportant things and low IQ questions because the system that props them up is afraid of the potential political ramifications of active philosophical discourse (i.e. Bolshevism and Fascism).

[Anonymous No.22328585]

>>22326287
I was going to say Sartre, but then I reminded Peter Singer exists.

[Anonymous No.22328676]

>>22328558
>masturbates and walks around naked in public
>contributes nothing to society
>steals food
>no wife or children
he is degenerate.

[Anonymous No.22328735]

>>22326721
You win

[Anonymous No.22328745]

>>22326721
Yes.

[Anonymous No.22328747]

>>22326305
>>22326950
>>22327239
>Johanna was an abusive wife to his father and an abusive mother to him. She even threw Schopenhauer down a flight of stairs once when he talked back to her. Also, Schopenhauer’s father (whom he was very close with) was believed to have committed suicide when Schopenhauer was seventeen and it has always been a rumor that Johanna Schopenhauer was a contributing factor to his suicide.

>After her husband died, Johana left for Weimar to join the free love movement and follow her dreams of becoming a writer, leaving Schopenhauer behind. And when Schopenhauer later wanted to move to Weimar to pursue philosophy, she desperately tried to convince him not to move to Weimar, saying she couldn’t stand to be around him.

[Anonymous No.22328752]

>>22328747
>Where the tension between them comes in, is that Johanna at the time was a semi successful author of cheap romances and thought very highly of herself. Arthur, as we know, also thought very highly of himself from an early age. What made Johanna seethe was Arthur's unwarranted confidence (bordering on arrogance) without having anything tangible to show for it. This is best seen in this interaction:
>>Unfortunately, the published dissertation earned, at best, lukewarm reviews. Indeed, the most stinging might have come from the young man’s mother, who asked sarcastically whether his book [The Fourfold Roots of the Principle of Sufficient Reason] was for pharmacists. Schopenhauer retorted that his work would still find readers when not even a single copy of her writings could be found in a junk yard. Undaunted, Johanna Schopenhauer spat back, ‘Of yours the entire printing will still be available’.

>One time Goethe was impressed by young Arthur's intellect, saying that by proper grooming he could become a literary genius, and she said something like "only one person in each family could be a genius" (referring to herself). She even went as far as badmouthing Arthur to Goethe, and was one of the reasons the relationship between Schopenhauer and Goethe worsened.

[Anonymous No.22328757]

>>22328747
>After her husband died, Johana left for Weimar to join the free love movement and follow her dreams of becoming a writer, leaving Schopenhauer behind. And when Schopenhauer later wanted to move to Weimar to pursue philosophy, she desperately tried to convince him not to move to Weimar, saying she couldn’t stand to be around him.
Damn.
However, basing most of your philosophy on the fact that you've been dealt a shit hand in life with, an admittedly, pretty horrible mother, is still cringe.
Embrace the stoicismpill.

[Anonymous No.22328758]

>>22326976
>Marx arrived in London as a political exile in 1849, expecting to stay in the city for a few months at most; instead, he ended up living there until his death in 1883. His first few years in London were marked by dire poverty and personal tragedy—his family was forced to live in squalid conditions, and by 1855 three of his six children had died. Isaiah Berlin describes Marx’s habits during this time:

>His mode of living consisted of daily visits to the British [Museum] reading-room, where he normally remained from nine in the morning until it closed at seven; this was followed by long hours of work at night, accompanied by ceaseless smoking, which from a luxury had become an indispensable anodyne; this affected his health permanently and he became liable to frequent attacks of a disease of the liver sometimes accompanied by boils and an inflammation of the eyes, which interfered with his work, exhausted and irritated him, and interrupted his never certain means of livelihood. “I am plagued like Job, though not so God-fearing,” he wrote in 1858.

>Marx was, by 1858, already several years into Das Kapital, the massive work of political economy that would occupy the rest of his life. He never had a regular job. “I must pursue my goal through thick and thin and I must not allow bourgeois society to turn me into a money-making machine,” he wrote in 1859. (In fact, he later applied for a post as a railway clerk, but was rejected because of his illegible handwriting.) Instead, Marx relied on his friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels to send him regular handouts, which Engels pilfered from the petty-cash box of his father’s textile firm—and which Marx promptly misspent, having no money-management skills whatsoever. “I don’t suppose anyone has ever written about ‘money’ when so short of the stuff,” he noted. Meanwhile, his boils would get so bad that he “could neither sit nor walk nor remain upright,” as one biographer put it. In the end, it took Marx two decades of daily suffering to complete the first volume of Das Kapital—and he died before he could finish the remaining two volumes. Yet he had only one regret. “You know that I have sacrificed my whole fortune to the revolutionary struggle,” he wrote to a fellow political activist in 1866. “I do not regret it. On the contrary. Had I my career to start again, I should do the same. But I would not marry. As far as lies in my power I intend to save my daughter from the reefs on which her mother’s life has been wrecked.”

[Anonymous No.22328765]

>>22327181
>His absolute insistence on the incomprehensibility of God due to his infinity is also beautiful. You probably only think he’s retarded because he didn’t believe in non-corporeal substance.
Are you retarded? If God is truly infinite and incomprehensible, then he must also span incorporeal substance, otherwise he is not truly infinite. Either Hobbes made an obvious and serious mistake here, or you are misrepresenting his position.

[Anonymous No.22328808]

>>22327175
Anon got all his knowledge of marx from peterson videos

[Anonymous No.22328823]

>>22328758
>Fat (Fat in 1800's)
>Gets rejected from a job for illegible writing..the ONE talent he supposedly possesses
>"I'm a feminist. Meeting me ruined my wife's life."

Rarely in the history of theory has someone so disgusting and awful become so important.
Marx is not the worst theorycel or garbage human being, that honor goes to Sartre.

[Anonymous No.22329568]

>>22327176
Was he right? Or did he vindicate Roussoue?

[Anonymous No.22329571]

>>22326287
Filtered.
Hobbes Was Always Based

[Anonymous No.22329584]

>>22326287

[Anonymous No.22329590]

>>22327265
Sartre, Camus, etc. are all Redditor slop, but Diogenes takes the cake, he is ancient Keanu Reeves.

Two paths for normies:
1) Watching School of Life videos and telling people they like philosophy and deep thoughts, into existentialists and say cringe stuff like “Life is absurd! You have to make your own meaning!” and the continue living the same exact life anyways. Bonus points for namedropping Nietzsche without even knowing one book title.

2) Zoomers who find out about Orthodox Christianity and post edits of crusaders and Jesus to TikTok songs, and watch videos on Aquinas and Kierkegaard. Forces themselves to listen to Gregorian chanting.

Both do not read. If you asked them about Kant they would shit their pants.

[Anonymous No.22329603]

>>22328765
“Substance” does not mean “thing that exists” in hobbes. God is not a substance.

[Anonymous No.22329609]

>>22326287
Hobbes was right about pretty much everything desu.

[Anonymous No.22329614]

>>22328765
Also infinity does not mean “span” everything and even if it did he still would not have to “span” incorporeal substance because according to hobbes incorporeal substance is not existent because it’s a contradiction in terms. He literally says “incorporeal substance” is just striinging random words together.

[Anonymous No.22329617]

>>22329590
>Sartre, Camus, etc. are all Redditor slop, but Diogenes takes the cake, he is ancient Keanu Reeves.
Do you people really not read something because some other website on the internet may or may not like it? seems a bit narrow minded and childish.

[Anonymous No.22329678]

>>22329617
I have read all of them. I am an atheist even though that is seen as Redditor on 4chan. Nobody is saying you can’t enjoy or shouldn’t enjoy any of these philosophers or people, simply pointing out that ONLY reading these philosophers and especially only watching videos is for fake philosophers.

[Anonymous No.22329701]

>>22329678
Right, thanks for clearing it up.

[Anonymous No.22329724]

>>22328585
Oh yeah Singer blows, same with Benatar.

[Anonymous No.22329733]

>>22329590
Kant was the first I read on a recommendation seven years ago and even then I’d read a little theory here and there.

[Anonymous No.22329750]

check out my diary desu

[Anonymous No.22329765]

>>22329733
Based beyond belief

[Anonymous No.22329774]

>>22329765
>>22329733
>theory
He’s not “based” he’s a commie troon. “Theory” is what these faggots call Marx, Debord, Foucault, Kropotkin, whatever.

[Anonymous No.22329794]

>>22329590
Based beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.22329807]

>>22329774
"theory" is used for continental philosophy, brain-dead /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.22329808]

>>22329590
Based beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.22329815]

>>22329807
Yeah usually “continental philosophy” that’s specifically influenced by Marx and written by active french. communists

[Anonymous No.22329817]

>>22329774
Meh as long as people are reading.
>Do I even care?
Of course but, know your enemy. If others choose to read my enemy oh well, I
I will have someone to converse with. Knowledge is gained, not owed.

[Anonymous No.22329819]

>>22329590
i kant seem to bring myself to do it

[Anonymous No.22329820]

>>22329817
>knowledge is gained by reading bullshit
You must be intelligent

[Anonymous No.22329884]

>>22329590
Kant is the zoomer philosopher par excellence. You read him when you’re young and still believe in philosophy. People usually either become stembugs at this stage or develop a sovl and read the existentialists.

[Anonymous No.22329937]

>>22329590
Based beyond belief.

[Anonymous No.22329958]

>>22329590
lole
>>22326721
What's wrong with him? My formal logic prof always told us funny anecdotes about him.

[Anonymous No.22329991]

>>22329820
Right. Reading bullshit leads one further on the search for truth. I don't care if a few midwits fall for the bullshit, I only care about those with intelligence. Free Will is the central tenant of western morality, I cannot stop those who would look beyond, only, I would ask them to SEE beyond. PERCEIVE BEYOND THE FACADE. Only then can we attain the truth.

[Anonymous No.22330060]

>>22329774
Why are you replying to me? I never said such a thing

[Anonymous No.22330065]

[Anonymous No.22330175]

>>22326287
Unironically and with the my utmost profound disgust Otto Weininger . Not even qualifying his as a philosopher, but /lit/ tricked me into reading his garbage of sex and character and it's the most retarded thing i've ever came across. pretentious /r9k/ incel obnoxious jargon that overcomplicates ying and yang with biological terminology and mathematic formula. wow i neever knew male and female had a bit of the opposite sex's characteristics as well, mindblowing and ahead of his time indeed.

[Anonymous No.22330210]

>>22327250
this 100%

[Anonymous No.22330242]

You are like little babbies.
Watch this.

[Anonymous No.22330253]

>>22330242
>noooo he's le first bugman!!!
ockham is one of the only scholastics who was actually a genuine philosopher and didn't just parrot aristotle and the bible. seethe.

[Anonymous No.22330267]

>>22326287
>philosophy
woah check out this combination of letters and words I've churned out, ain't it nifty?

[Anonymous No.22330270]

>>22330267
>>22330267
the people who criticize meaningless words the most are philosophers though, including and especially hobbes.

[Anonymous No.22330284]

>>22330270
sweet words bro, care to share more?

[Anonymous No.22330296]

>>22326950
>Marx was a NEET leeching off of his friend
Most philosophers were NEET

[Anonymous No.22330302]

>>22330267
Hobbes the retard would actually make that argument in earnest. He believed that because the definitions of words are arbitrary, studies written in those words were also arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.22330340]

>>22330302
Incredibly based and anti-bookish.

[Anonymous No.22330362]

>>22327250
Screenshotted friend
I'm sure your little hell is going to harm me.

[Anonymous No.22330377]

>>22330340
>primordial truth
>fire
>blood
>steel
Nice words, retard

[Anonymous No.22330382]

>>22330377
*rapes you*

[Anonymous No.22330403]

>>22330302
>He believed that because the definitions of words are arbitrary, studies written in those words were also arbitrary.
So he's saying that words actually don't hold any true meaning and that books are basically just someone having a schizophrenic psychosis?
Seems like he knows what he's talking about, and especially relevant during an age where you can't trust any type of media to be accurate in any way whatsoever. I think he might be against books that actually hold any type of concise opinion or meaning, meant to express a viewpoint. I don't think something like fiction falls under that critique.

[Anonymous No.22330406]

As a philosophy-let, this thread has somehow peeked my interest. It's quite funny, ngl. But I would appreciate if you could actually tell us why they are retards without ad hominems.

[Anonymous No.22330407]

>>22330382
I’m not being raped so once again, nice words, dumbass

[Anonymous No.22330410]

>>22330340
This is like being proud of being retarded.

[Anonymous No.22330415]

>>22330403
He never rucking said that shit, he said words were useful if you defined them properly

[Anonymous No.22330420]

>>22330415
>he said words were useful if you defined them properly
mid
I was sitting imagining someone typing something out very clearly and concisely and then him thinking to himself ''these retards will never understand the point''
Sounds good in my head, I think I'll take that as fact instead.

[Anonymous No.22330423]

>nobody named my fave yet
Nice

[Anonymous No.22330433]

>>22326287
>”X doesn’t follow from Y”
“Okay, why doesn’t it follow??”
>…
>”Fuck you”

[Anonymous No.22330442]

>>22329590
Kant is retarded to but your post beyond that is accurate

[Anonymous No.22330483]

>>22330420
>>22330403
No, no, Hobbes actually went full retard. His brand of nominalism demanded, in modern terms, that all definitions be axioms, when if anything the truth is the opposite (axioms are implicit definitions).

[Anonymous No.22330526]

There should be a distinction between Rhetoric and Philosophy. All philosophy is rhetoric but not all rhetoric is philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22330823]

>>22330483
Not exactly, you can’t anachronistically interpret him like that. It’s true that the definitions basically act as axioms, but he just didn’t have a rigorous notion of science to justify the source of the definitions so he took it for granted that his definitions were applicable to the situation. But in theory it’s true that all your deductions will be right as long as you start with proper definitions, it’s just that the definitions might jot actually be relevant or might not apply to what you think they do because you haven’t studied the actual facts rigorously.

[Anonymous No.22331051]

>>22329958
Nothing, tradcath redditors who migrated to 4chan call him reddit to discredit his logicism and refutation of retarded mediaeval "philosophers"

[Anonymous No.22331190]

>>22328808
It is true though, Marx was a drunkard leech who left his kids to die and might have made a kid with his maid.
>>22330407
*squirts on your face*

[Anonymous No.22331357]

>>22331051
>medieval “philosophers”

Based. Medieval philosophers literally just making shit up and parroting Aristotle.
>muh revelation!

[Anonymous No.22331369]

>>22331051
>his logicism and refutation of retarded mediaeval "philosophers"
An embarrassement. He's literally not worth thinking about, after reading Frege there should be a footnote about Russell and go straight to Wittgenstein, that's how bad Russell is

[Anonymous No.22331371]

Fichte
>hurr durr muh I and not-I therefore we can conclude whatever craps

[Anonymous No.22331433]

>>22330175
>wow i neever knew male and female had a bit of the opposite sex's characteristics as well
If that's what you got for it (which is literally in the introduction, not the substantive content), you were massively filtered.

[Anonymous No.22331436]

>>22330253
Occam was still operating within the Aristotelian (and Biblical) paradigm. You clearly have not read him. Nominalism was one of the interpretations of Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.22331453]

>>22329884
>sovl
>existentialist

[Anonymous No.22331466]

>>22326287
I've always found virtue ethicists unimpressive. Actually moral philosophy in general is a waste of time and the worst wing of philosophy. Mostly just guilt tripping and appealing to what is socially necessary.

[Anonymous No.22331479]

>>22331466
Real and based, all “ethics” are made up

[Anonymous No.22331511]

>>22331466
>ppealing to what is socially necessary.
you don't know what virtue ethics is then. maybe you meant deontology or consequentialism. both of those are more or less social ethics systems. virtue ethics is about perfecting yourself as a human being, it can be done in a society or alone. it's basically the only branch of moral philosophy that is worth anything.

[Anonymous No.22331515]

>>22330406
Pearls before swine yadda yadda

[Anonymous No.22331516]

>>22328676
>masturbates and walks around naked in public
>contributes nothing to society
>steals food
>no wife or children
Wow he's just like me!

[Anonymous No.22331517]

>>22330340
t. dyel who can’t even bench 135

[Anonymous No.22331559]

>>22331511
No i know what it is and don't need you to explain it to me. Virtue ethics takes as its basis that morality is cultivated through your habits/character. I've read plenty of virtue ethicists from Aristotle to Macintyre.
By "appeal to social consequences" I meant the tendency of, typically moral realists, to appeal to the practical consequences of people not believing morality to be grounded in anything objective. Rather than making a positive argument they just point to the holocaust, and say a thousand gorillian holocausts will happen if people stop believing in morality. Basically we need to believe these things are real cause otherwise society would fall apart.
I honestly don't know if I'd consider myself an anti-realist, but I just find the appeal to the social consequences annoying and irrelevant. But it seems like 90% of moral philosophy just reverberates back to justifying the interest and stability of the group.

[Anonymous No.22331575]

>>22331433
Only the the last three chapters are left for me, should i fall again, based on your comment, to the "have faith it gets better" meme? i should go through +300 pages of pretentious acrobatics to reach some enlightening truth about women? unironically the books of Rollo Tomassi are years of light superior to this, best example is his Preventive Medecine that explains things in a straightforwrd way using biology and scientific graphs.
I'm curious about your opinion if you care to share, and what chapter exactly has substance and what is that substance to be precise? Because his jarring discourse is too much cancerous for me to handle.

[Anonymous No.22331587]

>>22331559
Really any road lead to circular reasoning anyway, to justifying what you already wanted to believe anyway. There's no reasoning, no such thing as moral philosophy, only the foundational desire that pushes us to construct arguments which justify our desired way of viewing life.
For example :
>any road lead to circular reasoning anyway, to justifying what you already wanted to believe anyway
Anon says this evidently because he desires to believe that all moral claims reduce to egotistical self justification. Such a belief conveniently frees him from the limitations of any higher responsibility. And such a belief accords well with the peculiarities of anons psychology. If my personality were different I'd desire to believe that moral claims don't reduce to one's individual desires, but then i wouldn't have written these sentences..

[Anonymous No.22331667]

>>22331575
>>22331433
I forgot to add that what he says boils down to the "ying-yang" but with convoluted acrobatics to confuse the reader and sound smart.
Why is woman emancipated? because she has more masculine in her
Why homosexuals? because they have more feminine in them
Why emancipated women will always need a man? because that masculine in them isn't enough and the feminine needs the masculine in order to be balanced.
Why does infidelity occurs? because an incompatibe couple has been forced and their chemical masculine/feminine isn't balanced to suit the significant other...BIG LOL this is not how and why infidelity occurs, furthermore, this Weinigger incel subscribes to the ONEitis bullshit.
and he had OF COURSE to flex some mathematical equations through dozens of pages only to tell me, i quote Tomassi: «Men love idealistically, and Women love Opportunistically».

So again, what am i missing from this incel who doesn't know women at all and never been in contact with one, whom only bases his opinions on the experiences others tell him about...?

[Anonymous No.22331669]

>>22331667
>infidelity occurs because chemical inbalance

Is this Rick and Morty?

[Anonymous No.22331691]

>>22331559
>Rather than making a positive argument they just point to the holocaust, and say a thousand gorillian holocausts will happen if people stop believing in morality
Yeah, sorry, but I doubt you've read Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.22331804]

>>22331691
I have read Aristotle's politics and Nicomachean Ethics. I never said Aristotle made that particular "argument". What i meant was that often in moral philosophy if a particular line of thought leads us dangerously away from common moral assumptions towards the bad-boy no-no beliefs it is discarded on those singular grounds. "There's a problem here if X belief is true then murder in Y context would be okay"
Okay faggot and?
Moral philosophers are quite often massive pussies that cow tow to consensus whose entire body of work just serve to justify what they want to believe to be true any way. Like little boys afraid to swear for the fear that mommy is watching.
I don't by social necessity mean consequentialism. Even virtue ethicists will do it same as a consequentialist, end an argument with an appeal that disbelief in virtue will lead to dangerous social consequences. A teacher i had who was a proponent of moral realism once explicitly stated that moral realism is superior because it provides reasons to be against genocide unlike other theories.
To give a more concrete example of what I mean take a look at Saint Augustine' critique of skepticism. I'm too tired right now to recount the argument in full. There are parts of his critique which are well reasoned and interesting, but a large portion of his critique is to merely suggest that skeptic teachings will lead the youth to act immorality. Convinced there is no way to decide as to the truth between competing claims, the student of a skeptic feels free to transgress and commit adultery. And the teacher when brought to a court of law can only defend himself by reiterating his equipose--the end of skeptic philosophy-- that he neither assents to nor condemns his student's act.
This is something like what i mean. An argument which does not prove the metaphysical reality of virtue but rather fear-mongers that uncertantity as to the reality of virtue will lead to widespread transgression against social norms. Augustine's critique is funny, but not really even an argument. As it only appeals to the fear that if skepticism became widespread there would be lots of amoral young people running around sexxing up peoples' wives. We must teach the youth that virtue is real or else they'll sex my wife as well.
Kind of gives the lie away that it's not really about whether or not these things are real, but rather it's about teaching the youth to believe so you don't get cucked.

[Anonymous No.22331827]

>>22331051
>>22329958
Russell gives some of the most ignorant readings of both Kant and Hegel ever written and consumed in his history of western philosophy. On top of that, despite working closely with him and in his field, Wittgenstein famously discredited/opposed Russell's explanation of Wittgenstein's system in the Tractatus.
That's not to say he was a bad person and didn't have good insights. However, those good insights are confined almost entirely to mathematical logic in the vein of Frege.
>>22329590
Extremely based.
>>22329617
Sartre is a retard.
>Listen, we make our own meaning through our actions, but like, you have to act in good faith (even though no meaning exists before you) because I say so. Also, I'm acting in good faith and you're not. Something something fascists bad

[Anonymous No.22331833]

>>22329774
That guy didn't use the word "theory" at all
>>22329807
I have never once heard a non-Commie use the term theory. For my entire life, "theory" has only ever been "read" by Communists, and when you disagree with them it's because you haven't read enough "theory". I've never heard someone refer to say, Heidegger or Derrida as theory.

[Anonymous No.22331938]

>>22328765
>tips fedora
>if the set of natural numbers is "truly infinite", it must "span over" the numbers (-3) and π, otherwise it's not truly infinite.
>checkmate

[Anonymous No.22332232]

>>22331938
The set of natural numbers is not truly infinite, correct. It is metaphysically indefinite.
>>22329603
Then God is not infinite, per Hobbes's own definition, because God is limited by substance. That would make God finite.
>>22329614
>Also infinity does not mean “span” everything
Yes, it does. In-finity is the negation of finitude, all limitation, which implies a complete span.
>“incorporeal substance” is just striinging random words together.
Yeah, which he appears to be wrong about.

[Anonymous No.22333784]

>>22332232
you're retarded. you can't interpret philosophers by using your own made up definitions for the words they use.

[Anonymous No.22333835]

>>22332232
That is not how infinity is defined.
There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1.
This interval does not contain pi or -3.
>t. Mathematician (although this is high school baby shit, you're being embarrassing)

[Anonymous No.22334147]

>>22333835
>mathfaggot thinks theological infinity is number line shit
Holy shit, do you bring up calculus when you see Zeno's Paradox?

[Anonymous No.22335261]

>>22326721
basado picko

[Anonymous No.22335600]

You can tell based on physiognomy alone

[Anonymous No.22336417]

Leibniz

[Anonymous No.22336523]

>>22331691
Stop pretending to be me dylan

[Anonymous No.22336956]

>>22335600
besides his height, his physiognomy would actually not be that bad if it weren't for the eye making him look so much uglier.

[Anonymous No.22336973]

>>22336956
>>22335600
see pic related. his teeth also make it look worse than it is.

[Anonymous No.22338086]

>>22336956
Sartre had terrible physiognomy. Even putting aside the eye the man consistently seemed ten-fifteen years older than he was. He achieved the geriatric zombie look at age fifty.

[Anonymous No.22339062]

>>22336973
Wtf he looks like chad, I take back my post

[Anonymous No.22339095]

>>22326721
Godfather of "I fucking love science!!!" fags. Hate this guy.

[Anonymous No.22339148]

>>22328747
There's this one account I'm not bothered to find right now that describes how Schopie's last words to his mother were something about how her aspirations toward genius were laughable and she'd only be remembered through him. I found it amusing because that's exactly what happened. We're here, 200 years later, talking about a woman known only as "Schopenhauer's Mother."

[Anonymous No.22340330]

>>22328808
you cannot refute him.