/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4454461]

Is Hume the edgiest philosopher?

[Anonymous No.4454466]

what a gay hat

[Anonymous No.4454470]

If by "edgiest" you mean the philosopher who got almost everything right, then you have got it right.

[Anonymous No.4455208]

>>4454470
I don't

[Anonymous No.4455218]

>>4454461
lol what the fuck

there is NOTHING edgy about hume. did you mean least edgy philosopher?

[Anonymous No.4455223]

[Anonymous No.4455224]

>>4455218
*tips shower cap*

[Anonymous No.4455227]

>>4455223
nie spotte mee zanger bob kankersukkel

[Anonymous No.4455229]

[Anonymous No.4455232]

Why would you even consider Hume to be the "edgiest"? He was just trying to figure out what was true and what wasn't. The "edgiest" philosopher might be Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, or Camus, or one of the other existentialists who, despite being unable to argue a single explicit and clearly stated POINT, feel entitled to let their feelings out in writing and then proceed to have the gall to call it philosophy. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4455235]

He's one of the most humble minds ever to grace this earth. He calls bullshit on what he sees and makes his case.

[Anonymous No.4455236]

>>4455232
>kierkegaard
>edgy
lol WHAT.

[Anonymous No.4455238]

>>4455232
Now you can say shit about Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer all you want but don't you DARE insult my little Cammy

[Anonymous No.4455242]

>>4455238
>you can say shit about real philosophers all you want but don't you DARE insult my average level YA philosopher

[Anonymous No.4455243]

>>4455232
>"edgiest" philosopher
>Kierkegaard
dat hump yup
>Schopenhauer
his face is pointed to goblin proportions lol
>Camus
I...hmm??? OH SHIT HE'S A CAMEL
Thoroughly enjoyed anon do contribute more.

[Anonymous No.4455244]

>>4455236
>>4455238

go2bedbadpoets

[Anonymous No.4455246]

You philosophy guys are kind of... gay...

Get a job...

[Anonymous No.4455249]

>>4455232
>unable to argue a single explicit and clearly stated POINT

lol somebody can't read

[Anonymous No.4455250]

>>4455249

lol somebody can't logic

[Anonymous No.4455255]

>>4455242
>Kierkegaard
>real philosopher

[Anonymous No.4455257]

>>4455232
Existentialism is about feeling though and autists gonna autist about that. If anything look to Hume for the importance of the passions. Even Heidegger, through his rejection of Husserls objectivity, emphasize on the important of feelings in human agency.

[Anonymous No.4455259]

>>4455250
lol somebody can't realize that nothing in my post had anything to do with logic.

[Anonymous No.4455270]

>>4455257

It's okay to talk ABOUT feeling in philosophy, just not BY and THROUGH it. Trying to bring down such giants as Hume and Heidegger to the level of bad poets, is absurd.

[Anonymous No.4455278]

>>4455270
Agreed, my own autism had me thinking you rejected feeling as a subject of philosophical contemplation. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.4455279]

>>4455259

I realize your post wasn't meant to use logic, but the "philosophers" you defend were, and failed miserably.

[Anonymous No.4455283]

>>4455270
kierkegaard's whole philosophy is centered on opposing rationality. you can't just say "he's being irrational". that's the point.

[Anonymous No.4455285]

>>4455270
Quote me a passage of Kierkegaard arguing by or through feelings.

(note that I accept the idea that he's not a philosopher insofar as he's more of an anti-philosopher along the lines of Nietzsche, but I still suspect that you don't know what you're talking about.)

[Anonymous No.4455286]

>>4455249
>>4455250
>>4455259
all of you faggots get to choose between kant critiquing kant's logic and schopenhauer doing it according to your reading level. i recommend you start with camus and stay there.

[Anonymous No.4455288]

>>4455283

Yes I damn well can, because true philosophy is a science, and therefore rational. How can you possibly be a philosopher when you reject the most basic tenet of philosophy - much less a serious one?

[Anonymous No.4455290]

>>4455288
>true philosophy is a science
>the most basic tenet
fucking no. philosophy is OBJECTIVELY not a science. read kuhn, and ask yourself if normal science is possible in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4455294]

>>4455288
>true philosophy is a science
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.4455297]

>>4455285

>arguing

That's the point. He doesn't argue much at all, because you can't argue through feelings.

[Anonymous No.4455303]

>>4455286
>complete non sequitur

t-thanks.

[Anonymous No.4455304]

>>4455294

I don't mean an empirical science you retard.

>>4455290

I admit I haven't read any Kuhn, but I plan to at some point. What does he say about philosophy's (not) being a science?

[Anonymous No.4455310]

>>4455304
>I don't mean an empirical science you retard.
What kind of science did you mean, anon?

[Anonymous No.4455317]

>>4455310

...the science kind? I mean, (true) philosophy's pretty unique among the sciences, but I guess if I had to further classify it, I'd say it's an abstract science, just like mathematics and logic (although one might argue logic is split up between the two other abstract sciences, and is therefore only a common subset of the two).

[Anonymous No.4455321]

>>4455304
>I admit I haven't read any Kuhn, but I plan to at some point. What does he say about philosophy's (not) being a science?
there is no fundamentals for people to work off of. there are not additive gains. nobody agrees on the basics. in math, logic, physics, etc. there are absolutes at the base that allow work to be done at the edges.

[Anonymous No.4455322]

>>4455317
>philosophy
>among the sciences

all science is among philosophy. pay more attention in class next time, bud.

[Anonymous No.4455324]

>>4455310
All the bodies of information and knowledge where the empirical method is still non-sensical to apply.

[Anonymous No.4455325]

>>4455294

Well, but mathematics at a high enough level starts to look more and more like philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4455327]

>>4455304
>I don't mean an empirical science you retard.
I think I'm actually dying.

[Anonymous No.4455336]

>>4455288
Just dropping into to say I lol'd

[Anonymous No.4455342]

>>4455325
Well to the extent to which you can say that mathematics is an empirical science I'd say it remains that way even at higher levels.

[Anonymous No.4455356]

>>4455342
Math is pure abstraction. There is objectively no concept of wholes or numbers in nature you have to construct a way for it to be so. It's a tool, a useful figment of our imagination; an idea, a damn good idea.

[Anonymous No.4455357]

>>4455322

Yeah but I'm using the contemporary definition of philosophy. Prescriptivists pls go.

>>4455321

Well I think one can make philosophy more scientific in this sense by kicking out people like the existentialists and the postmodernists. Furthermore, I would define a science as an intellectual pursuit that simply involves well-sequenced rational thought with some at least METHODOLOGICAL starting points. If you kick out most of the continentals, there are indeed methodological starting points in philosophy. Also, are you saying that math ceased being a science for a time during the early 20th century when people began questioning its fundamental tenets in a systematic way? I would say philosophy (or more accurately the philosophical sciences, since it's more a collection of distinct disciplines) is the verbal, abstract science, with the title of science already implying rationality and systematization, making it verbal, abstract, systematical, rational thought. Do you disagree with this definition? Radically different views on the definition of this science doesn't make it unscientific, because there is still a certain common methodology, just like there was in mathematics and mathematical logic even when the fundamentals of math was first questioned in-depth.

[Anonymous No.4455361]

>>4455327

Sorry. Do you need help?

[Anonymous No.4455363]

>>4455357
If you are interested in mans symbolic endeavors post modernists are bretty gud. If you want to state clearly defined facts about the state of the world, kick them out, be like Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.4455364]

>>4455357

even when the fundamentals of math WERE first questioned*

[Anonymous No.4455366]

>>4455356
But you can prove that one rock and another rock makes two rocks; the problem is with representation, with the meaning of "one" and "two". That doesn't mean it's not empirical. (I'll admit that all that falls appart beyond addition and subtraction though.)

[Anonymous No.4455375]

>>4455361
Don't mind me. More figs, more wine.

[Anonymous No.4455382]

>>4455366
Like Hume stated. If I propose the idea of a thousand rocks the idea represented in your mind is that of 'that's many' and you
Might imagine a picture of many rocks you don't actually know if it's a thousand you imagine and it probably isn't, but it's easier to relate to as just the number combined with the representation of one rock.

[Anonymous No.4455383]

>>4455375
top lille

[Anonymous No.4455399]

>>4455357
>ceased being a science for a time during the early 20th century when people began questioning its fundamental tenets in a systematic way
nothing really changed in math while that questioning was going on, but in physics in the 20th century, it did cease practice of "normal science" for a period, experiencing one of kuhn's famous paradigm shifts.

two things:

1.) even if you throw out the less rigorous members, you are still left with enormous disagreements about everything. kant and hume do not agree, and scholars do not agree on who was right. this gets much worse in ethics.

2.) common methodology does not equal common fundamentals. you can make all the rational arguments you want in philosophy, and still have them disagreeing, even if they seem rational. for evidence, see kant's transcendental dialectic. of course, kant's whole plan was basically to establish metaphysics as a science, and it's pretty clear that scholars don't agree that it's a success.

[Anonymous No.4455405]

>>4455238
>tumblr
>likes camus
what a surprise

[Anonymous No.4455418]

>>4455399

So why can't we consider philosophy - at least when it is in sufficiently rigorous form - to be simply constantly in the state mathematics was at the dawn of the 20th century? Everyone's constantly questioning the fundamentals of their own discipline, and yet the discipline remains, and the discipline remains basically scientific. The philosophical sciences may be arguably less "stable" than the other sciences, but a science nonetheless.

[Jericho !Q3U8RU4q.. No.4455433]

>>4455399
>nothing really changed in math while that questioning was going on

Toplel.

[Anonymous No.4455434]

>>4455418
>So why can't we consider philosophy - at least when it is in sufficiently rigorous form - to be simply constantly in the state mathematics was at the dawn of the 20th century?
because it isn't analogous. at the dawn of the 20th century, you didn't have to worry that tomorrow people would start believing 2+2=5, or that ~~a != a. the arguments about the fundamentals didn't actually affect what people actually thought, they began to think the base was not as secure, but there was never any debate about what to believe. not to mention that these fundamental arguments did not even interest most mathematicians at the time in a substantial way. there are no things in philosophy as certain as 2+2=4, in fact, when they are discovered, they are transferred to other disciplines and become science. philosophy's most appropriate substantive domain is the set of all the things aristotle talked about minus all the things that have become rigorous since. of course, many of those things will probably never become science (metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics), so that's not really worrisome for philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4455446]

>>4455433
yeah dude we definitely believe that 2+2=5 now, and that predicate logic doesn't work.

the established core did not change. compare to physics, were it was actually discovered that certain equations and ideas which were thought to be absolutely fundamental were actually believed to be incorrect, and in need of revision. that did not happen in math.

[Anonymous No.4455447]

>>4455434

Yeah but what about something like cogito ergo sum, or some basic laws of philosophical logic? I'm pretty sure everyone of sufficient rigor in philosophy would accept these.

[Anonymous No.4455452]

>>4455447
philosophical logic has become a sort of separate field, and is a science. that does not make it possible for the rest of philosophy to be a science. the philosophers who advance logic are not the same sort of people as the other philosophers, and logic can't deal with most of logic's problems.

as to the cogito, people still disagree about that, and have good enough arguments for doing so. but even with the cogito, you still can't found basically any philosophical argument on that in a logical way. descartes's attempt is pretty much universally regarded as a failure, as are the attempts of everyone else. and that's just for epistemology, getting to ethics from there is also 100% impossible.

[Anonymous No.4455455]

>>4455452
>logic can't deal with most of logic's problems
>logic can't deal with most of philosophy's problems

[Anonymous No.4455456]

>>4455446
erdos and everyone who's written a paper with him want a word

[Anonymous No.4455466]

If you guys have read so much philosophy why are you spending your time arguing on a shitty imageboard, if your trying to show appreciation fine but it's honestly like "no mine's better" "na ah" "uh huh"

[Anonymous No.4455468]

>>4455456
no. they really don't. go to a math department and ask a 100 math professors/grad students/whatever if 2+2=4. they will all say yes. now go to a phil department. ask 100 people if "cogito ergo sum" is a 100% necessary truth and you'll get 100 answers, likely with lengthy justifications and in depth arguments about whether necessary truth is possible. it's not the same at all.

if you were doing math in the 20th century, you didn't really have to worry that the proof you were looking for, IF you found it, would be false, and eventually 100% disregarded. you just had to worry that you might not be able to find it. if you were doing newtonian physics in the time of einstein, you did have to worry about that.

[Anonymous No.4455470]

>>4455452

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then, because I consider philosophical logic to be a part of philosophy, and its basic tenets to be the fundamentals of philosophy. These tenets may be questioned quite often, but still they provide a substantive basis.

[Anonymous No.4455474]

>>4455470
philosophical logic is still question in philosophy though, through quine, etc. heidegger and others have questioned its priority, saying that it is actually founded on other stuff.

>Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then
see but isn't this exactly why philosophy isn't a science?

[Anonymous No.4455482]

The real question is,
Is Hume Nicholas cage?

[Anonymous No.4455491]

>>4455474

Yeah but it seems like the questioning of the foundations of philosophical logic by philosophers is closer to the questioning of math by mathematicians. Although one may ask questions as to why these logical laws are true and so on, you will not find a non-postmodernist who argues that ~~a isn't the same thing as a. Although I suppose this all goes out the window when you don't consider philosophical logic part of philosophy. Do you see what I mean, though?

[Anonymous No.4455493]

>>4455468
You could go to a philosophy department and get pretty much unanimous agreements on the basic logical fallacies, and basic mistakes like category errors, etc.

[Anonymous No.4455507]

>>4455491
>you will not find a non-postmodernist who argues that ~~a isn't the same thing as a
quine argues that you can believe that

i see what you mean, that logic is sort of a basis. i still disagree because you can still be considered as a philosopher if you practice philosophy while not believing and teaching that a == a in all possible worlds, whereas you cannot be a math teacher and teach your students that 2+2 == 5.

but even if logic was considered to be a firm basis (which it was in the 19th century and earlier) it still wouldn't solve the problems. in the 18th century, most philosophers were attempting to be fairly rigorous, knew logic, knew math (descartes was a great mathematician, so was leibniz), but still disagreed on the most fundamental things out there. that's because logic is not enough to answer all the questions that philosophy is tasked with. it isn't sufficient to solve the problems of metaphysics, metaphilosophy (a very important part of philosophy which we are practicing right now), or epistemology, let alone ethics/political philosophy, which may actually eclipse the others in practical importance. how does logic get us anywhere in answering "what is the good life?" with a few axioms of logic, you can start proving other logical formulas, but you'll never prove the most important questions like that. the most important questions require personal answers, that people can't and even SHOULDN'T agree on.

[Anonymous No.4455517]

>>4455493
not really. ask "is it a necessary truth that ~~a == a" and you will get a variety of answers. even at an analytic department you will probably get a substantial amount of no's, and some answers between yes and no, along with some "that's a meaningless question"s

[Anonymous No.4455532]

>>4455507

But people still argue for these views logically, even if the manipulation of the axioms of logic don't by themselves get them to their views.

[Anonymous No.4455536]

>>4455532
yeah, but that's not a sufficient basis still. in math, knowing the axioms gets you everything. it philosophy, they don't. that means there will be dispute, there will be disagreements, even among the most rigorous philosophers (which can be seen by the fact that there are enormous disputes in analytic philosophy today)

[Anonymous No.4455543]

>if you go to the __ department you get __

jesus some of you are reaching for your argument

[Anonymous No.4455566]

>>4455543
the point i am making is about consensus. my point is that philosophy can't be a science without consensus. how is this reaching?

[Anonymous No.4455571]

>>4455468
yes they really fucking do because they changed probablistic space and gave rise to all sorts of things like finding the pixel limit of our universe. essentially they set up to where we are now that whatever we work out in the "maths" of this program, we can't actually work out what math across all simulations is represented as or consists of. if you were next nor near anything dealing with mathematical development someone who has an erdos number would have already hit you with a spoon for trying to argue your way out of the matrix. you're illiterate in three disciplines, you should pride yourself on your empirical proof of a reverse erdos number.

[Anonymous No.4455584]

>>4455571
nothing you are saying is relevant. nobody is saying that people didn't find out new things. i am saying that people didn't have to stop believing the old, which is the characteristic of a paradigm shift. read kuhn. jesus christ it's not that hard. his important work is 200 pages. this isn't even about what the most advanced mathematicians think. it's about what the average mathematician thinks. the average physicist knows that f != ma, the average mathematician does not know that 2+2 != 4, or anything similar. and if you taught that in freshman calc, you would be fired. if you taught that cogito ergo sum is not valid in phil 101, you would still be considered a reasonable person. it's about the social forces here.

something happened in math in the 20th century. it wasn't a paradigm shift. it was something else, because math is not an empirical science and thus can't have a paradigm shift the way physics could. read kuhn.

[Anonymous No.4455615]

>>4455584
I'm saying that discovering that your math are never going to work when blown up is exactly like what happened with physics, because it is. The two departments happen to talk to each other despite all the comics you've seen no doubt. Who gives a shit about freshman calc? The average mathematician- and I mean one who actually got a degree and a career in the discipline rather than took a sci course to fulfil credits like the engineer who takes lit or phil and gains no valuable understanding- knows that two plus two equals four means nothing and is something you can mark your entry calc students down on for just not having limits and metrics if you want. Math has proven that 2=4 with set theory and that entire branch of mathematics only began around Cantor (30 years shy of the 20th Century). If your argument is entirely people who think they comprehend a discipline from an introductory course are dense, I'm not contesting that point, but it doesn't speak to the discipline at large so much as how arrogant a little education can make people who were already idiots. It's a complete paradigm shift, and that just one branch. Erdos himself is a massive paradigm shift, especially in his engagement with problems and his influence on others. Freshman calc probably won't even teach you non-Euclidean space because they're glad you remembered how to "add a triangle". You're actually trying not to learn things about all the shit you want to talk about and I'd much rather read a string of numbers, sorry.

[Anonymous No.4455634]

>>4455615

how can you be this mad

how can you be this dumb

[Anonymous No.4455646]

>>4455615
no. you are still completely wrong. your problem is not that you are overestimating what happened in math, it's that you are underestimating what happened in physics. the very fact that you are using language like "Math has proven that 2+2=4" shows what i'm talking about. now that math has proven that, to its satisfaction, it's is not going to have to throw that out. by contrast, f=ma had to be thrown out, and even a freshman in college knows that it isn't "true".

math is endlessly additive. euclid's algorithm still holds. euclid's proofs still hold, given his axioms. aristotle's physics are meaningless and nobody even knows what they said.

the point i'm making is that the canon of knowledge doesn't have to be revised. but that's not even the most important difference. the most important reason why paradigm shifts don't happen in math is because there is not empirical data. the whole point of an empirical data is this: you have the same data, but now it all MEANS something else. in math, you don't have empirical data, so this CAN'T HAPPEN. they cannot be the same, because that is what a paradigm shift is. it's where you see the sun rise and fall, just like yesterday, but suddenly it is you moving around it, and not it around you. that's the whole idea. it doesn't happen in math, because you can't have data change when you aren't in an empirical science.

also:

>comics you've seen no doubt

what? what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4455706]

>>4455646
>now that math has proven that, to its satisfaction
it's to its limits not its satisfaction. because we proved that the whole fucking thing doesn't work. yes, physics has gotten more news. it's hard to get people to read equations with divide by zero in them and not have them make internet jokes. the problem is that math is empirical. we can map data (btw the singular of that is "an empirical datum) to certain limits and with certain errors, but claiming that addition without contradiction has happened is just mindnumbingly dumb. again, what people undereducated in a discipline who contribute nothing to its paradigm shifts have "learnt" has nothing to do with the understanding of a discipline. euclid only holds when we trap him off in a non existent space and pretend that's the rules for some of the universe, because reasons. the reasons being because otherwise we have the wrong data or the wrong laws or more likely both. also, you're the one phrasing things in language of "2+2=4"; I'm the one telling you that's laughably ignorant to maintain as true, like how you might feel about people maintaining that data still have a singular form.

[Anonymous No.4455828]

>>4455706
>we proved that the whole fucking thing doesn't work
tell me what exactly you mean. proving the thing doesn't work means you proved it's inconsistent. when did this happen?

>claiming that addition without contradiction has happened is just mindnumbingly dumb
i don't think you understand what i mean. how is euclid invalid now? you even admit later that euclid works, he just doesn't map to the real world. that's meaningless for this discussion. the form of his arguments still holds. also, you don't know that it doesn't map to the real world, but whatever, we don't want to get into that. if you say the "whole fucking thing doesn't work" then you deny your ability to say anything about euclid is false.

>also, you're the one phrasing things in language of "2+2=4"; I'm the one telling you that's laughably ignorant to maintain as true
why? WHY? you have given no arguments. actually give an argument. the epistemological foundations do not state that it is an absolute certainty that 2+2=4. neither do the epistemological foundations of physics prove a lot of things about the most fundamental doctrines of physics. REGARDLESS, you are expected to believe that 2+2=4, and that such and such equation holds if you want to do physics. you are confusing the fact that math has put into question its EPISTEMOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS with that it has actually thrown away its MATH. the questioning of epistemological foundations is not a math problem.

btw the thing about "an empirical data" i meant to say "a paradigm shift" and just put that there for whatever reason. but i appreciate your annoying little comment anyway. it just slides right in with your general style of pretentious name dropping, vague reference to things you don't actually want to talk about, misunderstands, and insane bits like whatever the hell you were saying about comics. also, read kuhn, because you're still just blabbering about irrelevant shit.

[Anonymous No.4455831]

>>4455363
but uh what about postmodernism redefining the basic maxims of which "clearly defined facts about the state of the world" are positioned around bruh?

[Anonymous No.4455833]

>>4455828
btw i have a million typos in this post and im not going to fix them

[Anonymous No.4455870]

>>4455238
Camus is the only one of those people deserving insult. His philosophy is edgy, teen-tier dogshit.

[Anonymous No.4455875]

>>4455288
You dun goof'd.

[Anonymous No.4455885]

>>4455466
well why are you here or better yet in this specific thread oh great one?

[Anonymous No.4456161]

>>4455255
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.4456164]

>implying david hume isn't cillian murphy

[Anonymous No.4456167]

Stirner

[Anonymous No.4456170]

Surprised no one's posted her yet

Even though she was right about everything

[Anonymous No.4456185]

>>4455283
>confirmed for not understanding Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.4456204]

>>4456185
>implying anyone does

[Anonymous No.4456215]

>>4456204
>implying

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4456226]

>>4456170
0/10

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4456243]

>>4456226
Still better than Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.4456245]

>>4456226

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4456262]

>>4456243
>>4456245
She can't think. She can't write.
A batshit insane woman has trolled the world and there are elected officials who take her rantings seriously.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4456269]

>>4456262
STILL better than Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.4456288]

>>4456269
>>4456262
>>4456243
>>4456226

maybe try changing your name before you samefag again

fucking retard

[Anonymous No.4456295]

>>4456288
Are you new to 4chan, or just stupid?

[Anonymous No.4456299]

>>4456262
nice ad hominems, marxist

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4456308]

>>4456299
It was a short story, Fascist.

[Anonymous No.4456334]

>>4454461
I think Derrida comes across as trying to be edgy sometimes, with this in mind I would choose him.

However, the edgiest as in sharpest would probably have to go to someone like Nagarjuna.

[Anonymous No.4456386]

There was an ancient philosopher whose work leads to many suicides and was banned. That may be the edgiest.

Too bad I can't remember the name.

[Anonymous No.4456437]

>>4456334
wot...

[Anonymous No.4456494]

Is it some kind of meme to hate existentialists here? Why the fuck lol

[Anonymous No.4456523]

>>4456494
all philosophy is the philosophy of some stage of life

[Anonymous No.4456536]

>>4456523
What do you even mean?

[Anonymous No.4456543]

>>4456494
>Is it some kind of meme to hate existentialists here?
yes, but also most existentialists' works are pretty vacuous, although existentialism itself is not

[Anonymous No.4456549]

>>4454461
Hume was edgy 2.0
Sextus Empiricus was edgy 1.5
Aenesidemus was edgy 1.0

[Anonymous No.4456551]

>tfw existentialism is so low tier all you need to do is read ecclesiastes and you've got the best summation of it that you're ever going to get

[Anonymous No.4456552]

>>4456536
As one ages physically one matures emotionally and one's philosophical leanings tend to change as well

[Anonymous No.4456558]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U._G._Krishnamurti

[Anonymous No.4456564]

>>4456552
I don't think that makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.4456569]

>>4456564
why is that so?

[Anonymous No.4456571]

>>4456564
btw no causation was implied in that post. I was merely pointing out observable correlation. the quote is from nietzsche

[Anonymous No.4456575]

>>4456571
Well, by example, Nietzsche never ceased to rebel against everything. I think it's different on every person.

[Anonymous No.4456584]

>>4456575
He was also horribly depressed and unhappy his entire life. Just because you become older physically doesn't mean you grow up

[Anonymous No.4456588]

>>4456584
That's exactly what I mean. We need to hear everyone's experience with life, don't you think? Not just one consensus of what's supposed to be "serious"

[Anonymous No.4456589]

I'm not sure what's so edgy about Hume.

What do you mean by "edgy" anyway?

[Anonymous No.4456712]

>>4455828
The brain isn't monolithic so calling input received internally non-sensory and therefore not empirical doesn't make sense. Reason is empirical.

[Anonymous No.4456726]

>>4456584
>implying puns aren't the lowest form of wit

[Anonymous No.4456732]

>>4456551
Damn straight. Some anon made a remark on /lit/ a while ago that perfectly described the existential thoughts of Ecclesiastes versus the existential literature afterwards. It went something like: "Ecclesiastes has the gravitas of existential dread minus the melodrama present in French existentialism." Paraphrased here but you get the point. If that anon is reading this, then know that some other anon really liked that post.

[Anonymous No.4456735]

>>4456726
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pun

you are fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.4457240]

>>4456712
>the brain isn't monolithic
You can't establish what is empirical knowledge or not based on knowledge you learned from empirical observations, though.

[Anonymous No.4457471]

>>4456494

You kidding me? /lit/ LOVES existentialism. It's simply reasonable to hate it.