/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4699855]

Why should one date a philosopher, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4699856]

>>4699855

>Because women are determined to do so...

[Anonymous No.4699857]

they probably shouldn't

most of them are neurotic messes

[Anonymous No.4699861]

So people avoid faggot shitposters like you, OP

[Anonymous No.4699883]

>>4699857
They aren't, they mostly know exactly what matters and what doesn't.

>>4699861
Stay mad, brotha.

[Anonymous No.4699965]

Because they're "interesting."

[Anonymous No.4699984]

Because they are 2deep4u for normalfags. If you're a normalfag, dating a philosopher increases your chance of leaving the territory of normalfagism and embracing the world of abstractness, reason and the exchange of intellectual ideas. For the first time in your clueless life you should be able to think for yourself.

[Anonymous No.4699993]

>>4699883

>implying philosophers aren't mostly neurotics

loving every laugh

[Anonymous No.4699998]

>>4699855
One shouldn't date a self-professed 'philosopher', especially if they're anything like this guy.

http://orgyofthewill.net/

[Anonymous No.4700003]

>>4699998
>http://orgyofthewill.net/
I hate how people like this actually exist.

[Anonymous No.4700006]

>>4699855
they have beards
>

[Anonymous No.4700012]

>>4700003
If you hate him so much why don't you try rebutting some of his aphorisms.

[Anonymous No.4700014]

They shouldn't. They should date poets who've read a little philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4700016]

philosophers don't do dating

[Anonymous No.4700023]

>>4700012
Because there is nothing there to refute. It is just posturing: completely devoid of substantiation. There is nothing philosophical about any of his aphorisms.

[Anonymous No.4700029]

>>4700003
>>4700012
>>4700023

My favourite ones are when he drops all pretense of philosophy;

>43. Reggae is the most disgusting kind of music there is, more disgusting even than the most miserable, most depressing kind of peasant and folk music. And a look at the smelly rastafarian bastards will reveal the reason why. Ugly, lazy, shitty music for ugly, lazy, stupid people. "Don't worry, be happy." Keep telling that to yourself, dude!

[Anonymous No.4700045]

>>4700023
Even if it is crude dilettantism, it may still be refuted. So far you've only demonstrated your dislike of his work without much justification.

>There is nothing philosophical about any of his aphorisms.
Factually incorrect

[Anonymous No.4700048]

>>4700045
>Factually incorrect
Refute it.

[Anonymous No.4700056]

>>4700045
Honestly, you are probably that faggot promoting your pseudo-intellectual garbage.

[Anonymous No.4700061]

>>4700014
>Dating poets and female artistes
Do you enjoy constantly lying to your significant other AND paying to support their work?

[Anonymous No.4700064]

>>4700056
I can confirm that he's not promoting it at least. I'm the anon that posted the link, someone did, however, post it in another thread yesterday.

[Anonymous No.4700068]

>>4700064
We're still waiting for you to prove at faggot's philosophical merit via his bullshit unsubstantiated propositions.

[Anonymous No.4700076]

>>4700048
I'm not the one hating on him. So: can you, or can you not, refute some of his aphorisms? So far you've only demonstrated how you feel about him. Emotions are of no merit when it comes to intellectual endeavors.

>>4700056
Back to kindergarten, sport.

[Anonymous No.4700079]

>>4699998

The content is angry personal opinion, etc., but I like the form. The design is good, and the typography on the bottom really works!

[Anonymous No.4700085]

>>4700076
>Emotions are of no merit when it comes to intellectual endeavors.
Naw, no emotions are involved. You're the one that is upset. There is no discernible philosophical merit in his aphorisms. You need to prove to me otherwise.

Show me the philosophical merit of this aphorism, you knobhead: "Placing yourself at risk is living, the rest is television."

[Anonymous No.4700088]

>>4699185
Read. Search on google a book on any topic that interests you, then buy or try to download it.

[Anonymous No.4700093]

>>4700076
>Back to kindergarten, sport.
Back to the trashcan where your garbage belongs, charlatan.

[Anonymous No.4700104]

>>4700076
explicate on the profundity of these aphorisms:

>211. To "unravel the mysteries of the universe" means: "to become the life form that ravels them".

>206. One doesn't fight weaker creatures, one brushes them aside.

>199. "Life's not fair" means: "I don't like myself" — and nothing more than that.
Wow that is so deep: so philosophical

>187. You are never closer to someone, than when you are fucking or killing them.

>171. The feminine feelings being idealized and glorified in Twilight are wonderful, because perfectly complementary to the male.

>165. Or "war crimes". It's okay to kill someone but not rape them. Subhuman logic.

>118. It is precisely the best drivers who cause the worst accidents. Only the terms should here be reversed, for the paradox is only a result of false terminology. For the most spectacular accidents are by no means the "worst", but precisely the best.

Into the trash

[Anonymous No.4700114]

>>4700104
206 seems pretty clear

[Anonymous No.4700119]

>>4700085
>no emotions are involved.
Self-denial at work, ladies and gentlemen. To deny the expression "I hate how people like this actually exist." being devoid of emotions: you must be a bigger nutcase than I initially conceived.

>You're the one that is upset.
Calm as a cliff, son. You, on the other hand, are visibly projecting.

>Show me the philosophical merit of this aphorism, you knobhead
Don't overestimate the prima facia simplicity of the words involved; dig a little deeper. But if you see no inquiry of ontology, perception, action theory, and critical theory within that proposition then you're a helpless case. Expected, though.

[Anonymous No.4700120]

>>4700076

'the real is just someone's fantasy' is not precisely a falsifiable claim. The fact that I cannot exactly 'refute' it hardly entails that it's not inane bullshit, though.

[Anonymous No.4700125]

>>4700104
>>4700093
Can't see a refutation of any kind here. Plain and infantile dismissals in virtue of your own emotions.

Yawn. /lit/ still filled with teenagers, I see.

[Anonymous No.4700130]

This guy is absolutely hilarious. Are there links to any more of his stuff, or is this all?

[Anonymous No.4700132]

hey girl, I've got a secret ;)

you shouldn't date a philosopher

[Anonymous No.4700137]

>>4700120
Except that it absolutely does not entail that it is inane bullshit. Look up what "entails" actually means within Logic.

>'the real is just someone's fantasy' is not precisely a falsifiable claim.
You can't falsify ambiguous claims. First you have to know what is meant by 'the real', 'fantasy' etc.

[Anonymous No.4700138]

>>4700119
>ontology, perception, action theory, and critical theory within that proposition then you're a helpless case.
None of that is in there. Don't worry: I'm well read on ontology, phil. of mind, and critical theory; you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4700143]

>>4700125

[Anonymous No.4700149]

>>4700145
>You have yet to demonstrate anything worthwhile in this discussion. So far you haven't. You keep bullshitting over and over again
likewise.

[Anonymous No.4700145]

>>4700138
You have yet to demonstrate anything worthwhile in this discussion. So far you haven't. You keep bullshitting over and over again.

You're what I call a "I-wish-I-knew-what-I-am-talking-about-when-in-fact-I-don't" poser.

[Anonymous No.4700154]

>>4700145
>260. "So what, then, ultimately, is his position?" That you are all a bunch of fagets. A bunch of filthy, ugly, cowardly, lazy, uneducated, uncouth, lying, hypocritical, effeminate, dumb-as-a-rock fagets, and consequently not only deserve every last thing you are currently getting, but a whole lot more than that, which is precisely what you'll get when the time has come for me and my descendants to take over.

What a revolutionary position! He's even coined the new term "faget" for it.

[Anonymous No.4700156]

>>4700143
It seems like you're also projecting by calling him a projector.

[Anonymous No.4700162]

>>4700149
No, not likewise. Don't forget -- I'm not the one hating. You're one of those pseudo-intellectual babblers that hates and loves left and right in virtue of the prima facia appearances of the things involved, but for the world isn't capable of coming up with proper reasoning behind it.

[Anonymous No.4700163]

>>4700156
It seems like you're also projecting by calling him a projector.

[Anonymous No.4700164]

>>4700154
>243. Why does James Bond never fail with women? (at least in the movies; he fails once or twice in the books, because the women are lesbians lol). A rash answer would be because that's what the artist glorifies: the ability to easily get women. But the artist also glorifies danger and action, and Bond regularly gets the shit kicked out of him and fails. He ultimately always succeeds, of course, but only after two hours of constant struggle and setbacks. And yet with women he succeeds almost immediately, without even trying, because what the artist is trying to say to you is, "Women sure are great, but ultimately unimportant. They are to be used and discarded like so many gadgets. The only things that are important, and consequently worth fighting for, are country, danger... and play."

Absolutely brilliant! I'll never watch an action movie the same way again!

[Anonymous No.4700166]

>>4699998
>#off by one

[Anonymous No.4700167]

>>4700125
>Can't see a refutation of any kind here. Plain and infantile dismissals in virtue of your own emotions.

It refutes itself it doesn't even pose a problem of any kind he's just saying "I'm strong, you are weak" there's nothing there, he doesn't even understand the Nietzschean concept of weakness, as his posturing and need of self validation is exactly what Nietzsche found disgusting and weak in humans.

[Anonymous No.4700169]

>>4700164
It's completely insufferable, not worth the time. The thing I dislike the most about it is that you know he's probably about 20. It's arrogant posturing. Don't take life advice from losers.

[Anonymous No.4700171]

>>4700164
>228. It's always a bright and sunny day on planet earth, it's just a question of having enough elevation.

This moved me to tears. I haven't been so affected by a writer since the last Rhonda Byrne book.

[Anonymous No.4700175]

>>4700137
>Except that it absolutely does not entail that it is inane bullshit.

Except that I never wrote that, even a little bit? I am creaming my pants at the thought of how much I didn't write what you seem to think I wrote.

[Anonymous No.4700179]

>>4700164
That's a shallow interpretation as bond always tend to put women in danger so he doesn't attach himself to them to protect them.

[Anonymous No.4700181]

>>4700171
>225. The scientists' greatest goal would be "to create life". But if you give me a girl and nine months I can create life for you right now, without science's help. Therefore either the scientists are morons who've no idea what they are talking about, or what they are actually trying to create is far more complex and advanced than mere "life".

I couldn't agree more. Why is it that all these scientists are obsessed with creating life! And is it just a coincidence that that's also what DARTH SIDIOUS wanted to do???

[Anonymous No.4700182]

>>4700162
You sound rustled as fuck, You're defending him without any substantiation. So, yes, 'likewise'. Also, you sound pretentious as fuck, too, m8. I'm surprised someone at your cognitive level knows [prima facie (although you're misspelling it)]. However, one cannot understand the apperceptions of a dullard.

[Anonymous No.4700183]

>>4700119
>prima facia

try the easy terms first, maybe you will be able to spell them correctly.

[Anonymous No.4700189]

>>4699998
>276. What an amazing game this is, from which it's not even necessary for us to forcibly remove the bad players. The old, the weary, the resigned (we call them pessimists and nihilists) — they remove themselves.

[Anonymous No.4700190]

>>4700145
>You have yet to demonstrate anything worthwhile in this discussion. So far you haven't.

No one has, this is /lit/, after all!

[Anonymous No.4700192]

>>4700181
>201. The subhuman is neither pessimist, nor idealist, nor nihilist, nor any other -ist. Plato was idealist. The subhuman is merely subhuman. That is to say he misinterpretes and misuses and abuses every term, but the only reality you'll find at the bottom of all his sayings and all his doings is no idea or ideology, but his extreme vulgarity.

This guy is such a genius! I have always felt this way about the idiots who disagree with me but I've never been able to articulate it with such lucidity.

[Anonymous No.4700197]

>>4700192
Yeah we are really in need of another "I can't be wrong, lol" theory to solve all our problems.

[Anonymous No.4700198]

I like TumblrNietzsche.

[Anonymous No.4700223]

>>4700192
Just when I thought I was unable to bear anymore of his naive opinions, he says somethings brilliant.

>39. Star attraction, movie premieres, sports events, red carpets and gala openings: the eternal war between depth and appearances. But there is no war at all between them, since the purpose of depth is to create a stronger, and thus more beautiful, appearance; to transform itself into appearance. Those who scorn appearances and evangelize depth are precisely those who are incapable of much, if any, depth: the pseudo-intellectuals, which is why it is by no means an accident that all of them are ugly.

[Anonymous No.4700226]

>>4699998
>43. Reggae is the most disgusting kind of music there is, more disgusting even than the most miserable, most depressing kind of peasant and folk music. And a look at the smelly rastafarian bastards will reveal the reason why. Ugly, lazy, shitty music for ugly, lazy, stupid people. "Don't worry, be happy." Keep telling that to yourself, dude!

Philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4700244]

>>4700192
That's like a millionth version of Heraclitus "hurr the plebs truly are plebs and they don't even know what they think they know". But at least Heraclitus had a novel discourse to back it up. This guy simply borrowed the arrogance of earlier thinkers, but he forgot to borrow some thinking in the process.

His best fragments are decent thoughts that a normal person would pick up while reading Nietzsche or another actual thinker, but the whole is plagued by an injustified sense of legitimacy and self-rigtheousness, by an ugly superiority complex and, most ungracefully, but his use of emphasis that reads like a teenage rendition of a poorly translated Nietzsche.

The end result is somehow fascinating and certainly very funny. It's like he started practicing thinking on his own but stopped halfway. And that's what most of his fragment deliver: half-thoughts, that is to says personal opinions or epidermic reactions to things he doesn't like, given a vague beginning of elaboration, then wrapped up in an exceedingly flashy language to make up for the lack of actual reasoning.

When you look more closely at his writings you realize that he seldom go further than making a surprising statement, then clearing up what he meant (which generally shows that his idea wasn't actually that original) and finally leaving you with what can be best described as a "Look at my will to power" statement. He only looks smart when compared to television anchors, talk-show hosts, dumb YA writers and people over the internet.

[Anonymous No.4700250]

>>4699998
>4. The so-called "real" is merely someone else's fantasy.

[Anonymous No.4700258]

>>4700223
Brilliantly funny. I like how he takes a good topic, starts off with a genuinely interesting thought, then conclude with an absolute idiocy that instantly negates all impression that he was onto something.

[Anonymous No.4700294]

All this naivity

>55. Semiotic optics: the time for it has come. The idea is basically that no one (and nothing) is "wrong"; they can't be wrong because they are part of the universe, and whatever is in their brains — in the brains of even the stupidest person — is as "correct" as what's in my mind or Nietzsche's or Baudrillard's. What we need then is an art of interpretation so subtle and powerful that it can bring out the "truth" that's hiding inside even the dumbest person's brains.
For example, when a Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", he is not wrong. It's just that the concepts he designates with the words "God", "universe" and "love" are different from the concepts someone smart and educated, like me for instance, designates. For me the word "God", going by the Christian's definition of omnipotence, omniscience, perfect goodness, etc., is an empty word, a non-concept, since the predicates the Christian attaches to it are incommensurate with each other. But when the Christian says "God", he doesn't really mean an "omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being" (since he's so dumb he can't even grasp what these concepts mean, and hence uses them in ape-like and parrot-like fashion); he simply means "a very powerful being". Similarly, when he says "universe" he doesn't mean what I mean by "universe" (i.e. "everything"), he simply means "the earth" — or at most, if he's had a whiff of astronomy, perhaps "the solar system". And finally, when he says "love" he doesn't mean what I mean by "love" (i.e. a desire for possession, in order to shape the thing possessed), but the exact opposite, i.e. "help me" (= shape me).
So basically, when the Christian says "God created the universe and he loves me", what he's really saying, translated in our language, is "A very powerful being created the earth (or the solar system), and he wants to help me" — which could very well be true!
All of this stems from Nietzsche's positive theory of language, which basically says that a word means WHAT THE SPEAKER WANTS IT TO MEAN, and has no necessary connection to any pre-existing convention between speaker and listener. Ultimately, each person gives his own meaning to every word, which is only natural since this meaning is to be found inside each person's brain, and all brains are different.

[Anonymous No.4700296]

Because philosophers are boring people who claws all wonder from the world with their intellectual posturing to "explain" things to us "commoners". Only a philosopher can make art into a trite affair.

[Anonymous No.4700303]

Holy shit, he seriously does not know the difference between transcendent and transcendental. also, the fucker doesn't even begin to understand Luddy.

>58. Wittgenstein is — once you have got past "that hocus-pocus of mathematical form", in which, like Spinoza, he encased and masked his philosophy — utterly exasperating. Ethics is transcendental, aesthetics is transcendental, logic is transcendental! — everything is transcendental! But all these things are in the universe, you goddamn brainless twit, how can they be transcendental! The universe is everything, nothing is transcendental! that's just a word imbeciles use to signify that they are incapable of understanding something! — And sure enough, he understood neither logic, nor ethics, nor aesthetics — among a great many other things, practically everything! — partly because he didn't bother reading enough of what his predecessors wrote, but mainly because he was a little man with small experiences and therefore incapable of making any progress in psychology, which is where all these "transcendental" categories begin — and end.

[Anonymous No.4700316]

>>4699998
>81. To make fun of stupid people is part of what it means to be intelligent.

Heh, guess the joke's on you then.

[Anonymous No.4700317]

>>4700294
I like he expands on his naive concepts while at the same time is calling Christians naive. The funniest thing is that he is probably serious and think he has made a manifesto.

[Anonymous No.4700329]

Such self-congradulatory, inauthentic garblegoo...

>129 [...] Three levels here, as elsewhere: on the first, and lower level, the subhumans, who maintain a set of utterly contradictory beliefs, precisely because they themselves are contradictory beings: not bothering at all with being consistent or investigating anything and simply adopting any claim that seems to advance their interests at any given moment. On the second, higher level the pre-Nietzschean thinkers: who, having not yet drawn the ultimate conclusions from perspectivism and the flux, believed that a system could be found, and strove valiantly to find it. And on the third, final level Nietzsche and I (and Heraclitus too, actually, if you know how to read between his long-lost lines), who have elevated consistency to the point of total inconsistency, closing the circle at the high point, and therefore the most powerful.

[Anonymous No.4700355]

>>4700329

>In this work of absolute genius, after two and a half thousand years of progress the path of philosophy arrives at an end, and the intellect at last draws, one by one, its ultimate conclusions. Apocalyptic, uncompromising and merciless, Orgy of the Will constitutes nothing less than a declaration of war on the so-called "human species".

[Anonymous No.4700367]

>>4700294
Remembers me of La Rochefoucauld's "everyone is right". Orgy-guy really should have kept his fragment three-words short.

[Anonymous No.4700376]

>>4700303
He also failed to understand the distinction being what can be said and what cannot be said. Which is pretty much all of Wittgenstein's point. Naturally, when you take it out, nothing is left but retardedness. He didn't realized that precisely because he's a man to argue without a point.

[Anonymous No.4700380]

>>4700355
He's good at slef-marketing, I'll give him that.

[Anonymous No.4700384]

>>4699998
This is an example of what people mean when they describe a writer as dangerous. I can only imagine the horrible effects this could have on impressionable young people who haven't yet developed discerning minds. Unfortunately, those are likely just the people who are going to wind up reading that.

[Anonymous No.4700410]

pointless criticism
I really don't know who's talking to whom or who thinks who is whom
I read a bit of "Orgy of the Will" but I can't fathom what could drive someone to go through such trash, much less write on it

>>4700384
I do feel endangered