[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 10 KB, 224x300, Antisthenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
562853 No.562853 [Reply] [Original]

Barba non facit philosophum

>> No.562858

>>562856
yes it does

>> No.562856

shaving doesn't make you civilized either.

>> No.562865

a proper beard does not make you smart, but it does make you look bigger

>> No.562869

Barba facit sexymotherfuckum

>> No.562864

Every philosopher is bearded.
Not every bearded man is a philosopher.

>> No.562876

>>562864
do you mean actually bearded or being able to grow a beard?

>> No.562878

>>562876

Actually have a beard.

>> No.562885

>>562878
then you certainly do not have one, because that statement is ridiculous.

I am aware of the paradoxical nature of the sentence above.

>> No.562886

BEARD = + 20 IQ

>> No.562889

Name one great philosopher who did not have facial hair. Go ahead, try.

>> No.562894

>>562889

AYN RAND

>> No.562898
File: 79 KB, 350x218, 1270955983987.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
562898

>>562894

>> No.562902

>>562889
its not so much a statement about the person as about the period of time.

go search for a greek man in ancient greece without a beard.

The romans did not sport beards so often. And since you asked for names: Hegel (he only wore some tiny sideburns for a time), Kierkegaard (same as Hegel), Macchiavelli, Kant (not until old age, because beards were very unfashionable in that period)...

>> No.562909

>>562902
Machiavelli had an awesome beard. He was just really good at keeping it a secret.

>> No.562922

>>562889
Bertrand Russell

>> No.562926

>>562922
>Bertrand Russell
>great philosopher

wut

>> No.562928

>>562922
people that look like turtles don't count

>> No.562931

>>562902

Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Macchiavelli were not philosophers.

>> No.562935

>>562902

>its not so much a statement about the person as about the period of time.
True philosophers don't pay attention to fashion.

>> No.562936
File: 220 KB, 480x366, 1270024302163.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
562936

>>562931

>> No.562948

>>562931

Kierkegaard and Macchiavelli maybe . . .

But Hegel, not a philosopher? Come on.

Foucault once said something to the effect that the objective of 20th century philosophy was to disentangle itself from Hegel.

>> No.562963

>>562948

>If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.

>> No.562964

>>562948
don't even try to argue with that dude. he is probably still below legal drinking age (which is 16 in my country) and thinks philosophers are defined by the fact that they live their philosophy and are rather defined by their deeds instead of their thoughts or something silly like that.

>> No.562970

>>562964

Defined by their lives and not by their written works.
Yes, that sounds about right.

>> No.562995
File: 13 KB, 316x414, russell.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
562995

>Bertrand Russell
>no facial hair

>> No.563001

>>562970
have fun growing up!


and be aware: The agony evoked by such a patronizing statement is very much intended. Rage if you wan't to, I certainly won't read it.

>> No.563003

Philosophi non tondent barbas.

>> No.563005

>>563001

Confused observer here.
What's wrong with judging a man by his deeds?

>> No.563012

>>563005
I guess he meant you are not judging the man, but his philosophy by his deeds.

>> No.563018

>>562963

Oh, I don't disagree with this - I think Hegel's philosophy is ridiculous and terrible. By today's standards, yes, he would be laughed out of any university.

But that doesn't mean he wasn't a philosopher. He (unfortunately) was a massive influence on history. The world probably would have never seen the nonsense that is dialectical materialism if not for Hegel.

>> No.563042

>>563018
you, sir, are ridiculous and I am very certain that you are a brit and totally in love with that analytical (or logical) branch of sophistry that is widely known as philosophy everywhere.

I admit I enjoy reading philosophical books, but philosophers are all kind of silly.

>> No.563052

>>563005

I think philosophy is supposed to stand to some sort of logic or reason.

Since we know that Heidegger was involved with the Third Reich, does that mean all of his philosophy is invalid? I don't know if there's a right answer to that - it's a question that gets a lot of debate.

Put it this way - if I say 2+2=4 and I'm a Nazi, does that make me wrong?

But philosophy isn't as simple as that, so the debate is more complex.

>> No.563058

>>563052
What do you know? You're a nazi.

>> No.563064

>>562889

Hume.

>> No.563069

>>563064
Hume's beard was hidden from sight in the fat folds of his many, many chins.

>> No.563070

>>562995

Yes well done, you found the only picture of him with a moustache, taken when he was 18 years old. He then shaved it off forever.

>> No.563076

>>563042

Believe it or not, I'm actually American though not partial at all to the American analytic tradition.

Very much into continental philosophy - I mentioned Foucault earlier.

Maybe my comments on dialectal materialism were uncalled for. In fact, I do have some degree of fascination (though not much familiarity) for Althusser and some of the other Marxists in the anti-humanist tradition.

Regardless, I do believe that philosophy has moved way beyond Hegel.

>> No.563079

A philosopher's job is to describe reality.
If you fail at this, you are not a philosopher.

>> No.563075

>>563064
you can not make a point with hume.

you can not argue with a man who says the basic principles of causality are invalid.

>> No.563086

Philosophers tell people how to live.
If a philosopher doesn't live by his own system, how can we take him seriously?

>> No.563087

>>563052

There should be no debate. The fact that there is indicates that philosophers prefer talking and debating even when it makes no sense to do so.

The entire bulk of a man's philosophy cannot be invalidated by the fact that he is tainted by evil. What about the areas where it overlaps with everybody else's philosophy?

>> No.563091

>>563086
you must be 12... or 13 maybe

>> No.563101

Philosophers merely interpret the world. The point, of course, is to change it.

>> No.563105

>>562909

I S W U D T :)

>> No.563108

>>563087

Yeah, good point, and I agree.

But I think - and I'm American so I don't understand this firsthand - that in Europe there's, understandably, just a great deal of discomfort and sensitivity regarding Nazism, anti-Semitism, etc . . .

So, people find out a prominent 20th century philosopher is a Nazi, and philosophers everywhere are left with the burden of having to explain themselves. Not to each other, but to the public.

>> No.563109

>>563101

Shut up, Marx.

>> No.563121

>>563108
Yeah, good point, and I agree.

>> But I think - and I'm American so I don't understand this firsthand - that in Europe there's, understandably, just a great deal of discomfort and sensitivity regarding Nazism, anti-Semitism, etc . . .

>> But I think - and I'm American so I don't understand this firsthand

>> I'm American so I don't understand

>> No.563134

>>563121

What's your point?

Yes, I'm American and I don't fully understand all the cultural issues in Europe.

I wouldn't have written it if it weren't the truth.

>> No.563159

>>563121
Wow you're dumb. Read the rest of his sentence before you post things.