>creates atheism, influences Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and destroys Western civilization
What was his problem?
>creates atheism, influences Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and destroys Western civilization
Talk religion
Talk religion
>creates atheism, influences Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and destroys Western civilization
What was his problem?
Don't know who that is, but he didn't create atheism. The idea of atheism existed in Ancient Greece.
It’s Ludwig Feuerbach
Sure the Greeks were a bunch of homosexuals, but I think OP means atheism in the sense of not believing in a god
Ever heard of Thales?
>God is water
wow ty
How is that atheism?
>Don't know who that is
It's clearly gigachad
read OP's pic name. He's called Licensed Image
Charles Fourier and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon were both older and also influenced Marx heavily.
>licesend-image
I don't think you should be posting this here, anon.
he is evil
no, he's just German man #286,897,212,567 that was unable to properly understand Christianity.
The fact that one of the most theologically educated popes of the last 200 years was a German is perhaps one of the biggest miracles of this age.
To properly understand christianity is to reject it. What characterizes its own adherents is that they themselves never fully understand their own worldview. If they saw things properly and in full, they would reject their nonsense on the spot.
Christianity comes from its adherents, who are therefore the only authority on it. Christians wrote the NT and built all the historical early Christian institutions that defined what it is. That you disagree with them on what their own worldview is, as expressed by themselves, is beyond stupid.
It'd be like saying Marx didn't understand Marxism
Nietzsche liked him?
Most based philosopher.
"The Essence of Christianity" just completely demolishes any moron that thinks sky daddy is real.
Christianity has already fallen if it didn't just burn him alive for his heresy.
Marx’s influences are not talked about nearly enough and it’s ridiculous that they aren’t
He doesn't overcome Hegel, he tries to surpass Hegel but ends up being refuted by Hegel, according to the Hackett critical assessment. Namely his conceptions of man and community don't critical express express the complexity of social relations. You can't have a whole theory based on the interplay of man and community basically.
>What had really induced me to attach so much importance to Feuerbach was the conclusion by means of which he had seceded from his master Hegel, to wit, that the best philosophy was to have no philosophy—a theory which greatly simplified what I had formerly considered a very terrifying study—and secondly, that only that was real which could be ascertained by the senses.
>The fact that he proclaimed what we call ‘spirit’ to be an aesthetic perception of our senses, together with his statement concerning the futility of philosophy—these were the two things in him which rendered me such useful assistance in my conceptions of an all-embracing work of art, of a perfect drama which should appeal to the simplest and most purely human emotions at the very moment when it approached its fulfilment as Kunstwerk der Zukunft.
>For a long time I had wanted to understand the real value of philosophy. My conversations with Lehrs in Paris in my very young days had awakened my longing for this branch of knowledge, upon which I had first launched when I attended the lectures of several Leipzig professors and in later years by reading Schelling and Hegel. I seemed to understand the reason of their failure to satisfy me from the writings of Feuerbach, which I studied at the same time.
- Wagner, autobiography
>Actively aroused by the perusal of some of Ludwig Feuerbach's essays, I had borrowed various terms of abstract nomenclature and applied them to artistic ideas with which they could not always closely harmonise. In thus doing, I gave myself up without critical deliberation to the guidance of a brilliant writer, who approached most nearly to my reigning frame of mind, in that he bade farewell to Philosophy (in which he fancied he detected naught but masked Theology) and took refuge in a conception of man's nature in which I thought I clearly recognised my own ideal of artistic manhood. From this arose a kind of impassioned tangle of ideas, which manifested itself as precipitance and indistinctness in my attempts at philosophical system.
- Introduction to Art and Revolution
tl;dr
>I like this guy because he confirmed all of my preconceived notions so I wouldn't have to analyze any of them, and told me drop the study of philosophy which I found too daunting and difficult for my taste
Western Civilization is a centuries-long psychological human nightmare in which the minds of the masses are terrorized by demons, damnation, temptations and sexual desire, I am glad is ending, absolutely thrilled.
I will keep Bach, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, St. Francis, St. John of the Cross, many others who are in fact Individual Geniuses reflecting the greatness of the Human Spirit in general and not this dumb ass, prude ass, Western Dogmatic Roman anti-Body Rationality Cult
atheism,
Kek, that's Schopenhauer. Nietzsche called Schopenhauer the first western philosopher who was openly an atheist.
>first western philosopher who was openly an atheist.
18th century France had Nicolas de Condorcet and Denis Diderot
I prefer Anselm. Maybe because I also have a hardon for Italian girls.
Lmao, typical christcuck display of the eternal feminine, no fricking accountability of what you dumb fricks did to civilization.
Best thing to ever happen to Christendom were the Borgias and the Medici.