>thousands of years of philosophy and religion obliterated in under two centuries

>thousands of years of philosophy and religion obliterated in under two centuries
How did they do it?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

CRIME Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the vein of malice

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Epic bait thread, my fellow redditor

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer wasn’t technically an atheist or a theist

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hence why he got the ball of destruction rolling

    • 6 months ago
      Jon Kolner

      He believed in “absolute truth” and he felt Christianity was a simplified version of it. He didn’t literally believe in the divinity of Jesus but he was a theist to some extent.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hubris

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nagarjuna already refuted all possible philosophical positions before them

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good morning, sir!

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      i feel like this is very dishonest to say about nagarjuna. did nagarjuna refute the philosophical position that all dharmas are empty?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Vajrayana is an impostor cult and needs to be wiped from the face of the earth

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer solved philosophy resulting in the creation of psychology which Jung then completed.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Schopenhauer solved made up bullshit with more made up bullshit resulting in the creation of more made up bullshit
      Cool

  7. 6 months ago
    Jon Kolner

    All of those people already have parallels to their ideas found in antiquity.
    >Buddha/ Jesus
    >Thrasymachus
    >Hippocrates
    >Sophocles
    Try harder.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    who third guy

    • 6 months ago
      Jon Kolner

      Charles Darwin

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        oh duh

        thanks

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is it worth going on to Freud after Schopenhauer and Nietzsche? I have spent a decent amount of time with the latter two. Was thinking about going to Kant > Hegel next, I do feel like they can be reconciled but idk I may be wrong about this and do have some reservation. For a moment I believed the ideal man ought to be spiritual, but I’m not sure there is a way to approach is without doing too much damage to your physical self and will.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Freud is better than Nietzsche. He does steal from Nietzsche, but personally i prefer Freud. I just find Nietzsche's style aggravating.
      Freud is probably one of the most influential writers of 20th century, and you can see a lot of popular concepts that have their origin in him.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nietzsche definitely influences him a bit. My question is what of Freud is necessarily worth studying? A lot of people today seem to disagree with him on many things and even he himself went back on some things, I don’t think this disqualifies him from value but I’m wondering how one should approach his work? I’m pretty skeptical about non-scientific modes of therapy, a lot of pop psychology of today I think is not very good.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just know that most people who say that Freud was outright wrong are ideologically motivated.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well if you had to recommend any of his work what would it be?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm pretty sure that most people consider The Interpretation of Dreams the best entry-level Freud

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Civilization and its Discontents is the only book of his I've fully read and I'd recommend it.
            It's a good overview of his w.v though it starts to drag about halfway through.
            His essay on the Uncanny is also interesting

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Idk if his ideas or scientific. I kind of view him as a creator of a modern secular humanist mythology but i found him interesting even if I am unsure if I buy into it. Particularly the idea of maturation as a process of going from the infantile sense of undifferentiation between your sense of self v.s the world to the adult perspective that more sharply sees the two as distinct..
          His metaphysic is semi Gnostic--in so far as he depicts the individual as trapped in a cruel world beyond his control, unable to fully satisfy all his desires.
          As a child you want to grasp everything to yourself, there is no difference between subject and object.
          He has a deeply pessimistic view of human nature, as one of a constant grasping and seeking to fulfill the whims of the ego.
          His most famous idea i think is his concept of repression. Which similar to Nietzsche, he believes modern civilization represses your primal desires. The Super ego, in a sense society, relentlessly demands the suppression of the ego which propels the civilizing process.
          He views this repression as necessary but also recognizes that it goes too far.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    same utter cringe energy

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >le bad breath grape man
    >le crybaby horse man
    >daniel dennett
    >le israelite

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *