Has anybody else noticed how gay contemporary philosophy is? And I'm not only talking about queer theory here. The dominant trends are all feminine:
>Respecting the "Other" (Levinas)
>Deconstruction of logo/phalocentrisms (Derrida)
>Whining about mass culture (Adorno/Baudrillard)
>Whining about the state (Nozick/lolberts in general)
>Elevating discussion above all (Habermas)
>BPD ramblings (Deleuze/Guatarri)
>Anti-natalism (Benatar)
So how do we restore masculinity to philosophy, bros?
Raise an army and march on cultural centers, beat up those nerds. That will show them.
>he does not know that philosophy was gay from the start
Larp
Do you wish to craft a more modern and sophisticated implement with which to hammer?
Twilight of The Idols 2: How to Philosophize With a Jackhammer
Hehehe are there even any idols left? The criticisms of the modern from BGE are still applicable. The machine and attempts to understand it have produced a sort of liquid class of thinker, this defense mechanism is good, no tactile pleasure in hammering with traditional implement. I have wondered what sort of mathematical and possibly analytic device could be forged to tweak the machine of the modern to freeze these thinkers and turn them solid. This way tactile pleasure of traditional hammer is restored. Perhaps with a mathematical core there may be no need to tinker with machine, if a sophisticated enough hammer can be devised, the base and the highest layer are fair game and the machine itself can be bypassed entirely and the new implement could possibly rival the venerable original.
You forgot the analytics.
hahahahhahahaha
What, rigor isn't feminine. Maybe I erred in calling them analytics, I know there are philosophers out there who believe it is possible to prove something is definitely true or definitely false, which is a very masculine mindset.
LISEN EVERYTING IS DISCOURSE WE ALL NEED TO TALK BOUT STUFF FOREVER AND INVERT AND SUBVERT EVERY SINGLE WESTERN VALUE UNTIL WE DESTROY OURSELVES BECUSE WE DESERVE IT.
FASCIST.
>Respecting the "Other"
>gay conteporary philosophy
Have you ever heard of a guy named Jesus of Nazareth?
jesus had long hair and wore dresses and was a masochist, that makes him a gay
Define "masculinity".
>So how do we restore masculinity to philosophy, bros?
By being virtuous, honorable, chaste, hard working, industrious, ingenuous, and sincere. Or, what, did you think Philosophy was to remain entirely in the abstract, and not to become a part of your every day life, allowing you to live your life more passionately?
>chaste
No fun allowed. Sounds epic, good luck with that.
Chaste meaning if you are not in a relationship or married you should not be sexually pleasuring yourself with porn or random prostitute's. One sign of any high functioning adult is the ability to control their lust. Do you think any philosopher of the first rank was jerking off and running around chasing prostitute's? Of course they were not.
>good luck with that
It is not a difficult task to control your sexual appetite. It takes a very basic level of self control. It does not require 'luck'. The opposite, in fact. It's a simple concerted effort, very little effort really.
Can't help but notice your fetish for status and titles.
Epic, hard pass, but you enjoy harvesting the mighty yield of living with a metaphorical wiener cage. I am over here exploring the venture of low functioning manchild. Pretty comfy, you go ahead we can converge later and share information, grow the human repository of knowledge together.
>Can't help but notice your fetish for status and titles.
Well the context of the thread is restoring masculinity to philosophy, which is why I mention 'philosophers of the first rank'. That's the only title I mention. As for 'status', if by that you mean the state one will be in if they are chaste, yes, this involved a basic level of self control. By no means am I chasing a status or title, rather I'm explaining what manhood looks like to philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Xenophon, Epictetus, Lao Tzu, Confucious, etc. The recurring them in all of their works is self control and keeping watch over our passions is paramount to living a life that is becoming of a man, and a life God demands of us.
>Epic, hard pass, but you enjoy harvesting the mighty yield of living with a metaphorical wiener cage.
Again, it has nothing to do with that. I don't think of putting some metaphorical cage on my wiener. I think of it more as returning to a natural, healthy state of manhood, which again is the context of this thread. That state of manhood involves self control and regulation of our actions regarding the passions, this is the whole of human life, and especially what philosophy seeks to understand.
Your ability to perceive minds other than your own is astounding in how non-existent it appears to be.
Not him, but are you losing it my schizo friend? This has no relation to anything that was said. He's simply explaining what a principled life is like.
While ignoring the perspective of disagreement that stands in opposition of his view without acknowledging it.
Example
>hard pass
> but you enjoy harvesting the mighty yield
Illustrates, a not for me.
>metaphorical wiener cage
>Again, it has nothing to do with that
>I don't think of putting some metaphorical cage on my wiener.
Illustrates an inability to perceive other minds..
Sorry to hear about the low iq.
He doesn't have to accept your view as valid, while you have to accept his statements since they're describing an actual phenomenon.
Granted, you said you want to explore being a low-functioning man-child, (don't know what such a being could learn).
There is a middle ground here: there are sages who were not chaste, namely, tantrics and some Taoists, so that wasn't actually a universal standard, but these still led principled lives.
>He doesn't have to accept your view as valid
Is there not a chasm of difference between accepting as valid and acknowledging the presence of?
> while you have to accept his statements since they're describing an actual phenomenon.
Is an evaluation and a response of "not for me" not an indication of acceptance? How do you consider something without accepting the premises first?
>Don't know what such a being could learn
All humans are capable of learning. Consider revising your bias. A streetwalker has a wealth of knowledge from experience.
>but these still led principled lives.
You have no idea how rigorous my masturbation schedule is.
> You have no idea how rigorous my masturbation schedule is.
Godspeed, my tantric Taoist sage! Maybe an interesting Tao Te Ching-like thing will come out of you yet.
>Posts picture of very gay looking cat
>dominant trends are all feminine
Women make better slaves, apart from lacking physical strength
Imagine smug walking individuals going between marble bathrooms but the roof's falling in but they're still dressing fancy and dapping their mouths with handkerchiefs. Complete abstracted detention.
>So how do we restore masculinity to philosophy, bros?
Easy job
>respect your fellow men
>deconstruct previous linguistic structures
>reject mass culture
>free man from the state
>talk in good faith with your fellow men
>deconstruct psychiatry
>free man from his reproductive duties
>the only way for philosophy to be masculine is to be about about fricking everyone in the ass
>that would be so ungay unlike the gay contemporary philosophy