Philosophy is cope

Jung was right. All of philosophy is just ugly, neurotic queers coping with being ugly and stupid. If Nietzsche or Schopenhauer looked like Francisco Lachowski and were actually brilliant (invented something useful) they wouldn't be such mopey losers.

Depression and pessimism is a sign of low IQ and ugliness. In fact bad genes comes in packages. If you're ugly you're most likely short, weak and stupid, evil and depressed

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    most philosophers aren't that neurotic. if your idea of philosophy is schopenhauer and nietzsche then you don't know what you're talking about.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Uhhh you haven't read the canon child! Read another 500 books from other ugly morons or you can't make claims about my worthless "study"
      No.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ok

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nice response chuddy. All that reading really helped you there kek

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You know that good looking people aren't schizotypal about looks. They see good looks everywhere, it is normal. You are an ugly gnome without even a shred of intelligence.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That anon has a point. Nietzsche is not representative of most historical philosophers.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >women can be men and men can get pregnant
        Based. Science wins again

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Science is fake except the stuff that I like such as IQ

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yup, and without the guidance of philosophy, it's gonna be homosexuals like OP who are gonna run the world into the ground. He can brag about his career in civil engineering now, but give it a few years and we'll have ChatGPT 8 putting him out of work and onto the streets. And he'll have his fellow STEMgays to thank.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As someone who studied both, I can confirm this is true.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's unironically true

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ban midwit stemcels at once

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jung spent more time studying Nietzsche than it took you to develop your frontal lobe.

      This.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Is there a bigger sign of an cowardly, insipid moron than the word "midwit"? You are simultaneously ashamed of being retatded so you mental gymnastic your way into dumb people actually having the super IQ opinions and mask it within some word salad. If you can't explain your idea in 2 sentences or less with simple language then you have nothing of worth to say

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Jung was a bit of a philosopher himself

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you so upset? Were you studying philosophy and now you're disillusioned by it? Do you consider yourself ugly, short and stupid? Why was this screeching needed?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No. I am average looking but have a career in civil engineering so I actually do something of worth unlike philosophers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Based, I’m doing electrical engineering
        I love Anprim tears

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Quote where does Jung dismisses philosophy altogether ? He'd have to be a complete moron to do that.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly have to wonder if there is anything to get out of kant beyond "there could be stuff behind our senses" because I have never heard anyone getting more from him than that, same with schopenhaur expect ohhhh now the things in themselves are horror themed ohhhh spooky

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    and this post is just cope for somebody or is either too lazy to read philosophy or tried and was frustrated by how difficult he found it. Probably a bit of both

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He admitted to being a civil engineer, that's like the lowest form of engineering, he needs to feel superior to someone.
      >electrical engineering turned physicist turned philosopher because stemcels are cringe and gay

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not him but I genuinely want to kill anyone who self proclaims themselves as a philosopher and a work a job

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh don't worry, I don't work for a living, I just occupy some company's space and waste time reading and playing music at work. I might do some teaching in the future though, but the point was to make fun of people who can't reach the limits of firstly engineering, secondly science and can't find the world beyond that.
          I should ad I'm also actively shitposting at work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Based for shitposting at work, I work security and can literally bring my small CRT into the booth and use it to watch old movies on my shift

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's nice, somehow I got into an office where I'm completely alone at night and nobody checks the cameras unless there's a break in or something so I get to play my guitar and frick b***hes. Used to smoke weed a lot too, but have gotten mad at it when it started trying to control my life so now I'm just reading more instead.
            Anyways, not working and getting paid beats simply not working in my opinion.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you want to see why philospgy is fricking stupid just go on sep and read intro after intro of these brain splitting ideas about things like possible worlds, causality and meaning invariably following by 40+ paragraphs of fricking linguistic analysis and "what if x word is a function of y situation"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This so much. Possible worlds and models of causality have huge implications for the actions of a superhumanly intelligent agent such as one we can expect in our near future. Will it allocate resources in our world to agents in other possible worlds, expecting reciprocation even though no direct communication can ever be possible? And they are playing language games. Bah.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So basically either word games or sci Fi speculation. I think the questions are graspable to normies but you have to be an Einstein tier autist to actually come up with something meaningful in regards to such fundamental concepts. But between ego and the need to make money stuff just keeps getting generated on the topics regardless of none of it saying anything. I think we allocated our autism wrong too though, not teaching people math and drawing was a huge L imo

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >sci Fi
          You don't expect AGI ever to surpass human intelligence?
          >speculation
          You misunderstand the nature of this research. There are fundamental constraints on the nature of decisions taken by any rational agent. This is called decision theory and computational complexity. Causality falls under the former, and the ability to read the universal prior (possible worlds) goes under the latter. Any future AGI can violate the theorems we figure out about this no more than it can make 2 + 2 equal 5.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            ai is a very weird thing where it feels like we do random shit with our networks and apply random functions until we find one that works, as impressive as everything is I always wonder if we are just going to find ourselves really stuck on these problems eventually. as much gpt is very impressive I don't know that there's necessarily a road from probabilistic generation to intelligence, which I get has always been part of it (how do we know someone is concious!!!) but the gpt hallucinations put into real light why a probablstic language model and an intelligence might fundementally differ.

            as for the speculation I have a hard time believing youre going to be able to define the world in such a way that we can really limit the theories of a superintelligent agent, that sounds like sci Fi but with math (see Nick Bostrom). we've all seen papers where (with a axiom and b axiom I prove you can never do c) but how many really become something on the level of a godels proof

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >we do random shit with our networks and apply random functions until we find one that works
            And this is why you should expect AGI more, not less. Producing the ability to solve multiple unrelated tasks, such as playing chess at an ELO of 1500 with just an LLM, or automatically registering on freelance sites and earning money (this has been tested early with GPT) didn't turn out to require any brilliant theory, and was actually quite easy in retrospect. We just threw computing power at the proverbial wall and something stuck.
            >gpt hallucinations put into real light why a probablstic language model and an intelligence might fundementally differ
            First, our own brain is not that much different from a probabilistic model except GPT inhabits the world of token data and outputs token data while we inhabit the world of sensory neural signals and output neural signals that move muscles; second, does this mean you expect silly AI researchers to keep using LLMs alone rather than try to hook them up to planning algorithms and memory models every which way?

            >able to define the world in such a way that we can really limit the theories of a superintelligent agent
            Sure. For example, suppose P doesn't equal NP, then no superintelligent agent can compute an exact Nash equilibrium or Arrow–Debreu equilibrium as quickly as it can perform a linear search, since computing those equilibria is in PPAD.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            well ultimately there is nothing really that explicable about humanity doing almost nothing for 1000s of years and then suddenly doing tons of stuff with a majority of it seemingly concentrated in the last 200 so I'm ready for the possibility that stuff just keeps inexplicably coming but I'm also open to the more cynical idea that we keep hooking stuff up and our gains inexplicably fall off. it really comes down to how you think technolgoical development will proceed, you can always be an optimist but for example advancements in stopping heart disease have apparently been slowing for over a decade. Human brains are under assumption probabilistic models but our speech isn't, we don't hallucinate in the same way as chat gpt does because we assumedly generate sentences in a different way that seems to have some interaction with an internal model. Obviously they are going to try and fix this and a lot has probably already been done but it's interesting to me how that lack of coherency in "worldview" is seen

            for the last one I just think a super intelligent agent is too much of a sci Fi concept right now, if we really had something analogus to use as we are to an ant I doubt anything we found out would be any help. To my understanding things like the speed of light, p!=np could easily be proven wrong by something with models as complex to ours as ours are to a dogs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon but I’ve been thinking that with how every aspect of technology gets more complicated, it requires more and more specialization to the point where we won’t have enough engineers to keep pace with it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            just going through school and the industry now its hard not to develop a feeling that skills and knowledge are not being well maintained

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Kant's dysgenic ass filtered you and you're upset about it. Many such cases!

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is the outcast of the humanities world. Most philosophers either loved literature and dreamed of being a great writer like Pynchon but didn’t have the talent, or wanted to be a historian but couldn’t handle having to do actual scholarly research. It’s sad really. Just a (slight) step above stemcels.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Analytic philosophy is a joke, it's just word puzzles for people too stupid to be real mathematicians and physicists

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      HEY EVERYONE, ANON DELETED HIS POST BECAUSE OF A TYPO

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Teehee, how embarrassing!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Hahaha L bozo xD

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hahaha what a loser

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is silly. Are people who believe in the prosperity gospel and law of attraction ubermensch geniuses?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cool philosophy, bro.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel was tall and buff probably

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're a moron. Fellas like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Marx didn't change the world?

Comments are closed.