WHAT PHILOSOPHER ACTUALLY CAME CLOSER TO THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW THE WORLD WORKS?

Hegel? Heidegger? Plato? Aristotle? Who?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    me

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You got any books?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Bible

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've read him. It's called
        >my diary tbh

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous
  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Aquinas

      Quite right.

      Read Chesterton's The Dumb Ox.** The starting point of Thomas's philosophy is that we can trust the senses. The starting point of Kant's theory is that we *can't* trust the senses. Kant reasons from this assumption to his idea of the noumena, or the "noumenal realm." But it is a dubious inference that can never be proven, certainly not empirically.

      Chesterton talks about all modern philosophies needing to start with a "queer twist" -- an idea that does not correspond to a common-sense view of reality, such as that of St. Thomas wrt trusting the evidence of the senses.

      In turn, an elaborate overarching philosophical superstructure is then built upon the initial "queer twist." Kant's system of philosophy is an archetypal example of this process.

      >Since the modern world began in the sixteenth century, nobody's system of philosophy has really corresponded to everybody's sense of reality: to what, if left to themselves, common men would call common sense. Each started with a paradox: a peculiar point of view demanding the sacrifice of what they would call a sane point of view. That is the one thing common to Hobbes and Hegel, to Kant and Bergson, to Berkeley and William James. A man had to believe something that no normal man would believe, if it were suddenly propounded to his simplicity; as that law is above right, or right is outside reason, or things are only as we think them, or everything is relative to a reality that is not there. The modern philosopher claims, like a sort of confidence man, that if once we will grant him this, the rest will be easy; he will straighten out the world, if once he is allowed to give this one twist to the mind.

      Thomas stands in opposition to these modern philosophies because, as an initial matter, he trusts in the evidence of the human senses, because the senses were created by God. (Of course, if the senses are merely a product of mindless evolution, all bets are off; you would have no particular reason to trust them; why not be a Kantian?)

      If you trust in the senses, Thomas's moderate realism makes sense. If not, you will end up lost in space in the noumena.

      **Online here: https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100331.txt

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This unironically. Been saying that by the time we get Descartes philosophy went down the drain and the German idiots just oblitered to the point of no return.
        Only thing I disagree is that Thomas Aquinas was one of the last true philosophers however you can go back further like plotinus, prophery, iamblichus,Plutarch, Syrianus, plato

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >trust the senses
        what's that supposed to mean? It's impossible to "distrust" the senses - the question is, what do the senses actually show? The senses do not interpret their own data, they don't just construct the phenomenological world out of raw data, the mind orders it in a particular way whether we like it or not, and it's perfectly appropriate to ask if this is the only possible or just one incidental way.

        Chesterton is peak boomercringe btw, muh common sense muh normal man-in-the-street, let's just all be normal folks... what's supposed to be the point here, that it's bullshit because it demands breaking routine patterns of thought? why didn't he have the common sense to not eat like a fat slobbering hog?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's impossible to "distrust" the senses
          It's extraordinarily easy to distrust the senses. If your vision is blurry, your hearing impaired, if your nose is stuffy, or your tongue burned, you cannot be sure of the accuracy the data your senses give you. If you've ever thought you heard someone call your name when no one did, or thought you saw motion where there was none, then you have ample reaspn to distrust your sense data.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yes, that's all true, and if that's the meaning intended by the post I replied to that would make Aquinas philosophy, or that reading of his philosophy, even dumber.
            I assumed it to mean that the senses in their usual functioning show "the real thing", as opposed to some illusion - but that's really a false dichotomy because the senses don't show you "things" anyway, they transfer signals without inherent meaning which are assembled by another instance than the senses into a version of the world you could trust or distrust.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The starting point of Kant's theory is that we *can't* trust the senses.
            That is actually not Kants philosophy, but a pretty gay misrepresentation of it

            this

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah it's impossible to tell your nose is stuffy without double blind studies by physicists with microscopes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What are you even talking about?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're still relying on your senses in order to distrust them in the first place, so you're not generally distrusting your senses but a particular sense.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To say that visual apparatus should be mistrusted entirely because blurry vision is less accurate than “unblurred” vision is a self-defeating argument. You say you should pluck out your eyes because you don’t have God’s eyes. That’s the logical conclusion of your argument. You’re already conceding that better eyesight than blurred exists, but because an eye is blurred it is no more valid than having no eyes at all. A sense apparatus that “correctly” deduces 20% of information it analyzes is infinitely better than one that deduces 0% of the information. Yes local maxima might exist, but local maxima are better than nothing, and they could turn out to be global maxima. No one quite knows, but like you, we have to trust what we have because we can’t trust what we don’t have

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A reliable belief making process cannot be self justified as it doesn't have a normative for true knowledge outside of itself.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The starting point of Kant's theory is that we *can't* trust the senses.
        That is actually not Kants philosophy, but a pretty gay misrepresentation of it

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No need to posit the noumena if we can trust the phenomena.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kant's entire project was to show that we in fact can trust the phenomenal in spite of being able to know the noumenal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No need to posit the noumena if we can trust the phenomena.

            In spite of NOT being able to know the noumenal

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            In spite of NOT being able to know the noumenal

            >In spite of NOT being able to know the noumenal
            Exactly. A tortured theory that rests on an unproven and unprovable hypothesis. His "entire project" (), thus, a tortured mental exercise in devising a rationale for common sense ("we in fact can trust the phenomenal") that is built on sand -- a noumenal world that is "strictly unknowable."

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        An exceptional post, 100% correct.

        OP, you have your answer here.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think it's very unfair to call this a "queer twist", since there are undeniable arguments showing the self-contradictory of common sense, sense-perception, etc., starting from the skeptic dream argument, up to Descartes.
        It is also incorrect to state that this "queer twist" is a characteristic of modern philosophy alone, since acknowledging that things are not what they seem seems to be the beginning of western philosophy and of every intellectual inquiry in general (if things are what they seem, what is there to discover and to know?). Thales' claim that all that exists really changes starting from one substance and returning to it is already a "queer twist", since common sense would tell us that a thing A can change into a thing B and this is all that we see and can talk about, while claiming that A turning into B, and in fact for any one thing to change into another requires a common substrate to both (e.g. "water") is deeply counterintuitive and a big leap of the imagination.
        If you see it like this, questioning your own senses seems to be a fairly normal thing that humans do, and I don't see why it shouldn't be a starting point for philosophical or scientific inquiry.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hume

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      Yeah Hume literally got it right which meant staying in his lane, which makes him kind of boring to discuss.
      It's not a *complete* picture, but it's a completely correct one.

      Isn't Hume's entire philosophy to say we can't actually know how the world works but we kinda guess and that's okay.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Some of it, kind of. His being very careful to examine how and whether our commonsense understandings of the world are grounded are super valuable, and honestly btfo tons of "philosophers" who pretty much spend all their time trying to justify their prephilosophic understanding based on nothing real.
        Acknowledging the dead-ends of sense information and the fact that our reasoning based on experience is pragmatic rather than directly received saves a lot of time and effort otherwise wasted arguing about fake shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Some of it, kind of. His being very careful to examine how and whether our commonsense understandings of the world are grounded are super valuable, and honestly btfo tons of "philosophers" who pretty much spend all their time trying to justify their prephilosophic understanding based on nothing real.
        Acknowledging the dead-ends of sense information and the fact that our reasoning based on experience is pragmatic rather than directly received saves a lot of time and effort otherwise wasted arguing about fake shit.

        I don't mean to be rude, but Hume is utterly overrated, the man just could not write. Read some Locke, then some Hume and you start vomiting, if you have any sense left in your brain.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whitehead.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kant

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah,um...Kant right? Then hagel ? Was it Hagel then Kant ? The rest is just semantics.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kant + Hegel = Kagles

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Philip K Dick

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Camus, and Buddha.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How is HS going?

      https://i.imgur.com/2fmzEpf.jpeg

      Hegel? Heidegger? Plato? Aristotle? Who?

      Schoppy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Schoppy
        based incel loser

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Schoppy fricked, my guy.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    γρηγορεύω

    Kierkegaard.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      very interested in Kierkegaard, where should I start

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fear and Trembling

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddha, unironically

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For real.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For real.

      Christian metaphysics mogs Buddhists and Vedanta

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, falsehood can't mogg truth and reality.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          which is why youre terribly wrong

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >doesn't know that ancient Indian philosophia and ancient Greek philosophia are essentially the same.
        > I said christe- heavily inspired by neoplatonic thought
        Mate..

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          essentially? maybe. But they are missing the key components of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
          Reaching Nirvana is just being annihilated, and Brahman is inferior to the Trinity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Reaching nirvana, liberation isn't 'annihilation' it's about realizing that which you truly are. Annihilation isn't the correct term because you're aren't destroying anything in the first place. Platonic recollection. The negation of objective identity to reach Subjective Synthesis is the main aim. The holy trinity and advaita vedanta aren't at complete odds with each other, and you can trace the roots of the idea of Trinity all the way back to pythagoras and who knows before that I.e sumerians, Babylonians perhaps?
            But I do love early Christian metaphysics like Augustine, eriugena, origen, etc.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but can you be a person when you're in nirvana? no. so you're annihilating yourself

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can be a person. The point of nirvana is to stop expecting things, because that's unreasonable, to stop retreating back into the past in your mind, because you cannot change it, to stop desiring things, because you probably won't get them, to stop projecting your madness on to others, because others aren't you.
            Basically, the point is to see reality for the first time, and to lose attachment. It doesn't mean you stop acting in the world or being yourself. It means being able to do this without shooting yourself in the foot and constantly spewing venom and insanity at others.
            Its a tool for being more effective as a person, not less.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Again 'annihilation' isn't the correct word as that means to completely destroy your ego, what advaita vedanta teaches is that your persona, I.e the psychophysical is an illusion, a perturbation and the goal of wisdom is the subjugation of being in order to realize that which you truly are. Thus doesn't mean you will melt with the universe in some bizarre dmt trip 24/7, we still need a 'persona' to navigate this world. As someone with a Christian perspective 'Be in the world, not of it'

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ignoring latter additions about the afterlife and reincarnation, I agree, no intrinsic value, codependence, the relational nature of everything, everything decays

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whitehead.
    Dogen.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hume
    or Whitehead

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      hume

      https://i.imgur.com/2fmzEpf.jpeg

      Hegel? Heidegger? Plato? Aristotle? Who?

      Yeah Hume literally got it right which meant staying in his lane, which makes him kind of boring to discuss.
      It's not a *complete* picture, but it's a completely correct one.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger + Jung is everything you need tbqh

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      True enough

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it was Steve Donahue who said that you can’t take any philosopher seriously who wrote before the discoveries of Charles Darwin.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brutal

      Rollo Tomassi

      Failed old grifter

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Darwin was off base about sociobiology and so was Kropotkin

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Charles Darwin discovered very little. He theorized (probably accurately) that living “species” evolved based on their inherent traits, environments, and relative isolation. He synthesized more ideas (of greater minds) than he discovered himself. At least as far as I see things.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    none of them

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually not a philosopher but social psychologist Gustave Le Bon.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rollo Tomassi

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    merlin

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >word salad

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you ever post anything of substance? You've reposted this shit dozens of times but you never make any actual arguments or engage with post-Hegelian thought or do anything of interest. All you do is jerk yourself off for being part of the cool mysterious German Idealism fanboy club.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        More like Gaygel

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Bro you have got to advocate for The One harder. This is just embarrassing and makes us look like deusional morons read your Lacan and write your proofs.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Adi Shankara (pbuh)

    /thread

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kant refutes the atman with his notion of trascendental aperception

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Madhusudana Saraswati is probably the greatest

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lone individual? Augustine. Collective? Christians and especially Church Fathers.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Christianity is true

      Low IQ take

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Low IQ people tend to breed more

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s funny because your take is the low IQ take. The triune God and Christian theologians overcame every philosophical problem that’s ever been posed, including modern ones. It’s the only philosophy which doesn’t contain necessary logical contradictions, baseless belief systems, or just a general failure to account for how any knowledge about anything is known. It’s the ultimate midwit filter because midwits will read modern philosophers and their strawmen or worse, new atheist media personalities while the highwits will go to the source. “What did Augustine say about the triune nature of God and why is that important for epistemology?” And once you do, you realize that the claims of the gospels are literally true, that the Church solved philosophy, and that there’s never been a more complete or more justified philosophical system ever on this planet.

        So I just count you as one of the midwits who has never read Augustine, never read the Church Fathers, never read the gospels, never read the councils, and you never will. You’ll resort to strawmen and ad hominem forever and trap yourself in the midwit trap because that’s what you are, not because it’s in your nature but because it’s what you choose, over and over again even when the truth is right under your nose.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It’s funny because your take is the low IQ take. The triune God and Christian theologians overcame every philosophical problem that’s ever been posed, including modern ones
          > INCLUDING MODERN ONES
          This is explained by Augusto del Noce. In short, pre-Christian theology solved the problems of the pre-Socratics onward and the of post—Christian modern philosophy is actually not a refutation of Christian theology but is rather just a refusal to engage with theological questions, a mere choosing ignorance as the epistemological basis of philosophy, which is obviously a game for midwits.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where does Del Noce write about this? I say this as someone currently receiving a traditional Catholic education: the opposite appears to be true; it appears rather that the Church is unwilling to engage with modern philosophy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t quite remember. I think it was the Crisis of Modernity or the Age of Secularization, but he doesn’t have that many books and this theme runs across multiple. I would just point out here that when del Noce speaks to modernity refusing to engage with theological questions he’s first of all not referring necessarily to the Church but to the thought leaders of the modern age, philosophers, academics, the media, artists and writers, the general thinking public. It’s on full display with the New Atheist writers and speakers, for example. But as for the church, it’s important here to note that just because he sees a modern trend of denying the basic questions (which frankly the church does in my view, as the problems of logical contradiction of atheism were mainly taken up by Protestants) that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are engaging with secular philosophy. Obviously, the secular philosophers do that the church may not necessarily. My view is that the church has refrained from engaging with philosophy in favor of mysticism and moralistic perversion of former dogmas. It doesn’t quite engage with philosophy but it doesn’t quite engage with theology either. It’s all apparitions and “be a good person or whatever” (unjustified legalism - reinterpretations of religious law without asking questions about the fundamental justification for the laws).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is definitely not true. Catholic philosophy is like its own big school aside continental and analytic. It deals with both and they won't take anything that mentions God in it remotely seriously.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Refuted by Ockham

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ya got filtered bud. ockham hasnt been relevant since 2010. even the dumb biologists dont use it anymore.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you moronic? Ockham was a devout theologian who criticized scholasticsm in favor of fideism and kickstarted humanism. My comment had nothing to do with Nu Atheism and Ockham's contribution to philosophy far exceeds what the those morons misused him for.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ockham committed basic logical fallacies

            >Get mogged by the problem of evil

            Christian theology couldn't even solve the problem of evil

            It’s not a problem. The Christian account is one where evil exists as the result of personal will. In so far as it’s a “problem” at all, it’s only so for a total strawman of theology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How much evil would you be able to see and genuinely say that it's the work of an omni-benevolent God? Is there simply no limit?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta, naively it would have to be that more than half the non-neutral events in the universe, witnessed over the lifetime of the universe.
            If the balance across all time is more bad than good that would be a strong indicator there isn't.
            But even then there's an out because my understanding of how much evil is necessary for a logically consistent universe. If the actual universe is as good as it can possibly be, it may be the work of an omnibenevolent God.
            But there's another out because my personal understanding of justice may be lacking. Certainly, honest people can disagree on what is fundamentally good and bad. My subjective place in the cosmos might make my understanding of good and evil wrong, and consequently my judgment of how much I've seen relative to how much is necessary might be wrong in an objective sense.
            So ultimately "how much" is the wrong question. It's about understanding the problem of evil in the context of what "possible" alternatives there are and whether I'm capable of judging from a cosmic perspective what actually IS good and evil.
            If we stipulate that my personal judgment will be correct based on the evidence, AND that I get a quantitative good/evil summary across all time, then the answer would be "more than is necessary"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"more than is necessary"
            Seems like a reasonable answer. I don't think that the problem of evil is a knockdown argument, there are none in philosophy of religion IMO and there is no consensus amongst philosophers either but I like to think about it in Bayesian terms. Is the amount of suffering that I observe more expected on a theistic world-view or on an atheistic world-view? I would say it's more expected on an atheistic world-view, so it slightly shifts my credences towards atheism.

            I also think our intuitions about suffering are still important, even if they are subjective. If we just say that God is good and the good is whatever God does, then this is pretty circular and breaks down to "God does what God does".
            If the concept of God is completely detached from our thinking, then there is even less room for trying to figure out if he exists, the hypothesis becomes even harder to falsify or unfalsifiable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I find the sovereignty of God argument pretty convincing. By being the only non contingent God is therefore the only truly free acting agent. This radical freedom makes him unrestrained from our conventional view of morality, or in other words, makes God the author of that morality. I recommend reading the whole chapter of Romans 9 for the subject.

            Rom. 9:20
            But rather, O man, who are you who answer back to God? Shall the thing molded say to him who molded it, Why did you make me thus?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Is the amount of suffering that I observe more expected on a theistic world-view or on an atheistic world-view?
            Yeah I guess the crux of it is that there just isn't enough information for me to make a confident guess from. I haven't seen any examples of coherent universes that I know to be theistic or atheistic. The only one I have access to is this one, and that's the one I'm trying to make a determination about. I'm curious what you think grounds your expectations.
            My guess would be intuitions about theistic universes largely stem from fiction, but then it would be unsurprising that the real universe resembles those fictional universes less than atheistic ones (which are usually copies of the real one). It is what it is, wheras fictional "universes" don't have the burden of being genuinely coherent every instant across unfathomable time and space. We can't really conclude anything from them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Romans 8:28

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Ockham committed basic logical fallacies
            Now that's some cope

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Get mogged by the problem of evil

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Christian theology couldn't even solve the problem of evil

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Me but it won’t be published because I’m while and the world only cares about gay people stories

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aristotle and that's it. All philosophy is the echo of Plato and Aristotle's bickering, and Aristotle won.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And then Plotinus came and essentially reconciled the two since they weren't necessarily in opposition
      Read more and slowly this time.

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Newton.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guenon unironically

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    As painful as it is to admit, Buddha.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He is literally the Tathāgata of course he’s right about the nature of reality.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why is it painful to admit.
      Pls tell me you are a priest.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Because Buddhists despite following some relatively solid frameworks set out by the Buddha manage to be the biggest midwit homosexuals on earth.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wittgenstein. He's the only philosopher you need to read

      old or young?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Kierkegaard.

      Aquinas

      Correct answers.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My brother this made me so euphoric. Le HECKIN TRUTH OF YAHWEH makes my penis so fricking hard, I think about Yeezus Krist all day and whack my penus, I’m so pious it’s crazy. israelite. Is. King.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you know thing you like? IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF GROUP YOU DONT LIKE
          are these weak gaslights all you got, rabbi?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You also neglect the fact he preached mostly to the isrealites for the first 20 years and also said the pharisees were in the seat of Moses and should be obeyed, just not to follow their example as they were hypocrites

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >first 20 years
            Didn't Jesus only start preaching at age 33 and then died later that year

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon probably means how he was preaching in the temple at age 12 arguing with rabbis.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tha doesn't count as part of his ministry.

            The absolute state of IQfy...

            I really don't know what you're talking about. Jesus didn't preach for 20 years.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I really don't know what you're talking about
            I know...nor was I talking about it, rather, I implied it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Smug morons are the worst morons

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The absolute state of IQfy...

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you know thing you like? IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF GROUP YOU DONT LIKE
            yes yes get new material

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >TO THE TRUTH
    >HOW THE WORLD WORKS

    Why? You already know. Proving that is something else.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche may not have said anything about how knowledge is possible or whatever, but he wrote extensively seeing that it is. I find that kind of endeavor much more true in my world.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsches greatest quality is that he wrote with his feelings.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A blight that ruined philosophy.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bergson and Whitehead
    In terms of contemporary philosophers there's only really Iain McGilchrist who is continuing what Bergson and Whitehead started

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Beatrix Potter.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define truth

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God.

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Muhammad

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel of course, but you can't understand Hegel if you have not already come to an understanding of the Truth on your own

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually Heidegger. I will not elaborate.

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hubbard

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >inb4 but he's a scientist and not a philosopher
    Science is natural philosophy. Therefore, logically every scientist is a philosopher.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Emmanuel c**t.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What is "world working" even supposed to mean

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pascal

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    St Paul and Jesus

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My Teacher.

    ?si=GnOgykQiK5I_TtoT

    -Elohim, the Night Dragon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like Keith Woods.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        only a little

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    marx

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i have been depressed lately. I feel worthless and anything i do doesn't carry any purpose. I feel human consciousness is an illusory cope and souls are a lie. I feel like nothing matters. Any philosophical books that reject all faith and still end with "just live happily man."
    I need literal copium

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’re good, man.
      I virtually certain, that the only real issue, that you’re suffering, from, is that you feel coping makes you weak.

      It does not.

      -Elohim, the Night Dragon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I feel worthless and anything i do doesn't carry any purpose.
      Worth and purpose are qualities that people invest in things, not discover as innate qualities. You define worth and purpose, or receive it from others you've already invested with worth.
      >I feel human consciousness is an illusory cope
      This is a different issue. Conciousness isn't illusory, I'm just not aware of any reason to believe its distinct from being a certain kind of object. Illusion is understood by its being different from a real state, but conciousness is exactly itself, and really is how you experience. It's like the one thing that IS like that.
      >souls are a lie.
      Probably, I haven't heard a coherent account of them where they DO anything (nonphysical at least)
      >I feel like nothing matters.
      This is the same as problem one. Nothing matters until someone invests something with meaning. For your perspective, you're the only one who can do that, although you can do it indirectly by assigning worth to some person or institution and adopting their value assessment as your own.
      If you're having trouble getting started with your own value system, I recommend starting with aesthetic judgments. That which is beautiful, pleasant, or intriguing is valuable, that which is ugly, unpleasant and uninteresting is valueless.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Souls are the perfect form that the body is supposed to ascend to. Imagine your life as you would have it given a wish from a genie. Now imagine instead how you would attain that life through any means that are actually available to you. The soul is the substance of your perfection, but it is clothed in its unknowing of how to achieve perfection or even what perfection might mean. It does know that it loves. It loves above all things that are like it, soul, but it is navigating the purifying furnace of material being to understand its own true nature. Just examine what it truly loves, what it cherishes most of all (other souls obviously, you wouldn’t speak if not seeking communion) and look to how you will better give what it cherishes most that which it cherishes desires most (again souls want each other more than anything, and truly loving something is to do whatever you can to make it happy, again in the knowledge that material stuff is only the conduit for souls and souls are the most important thing and further recursively reinforcing that teaching other souls that they should cherish other souls by teaching them to cherish other souls ad-infinitum is the only true path to happiness). Anyhow, reincarnation is bullshit 1. because souls are eternal and will ultimately end up together and 2. because reincarnation nullifies the meaning of your very real, very true, and very unavoidable death here.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Anyhow, reincarnation is bullshit 1. because souls are eternal and will ultimately end up together and 2. because reincarnation nullifies the meaning of your very real, very true, and very unavoidable death here.

          Reincarnation wasn't an idea thought up by philosophers talking together at a table. It's a real phenomenon that people have experienced. Even to this day there are stories of kids recounting past lives of real people that were documented or remembered by their original family. The Dalai Lama is 'picked' by similar means to this day. You can hate it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact it exists. Even the Celts believed in a similar concept called Metempsychosis.

          And reincarnation was a basic belief of nearly every culture around the world ala Shamanism. The belief system that existed nearly everywhere before any religion or philosophy existed. It's also one of the only belief systems that actively values the Earth and ecosystem over human achievement.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Reincarnation is a false name for the true phenomena of resonance. All souls are a part of the same soul sea, and parts of souls can be re-uptook after their “dissolution”, but one to one reincarnations don’t happen because the arrow of time can only ever collapse the infinitude of the multiplicity of being at the end of time, which clearly hasn’t occurred yet. Of course souls speak through the dead, that’s what mythology and artwork and literature and even biological genetics and the causality of events is, a ledger of soul in the fabric of time. Some of these souls may even speak through supernatural means as revelations of the future or past (what you’re referring to) but those who have been “reincarnated” are still in fact their own individual selves and souls. Sorry.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Time is not an arrow as all states are happening simultaneously. Just because entropy exists does not mean time only ever goes forward.

            >but those who have been “reincarnated” are still in fact their own individual selves and souls. Sorry.
            Why are you apologizing for agreeing with me? The fact is you will still come back to the physical if you don't make an active effort to escape the cycle. It is up to you to attempt to break the cycle in this lifetime. Or you could be passive and try to do it in many lifetimes.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I feel human consciousness is an illusory cope and souls are a lie. I feel like nothing matters.

      ?si=B5rtmaOyvJcEM4UQ

      Watch that

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You experience it directly. There is no good philosophical ground to call it illusory.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      epicurus

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What the Buddha Taught
      Mindfulness in Plain English

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      “Just live happily” almost always amounts to help others. See the two commandments of Christ. Have “ears to hear” and soften your heart. Imagine if you will, a very nice person coming up to you, and something tells you he wants nothing from you other than to be a good person, and he smiles at you and tells you he loves you and forgives you for not being perfect. Imagine yourself being that person for someone else. That’s Jesus. Just read the New Testament and don’t worry about “believing” in it or not. Just read what Jesus said, be open to it, and if you want to reject it, fine, but just consider it before you do.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Christians don't play video games. Ironic considering that one may consider video games about choice.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Of course they do. Although that is becoming more of a challenge. Video games are becoming very blasphemous.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Berkeley

  46. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus Christ

  47. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Charles Peirce and its not even close.

    We need more Peirce threads. In fact if one of you makes a Peirce thread I have some material to contribute that I think would be beneficial to those interested in semiotics.

    Sincerely, Gnostic Peircegay.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homie, why didn't you just say so?

      t. Peripatetic Peircegay

  48. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dat homie Rousseau was right about everything

  49. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein. He's the only philosopher you need to read

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      old or new?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It matters less than you think (I think). Start with TLP because it is short, and has a certain clarity, and I think his later work is more about complicating the overly rigid picture of language in the tractatus. The common thread through Wittgenstein's work is the unasking of questions that appear to be profound but are in fact specious, and identifying most of philosophy as falling into that category (TLP concludes by identifying itself as nonsensical, it is very strict).

        He was definitely a complete loon, and I don't think any of his defenders will really deny this. But he was good at identifying problems and expressing them in a pithy way, and in testing things to their absolute limits.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ... and he is definitely not the only philosopher you need to read, he's a big weirdo and Plato eg is much more congenial. But you should read Wittgenstein, even if you hate him he is very bracing and willing to go places that make philosophers particularly uncomfortable, for obvious reasons.

  50. 4 weeks ago
    चड्जीत सेक्स भगवान

    The Vedic sages

  51. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche, Evola, Foucault.

  52. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What is the point of this thread other than saying who you route for?

  53. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is a moronic question and you should stick to harry potter

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hans Blumenberg

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    socrates
    also plato is a homosexual Black person moron

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn’t Plato like write nearly everything we read about what Socrates said?

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    pseuds have killed IQfy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *nods assertively at your quiet observation beneath the profane cacophony of barbarous chitter-chatter*

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Correct.

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anaximander.
    The Aperion is the cosmos.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      This dude is so misrepresented.
      But he was ultimately correct.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, i don't get why he's always put on the same camp as Thales.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What bothers me is when they go:
          "oh we don't know what he meant by "Aperion" and im like:"what other thing is boundless that's not the fricking cosmos?"
          It drives me insane.

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pythagoras

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ted Kaczynski

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche and Schopenhauer

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who was in the wrong here?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'd sooner believe in hollow earth than flat earth

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >hollow earth
        Globetard version or koreshan version?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          More like Esoteric Hitlerism version

  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Rorty

  64. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre 100%

  65. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dogen , nisargadatta maharaj
    and your mom in my bed

  66. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >HOW THE WORLD WORKS
    That's a scientific problem.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      science can't define the world.

      heidegger did. and succeeded.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your mom is a scientific problem

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I solved that problem last night. You need a cylinder whose radius is twice that of embedded aperture. The rest is just sine waves.

  67. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dr Basedstein Scienceberg director of World Working Real Life studies

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What the frick? I didn't say basedstein, I said basedstein.

  68. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ayn Rand. Nearly all the world's problems are caused by trying to make the malevolent morality of altruism work.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this moron actually latched onto the weakest of all Rand's ideas
      I never thought I'd meet someone like you...

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/gA7K1Tp.jpeg

      >this moron actually latched onto the weakest of all Rand's ideas
      I never thought I'd meet someone like you...

      Do Randians still exist?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They're rich almost across the board and are relatively influential for how hostile the layman is to the ego.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm pretty randy right now 😉

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rand is totally right about altruism, but its definitely not right that the world's problems are cause by trying to make altruism work. Altruism is the principle underlying most of the errors in religious and secular moralities. It's way too narrow to think that people are actually trying to make altruism directly work. They're trying to make their chosen morality, which is at least partially wrong due to its altruistic element, work.

      Haters can be ignored, probably don't even know what Rand meant by altruism.

      They're rich almost across the board and are relatively influential for how hostile the layman is to the ego.

      They're rich because its the rare philosophy that gives real guidance for living a good life

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Brainless fanboying...

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Brainless reply

  69. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Werner Heisenberg.

  70. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Schoppy, and its not close.

  71. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    schopenhauer and we cant bear it

  72. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    god I love Jung

  73. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >There is nothing to annihilate because you and I are not real.
    This is a nihilistic interpretation of his teachings which he never endorses

  74. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    reading Buddha without understanding the hindu context (gitas, upanishads) that he is teaching from within makes it feel more nihilistic than it is

  75. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    St. Thomas Aquinas

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What's the difference betwixt his and Aristotelian metaphysics?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aquinas mixes in a lot more Platonism because he cannot ever outright contradict Augustine.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Aquinas mixes in a lot more Platonism because he cannot ever outright contradict Augustine.

        But as Martin Luther will point out, Thomism eventually does contradict Augustine outright lol

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            In metaphysics or ethics?

            Aquinas disagrees with Augustine on the papacy regarding the whole Peter or his confession as the rock thing, but that's the only thing I can think of. As well, you have Church Fathers on either side of that debate, so Aquinas can't be faulted too much.

            I don't really consider Augustine's whole "divine illumination" thing to be a major piece of his thought, which Aquinas obviously does disagree with. But maybe that?

            I'm a Lutheran myself, so am well aware of how much Luther disliked Aquinas. Or, rather, the interpretation of Aquinas. I'd love to see where exactly Luther criticizes Aquinas, and on what grounds, because I think Aquinas is more a Lutheran than anything else, much like Dorsch.

            Mainly on the point of grace, free will, and works.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You should read Aquinas' actual writings on grace, free-will, and works.

            On grace, he states that all of man's salvation is of grace, God is the mover of man's salvation, man is only the moved.

            On free-will, he states that God so reveals Himself to the elect by His grace that their wills are so healed as to will freely the goodness of God. The will of itself is always free, in that it is not coerced. However, it can only will the greatest good that is proposed to it by the intellect. If that greatest good is a good subordinate to the goodness of God, it wills that subordinate good necessarily. Luther's Bondage of the Will is near identical to Aquinas' own thoughts. Though in characteristic fashion, Luther states his position in EMPHATIC terms.

            On works, he very clearly states that they are only the effects of grace, the contingent building up ourselves in sanctification.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nta, nice post.

            how do you assess the accuracy of the admittedly rather polemically phrased blue text in pic related? And/or thoughts on any of the points raised in that pic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Weird. The medieval catholic church seems like it got really far away from Christian teaching. Seems like Reformed Theology is more consistent with Aquinas than Catholics are

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          In metaphysics or ethics?

          Aquinas disagrees with Augustine on the papacy regarding the whole Peter or his confession as the rock thing, but that's the only thing I can think of. As well, you have Church Fathers on either side of that debate, so Aquinas can't be faulted too much.

          I don't really consider Augustine's whole "divine illumination" thing to be a major piece of his thought, which Aquinas obviously does disagree with. But maybe that?

          I'm a Lutheran myself, so am well aware of how much Luther disliked Aquinas. Or, rather, the interpretation of Aquinas. I'd love to see where exactly Luther criticizes Aquinas, and on what grounds, because I think Aquinas is more a Lutheran than anything else, much like Dorsch.

  76. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hobbes, and I will not elaborate further

  77. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Just because this life’s not real doesn’t mean nothing matters.
    Says who?

  78. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein.

  79. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I truly think no one because truth is infinitely far away from regular, human perception

  80. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hard question. I'm sure some of them got close before that torch got passed to other fields.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >philosophy is obsolete because of science

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >obsolescence, a philosophical concept
        they can’t even, bros

  81. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Regarding the Upanishads, early Buddhist texts don’t ever mention it existing at the time of the Buddha. None of the thousands and thousands of suttas have any mention of it. So it was probably after Buddhism too.
    Professional scholars who are able to date the language of texts pretty much all agree that the early Upanishads predate Buddhism, it's basically a mainstream consensus that at least the Brihadarnayka and Chandogya Upanishads predate Buddhism and possibly some other ones too.

    Buddha also mentions the name "Chandoka" in the Tevijja Sutta which mentioning different Vedic portions which can only refer to the Chandogya Upanishad, showing that it predates Buddha, the "Addharaiya" is likely a reference to the Aitareya Upanishad which is in all likelyhood also pre-Buddhist

    >There are so many kinds of Brahmins who teach different paths: the Addhariya, the Tittiriya, the Chandoka, the Chandava, the Bramacariya.
    https://www.suttas.com/dn-13-tevijja-sutta--the-threefold-knowledge-the-way-to-brahma.html

    >It wasn’t until after Buddhism with the later portions of the Upanishads where the term Brahman morphed into a term for God.
    That's simply untrue, you are either lying or you are grossly and woefully ignorant. The Taittiriya Aranyaka portion of the Vedas predates even the Upanishads and says

    "By knowing Brahman one attains immortality here. There is no other way to its attainment" - Taittiriya Aranyaka 6-1-6

    >Modern Hinduism was heavily influenced by Shankara and he was a Shaivite. He worshipped Shiva.
    In his authentic works he doessn't say he particularly worships Shiva over other forms
    >A lot of people into Advaita Vedanta don’t seem to realize that. Shankara and Advaita Vedanta were heavily influenced by Mahayana Buddhism which emphasizes that the physical material world is an illusion,
    It wasn't, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads like Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya mention the unreality of multiplicity and this is where Shankara gets that idea from.

  82. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ayn Rand

  83. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All this diarrhea about western philosophers when Zou Yan solved this years ago. He wrote the most about YinYang theory from the YinYang school. Any of you anons arguing can feel your own qi if you bother to learn how to in less than one days time. After you do feel it you won't bother with all the pointless word masturbation that is western philosophy. I've gathered such an excess of yang chi when I first started with NeiGong that it was detrimental to my health.

    And just think about it logically. The Chinese have the highest average IQ out of any country or population today. IQ is genetic. That means the Chinese were likely always among the highest IQ people. It would follow that their philosophers would be pushing the bounds more than any other country. Their geniuses would be likelier to have 160+ IQs than Western ones.

  84. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bernard Lonergan.

  85. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nick Bostrom.

  86. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    buddha is the only correct answer

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t. moron

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