Why does anyone respect this guy?

Why does anyone respect this guy? His style that gets so much praise is utterly tasteless and even unreadable because his profligate use of dashes and substanceless prolixity actually angers me so much that I usually throw the book down after seeing a particularly unnecessary extravagance. His most original ideas are his most puerile, and his good ideas aren’t original. For the most part he’s just an obfuscated version of Epicurus. He didn’t even feel the need to read some of the people he criticized (Hegel) and his biggest influence was Schopenhauer, another gigantic pseud. His epistemology is basically just an immoralist Kant meaning he contributed absolutely nothing to epistemology or metaphysics, and his ethics can be thrown in the trash can seeing as they have no basis other than his pseudoscientific “psychological” ramblings. Seriously, if he didn’t believe a positive metaphysics was possible then why did he bother LARPing as a philosopher and just claim to be a psychologist? Yeah, Freud and Jung also wrote unfalsifiable un-empirical bullshit, but at least they pretended they had evidence and didn’t try to pass it off as genuine “philosophy” so they could get a pass for having no solid empirical basis. And to top it all off he didn’t even have the Kantian discipline to refrain from ontologizing the will to power. Frankly, everything he did, Stirner did better despite being less well read, and Stirner knew that he had already said all he had to say with his first book (and his response to critics) and didn’t bother shitting up the world with 20 more books of “witty” aphorisms and objectively bad poetry. And of course, Stirner wasn’t a raging misogynist. I genuinely have no idea why anybody cares about Nietzsche, I suppose it is because the people who read him are as shallow as he is.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus Christ von Hartmann get over it.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He shits on people I dislike, with style.
    >he contributed absolutely nothing to epistemology or metaphysics, and his ethics can be thrown in the trash can seeing as they have no basis other than his pseudoscientific “psychological” ramblings
    lol he definitely touched a nerve
    do you think other "philosophers" are somehow not rambling based on their own mental inclinations?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >definitely touched a nerve
      No, nothing I read in Nietzsche angered me, in fact I haven’t even read him in a while, I only made this thread because I picked up my copy of BGE a few days ago and flipped to a random page and immediately saw an em dash that literally added nothing to the sentence and it got me thinking why people praise his style
      >do you think other "philosophers" are somehow not rambling based on their own mental inclinations?
      That depends, obviously all philosophers don’t understand the basis of why they are saying what they are saying because reality is simply too complicated, but in the realm of epistemology and metaphysics at least most philosophers that are considered “great” actually at least tried to analyze positions with rigor and meticulousness.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >in the realm of epistemology and metaphysics at least most philosophers that are considered “great” actually at least tried to analyze positions with rigor and meticulousness

        I have nothing against Epicurus in fact Democritus is my favorite pre-socratic and I think the swerve was a good addition to Democritus’s physics. However Nietzsche is just utterly tasteless doesn’t deserve his reputation for originality
        >metaphysics is frankly just not that relevant to most Nietzscheans beyond Nietzsche's own offerings which were structured as thought experiments half the time
        Metaphysics is relevant because Nietzsche’s entire philosophy is defined by his rejection of metaphysics

        >Nietzsche’s entire philosophy is defined by his rejection of metaphysics
        Indeed, he is attacking your entire project—thomism, platonism, kantianism, whatever else it may be— claiming it is a question of one's values rather than actual truths being discovered.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >your project
          You don’t get it. My criticism of Nietzsche has nothing to do with whether metaphysics is possible or not. The problem is that if metaphysics isn’t possible, then the purpose of philosophy is merely transcendental criticism (i.e. epistemology/logic). But Nietzsche had nothing to add to the critique, so he decided to become a “psychologist” instead, yet he still kept the “philosopher” label because it allowed him to present his ideas without anyone requiring any kind of evidence or verification.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nietzsche had nothing to add to the critique
            apparently not, or we wouldn't be having this argument

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >his profligate use of dashes and substanceless prolixity actually angers me so much that I usually throw the book down
        >No, nothing I read in Nietzsche angered me
        You lost this internet argument m8, better luck with the next one

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Obviously in the first one I’m talking about his style and in the latter I’m talking about the actual content of what he wrote. I didn’t lose shit just because you’re too autistic distinguish the meanings of equivocal expression.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because he's the only philosopher I actually agree with.

      /thread

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Let the hate flow through you little troll, you are only becoming more Nietzschean. Nietzsche called Epicurean thinking inherently odd, but Epicurean thinking has a way of finding its way into a number of movements and ideas, at least your pent up stoic hate is oozing out though. Depending on how strictly you want to interpret Nietzsche the comparisons to Kant lose much of their edge, and metaphysics is frankly just not that relevant to most Nietzscheans beyond Nietzsche's own offerings which were structured as thought experiments half the time. He did refer to himself as a psychologist, and also his readers, but I suppose that means you would have had to read Nietzsche though. Ah yes, the Stirner line, trying to bring Stirner into this I see, you must really have some pent up hate to drag him into this, and no mention of spooks either. Go ahead anon, tell us how you really feel.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I have nothing against Epicurus in fact Democritus is my favorite pre-socratic and I think the swerve was a good addition to Democritus’s physics. However Nietzsche is just utterly tasteless doesn’t deserve his reputation for originality
      >metaphysics is frankly just not that relevant to most Nietzscheans beyond Nietzsche's own offerings which were structured as thought experiments half the time
      Metaphysics is relevant because Nietzsche’s entire philosophy is defined by his rejection of metaphysics

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Discussion of sensible qualities aside, there is only will, and everything else is just trying to make sense of it after the fact.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >ontologizing will to power
          Literally doing exactly what nietzsche makes fun of plato for (creating “metaphysical worlds”)
          You recognize that the body is the real source of your values and speculations but then make the body merely a pale reflection/emanation of the metaphysical “will to power”. It’s inconsistent

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why indeed do men want philosophers? This may allow us to guess why they want truth.
            >The pleasure for thinking does not refer to any craving for truth.
            >That which makes us human is something totally subjective.

            Since we are still engaging in activities as part of the herd and have forgone the war of all vs all you seem to be trying your hardest to dissimulate, so are you telling me now that all of your statements are just materistic assertions that the body is all you have? Then why exactly are you making so many references to metaphysics? You seem to be struggling to understand the world as something analogous to man.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Then why exactly are you making so many references to metaphysics
            Did you not understand anything I wrote homie? Whether metaphysics actually exists or not is irrelevant, the point is Nietzsche thought it didn’t so the only reason he would continue describing himself as a philosopher despite not having anything new to say about epistemology is so he can spew bullshit without getting fact checked
            >Since we are still engaging in activities as part of the herd and have forgone the war of all vs all you seem to be trying your hardest to dissimulate
            Yeah Black person, just pretend that without a sovereign you would TOTALLY frick me up in person bro, are you one of those guys that posts that primordial truth meme?
            >You seem to be struggling to understand the world as something analogous to man.
            Even if man is the measure of all things, then there are still a shit ton of men so intersubjectivity and basic pragmatism necessitates that we actually have empirical evidence or at least some kind of consensus for the shit we say, truth being in part created by man doesn’t give you license to pass off your idiosyncratic worldview as something insightful or useful for mankind, let alone as a revolutionary value system that is superior to all historical value systems. Let’s face it, there is no reason to accept Nietzsche’s values because we have no reason to believe they are grounded in any kind of truths about mankind. They are just the ramblings of one lonely and psychotic individual who clearly needed a wife to temper his ideas and his manuscripts.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no reason to accept Nietzsche’s values because we have no reason to believe they are grounded in any kind of truths about mankind. They are just the ramblings of one lonely and psychotic individual who clearly needed a wife to temper his ideas and his manuscripts.
            applies to all philosophers... and the notion of a married philosopher is a joke, you can thank Nietzsche for that insight as well

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Insight
            It’s just jealous coping because he was mogged and filtered hard by married philosophers like Aristotle and didn’t want to leave his incel hug-box of exclusively reading misanthropes like schopenhauer and dramatists like Plato

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Aristotle is full of shit. Cry some more

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah your hate breathes life into me. It is worth noting that YOU were the one bringing up Nietzsche's epistemology, and I have been quoting it nearly verbatim. Now you are trying to pose arguments of slave morality to me. I suppose this is your way of affirming his philosophy to me. I have no desire to impose my beliefs on you, or even Nietzsche's for that matter, if you find his views that repugnant then simply ignore them, I suppose you just wanted to get this off your chest by making the thread?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >YOU were the one bringing up Nietzsche's epistemology
            Yes? The fact that his epistemology adds nothing has been part of my criticism from the start. You proceeded to argue against something I never said so I explained again, twice, what my criticism actually was
            >Now you are trying to pose arguments of slave morality to me.
            What?
            >if you find his views that repugnant
            none of my arguments have anything to do with my finding him “repugnant”
            Clearly, you’re literally incapable of understanding what my criticism actually is, or maybe you do understand but simply have no response. maybe read someone other than Nietzsche and come back after you’re capable of independent thought

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Even if man is the measure of all things, then there are still a shit ton of men so intersubjectivity and basic pragmatism necessitates that we actually have empirical evidence or at least some kind of consensus for the shit we say, truth being in part created by man doesn’t give you license to pass off your idiosyncratic worldview as something insightful or useful for mankind, let alone as a revolutionary value system that is superior to all historical value systems. Let’s face it, there is no reason to accept Nietzsche’s values because we have no reason to believe they are grounded in any kind of truths about mankind. They are just the ramblings of one lonely and psychotic individual who clearly needed a wife to temper his ideas and his manuscripts.

            Nietzsche explicitly refers to what you mention as aspects of slavery or slave morality. Perhaps you are not actually familiar with Nietzsche's epistemology if you are still of some sort of belief there is 'one' so to speak, I suppose it is my turn to say that you need to read Nietzsche if you want to make the sort of criticisms you are making without sounding like so much useless noise. I have yet to see an independent thought from you, but you also sound like someone's slave, go fetch your master if this is such a point of contention for you.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My criticism obviously cannot be shoehorned into master vs slave morality because it applies to his setting up of the dichotomy in the first place

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ... I still have not heard your criticism of it? Or if I have, then my previous answer stands since you were woefully unable to recognize that which you were criticizing and opted for what Nietzsche refers to in such a way as I have delineated it. I am not trying to shoehorn anything, I will restate I have no desire to impose anything on you, rather you do not seem to be familiar with Nietzsche's 'epistemology' so to speak, and that is a sort of contradictory statement based on his epistemology, so in good faith I can only refer you to read what he had to say.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you on pills because they can frick with your free will lol Jesus predicted this like he predicted 9/11

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get how anyone can read TWTP and not be blown away. A truly gifted man who actually used his gifts to their full potential, that's what's really impressive. So many geniuses come and go without making a mark.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You little b***h. Just dont read him then. I dont give a frick. You are the mage Nietzsche is talking about in thus spoke Zarathustra. Literal scum.
    You are a lukewarm infertile passive aggressive uninspired b***h. You are a philosopher of ressentiment.
    >The sense of weakness or inferiority complex and perhaps even jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. This value system is then used as a means of justifying one's own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior, serving as a defense mechanism that prevents the resentful individual from addressing and overcoming their insecurities and flaws. The ego creates an enemy to insulate themselves from culpability.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >thinking that quote applies to me
      Point to where I used morality in my criticism of Nietzsche, homosexual

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Just cut off your dick you little b***h

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    basically he wrote in a way only highly intelligent, wise, creative people full of vitality could understand.
    That means that the highest class of person consistently reads, enjoys and profits from him.
    However you have this mass of people who want to act like they understand him, attempt to read him and lie and act like they like him and praise things like those things you call his
    >pseudoscientific “psychological” ramblings
    This leads to you, the third class. You aren't a good enough person to understand him but you are at least honest enough to not act like you do, so credit to you. Stick to whatever crap you are used to, don't bother. Like I said he intentionally wrote it so only a certain type of person would get it and based on your message you will have 0 chance.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >actually writing this
      lmao, I couldn’t imagine being you.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's obviously shitposting, probably to speak more clearly with someone of your caliber. Don't view it as a higher type of person, just a different. You are free to view it as even twisted or corrupt in some way. There is a certain type of person that communicates naturally in the way Nietzsche does, for example as I did just using constant hyperbole, lies, humor, contradiction, and disconnected tangents to make a point. That's how Nietzsche communicates and for people who also do that way he says quite a bit. I don't think the sorts of things he is saying are communicable apart from the idiosyncratic way of thinking and communicating though. It's just for some fringe weirdos. I promise even I'll see like "experts" on nieztche seriously explain something he said that is obviously a very funny joke and not see the humor in it at all. If you don't get it, that's fine, just move on. It's not for you.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Holy mother or midwit seethe

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >For the most part he’s just an obfuscated version of Epicurus
    100% didn't even read him

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Filtered lol. Nietzsche is the ultimate pleb filter. If you clutch your pearls at him or cope and sneed about his style you’re not a deep thinker.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you’re not a deep thinker
      Why would I care about being “deep” when all people who try to be “deep” end up writing is nonsense?

      ... I still have not heard your criticism of it? Or if I have, then my previous answer stands since you were woefully unable to recognize that which you were criticizing and opted for what Nietzsche refers to in such a way as I have delineated it. I am not trying to shoehorn anything, I will restate I have no desire to impose anything on you, rather you do not seem to be familiar with Nietzsche's 'epistemology' so to speak, and that is a sort of contradictory statement based on his epistemology, so in good faith I can only refer you to read what he had to say.

      I have explained why I don’t think perspectivism allows Nietzsche to arbitrarily set up his ideas and claim that they are great or true ideas because he said so and he’s a master. To merely categorize my argument as slave morality is to presuppose that the dichotomy of master vs slave morality is a valid epistemology which you can’t do because I’m engaging on the level of epistemology itself.

      It's obviously shitposting, probably to speak more clearly with someone of your caliber. Don't view it as a higher type of person, just a different. You are free to view it as even twisted or corrupt in some way. There is a certain type of person that communicates naturally in the way Nietzsche does, for example as I did just using constant hyperbole, lies, humor, contradiction, and disconnected tangents to make a point. That's how Nietzsche communicates and for people who also do that way he says quite a bit. I don't think the sorts of things he is saying are communicable apart from the idiosyncratic way of thinking and communicating though. It's just for some fringe weirdos. I promise even I'll see like "experts" on nieztche seriously explain something he said that is obviously a very funny joke and not see the humor in it at all. If you don't get it, that's fine, just move on. It's not for you.

      So you enjoy reading it because you “get” each other, that doesn’t mean you gain anything from agreeing with his ideas or that he was an original thinker. All I can say is that just because certain people like his style doesn’t mean it isn’t tasteless.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >So you enjoy reading it because you “get” each other, that doesn’t mean you gain anything from agreeing with his ideas or that he was an original thinker.
        Yeah you can't even read my posts clearly. All I said was don't bother, read something else. You won't be able to get at what people like in Nietzsche, that's fine, there's a bunch of other stuff you can read. Save yourself the effort just do other stuff.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Black person

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why would I care about being “deep” when all people who try to be “deep” end up writing is nonsense?

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

        Why does anyone respect this guy? His style that gets so much praise is utterly tasteless and even unreadable because his profligate use of dashes and substanceless prolixity actually angers me so much that I usually throw the book down after seeing a particularly unnecessary extravagance. His most original ideas are his most puerile, and his good ideas aren’t original. For the most part he’s just an obfuscated version of Epicurus. He didn’t even feel the need to read some of the people he criticized (Hegel) and his biggest influence was Schopenhauer, another gigantic pseud. His epistemology is basically just an immoralist Kant meaning he contributed absolutely nothing to epistemology or metaphysics, and his ethics can be thrown in the trash can seeing as they have no basis other than his pseudoscientific “psychological” ramblings. Seriously, if he didn’t believe a positive metaphysics was possible then why did he bother LARPing as a philosopher and just claim to be a psychologist? Yeah, Freud and Jung also wrote unfalsifiable un-empirical bullshit, but at least they pretended they had evidence and didn’t try to pass it off as genuine “philosophy” so they could get a pass for having no solid empirical basis. And to top it all off he didn’t even have the Kantian discipline to refrain from ontologizing the will to power. Frankly, everything he did, Stirner did better despite being less well read, and Stirner knew that he had already said all he had to say with his first book (and his response to critics) and didn’t bother shitting up the world with 20 more books of “witty” aphorisms and objectively bad poetry. And of course, Stirner wasn’t a raging misogynist. I genuinely have no idea why anybody cares about Nietzsche, I suppose it is because the people who read him are as shallow as he is.

        >I genuinely have no idea why anybody cares about Nietzsche, I suppose it is because the people who read him are as shallow as he is.
        was OP actually an advanced Nietzscheposter all along?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Obviously trying to be deep and being deep. And of course it’s possible to be deep where nature is shallow and shallow where nature is deep.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Obviously trying to be deep and being deep
            Are not the same*

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, if trying to be deep is shallow, and you are arguing Nietzsche is not deep because he doesn't dress up his opinionated value judgments as rigorous metaphysical realities, you are in trouble

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Perhaps you should read Nietzsche's works that directly pertain to epistemology. Once you understand it, then you will know how to refute it, at that point you can present a refutation and there will be nothing I can do about it. No master/slave/ubermensch dichotomy will be necessary on either of our parts.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Your position is literally that no communication is possible and Nietzsche can’t convince me of anything, essentially you already admitted that I can’t engage with what you said and any refutation additional to the and I already provided would just be dismissed in the same way. I don’t see why I should put any more effort into refuting something that isn’t robust enough to engage anyone who doesn’t already agree with it (or who isn’t a master morality superior aristocratic sovlfull prophet, in nietzschean terms)

          Well, if trying to be deep is shallow, and you are arguing Nietzsche is not deep because he doesn't dress up his opinionated value judgments as rigorous metaphysical realities, you are in trouble

          I
          Never
          Once
          Argued
          That
          Re
          Read
          My
          Posts
          You
          Miscegenated
          Ugly
          Balding
          Short
          Spearchucking
          Buttfricking
          Dicksucking
          Black person
          homosexual

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Actually, I am going to speak in total candor, I have been pondering a refutation of it for several years now, I do believe there is a way to do it, I am not far enough as of yet to elucidate the exact path to doing it, Nietzsche's own proposed thought experiments seem to indicate that he may have also thought there was a way to do so, and I have looked into several projects that are not necessarily related to Nietzsche but they have not been the most helpful, I suppose you can laugh at that if you like or dismiss it as schizobabble but I do believe it is actually possible, perhaps not in my lifetime but even Nietzsche himself refers to a sort of cryptic possibility of it through connecting several of his proposed thought experiments. Make of that what you like, until someone is able to do it, then to your point it is more of a 'I agree with this or I don't' sort of thing. Until someone can deliver a true kill then Nietzsche is not someone that will be filtered out of philosophy, and all attempts at this thus far have only made him stronger and more pervasive, in theory if everyone stopped thinking about him and left him to historical permanence then that would be the closest thing to a kill that could be managed, but he is still of inordinate fascination, so I do not see the second as a viable option.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thats your problem. You betray your cucked morality by seeking greatness, by defeating Nietzsche, while a real Chad would become his own. You are a perfect example of slave morality.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If we are splitting hairs then the use of Logic has already enslaved us both according to Nietzsche, albeit of an imperfect sort of slavery that is still subject to fluidity. I do not care about greatness or recognition, those things are largely meaningless to me, I suppose you are entitled to believe what you want, the herd does always try to enforce its morality. I am however, aware of what I am and I pursue what I wish, in essence what I envision would not have all that much to do with his master/slave/ubermensch dichotomy so you would still be free to hurl insults on 4chinz if I pull it off.

            Well if it’s not hegelianism, pragmatism, or some kind of phenomenology then I have no idea what you’re talking about

            Looking to other notable philosophies is not the answer, Nietzsche was too adept at maneuvering through and around them, and his epistemological word play coupled with his proposed thought experiments even seem to indicate he did not think it would happen in that sphere.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            git really fricking gud buddy, or Im gonna piss on you so hard.
            You have no idea of who I am
            good luck

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nietzsche was too adept at maneuvering through and around them
            But Nietzsche didn’t read Hegel and the other two I mentioned postdate him
            >word play

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He didn't read Hegel, but when he did encounter some of his ideas, he basically said "frick you Schopenhauer, this dude is based."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I want to say I have read one of Nietzsche's letters making mention of him having read Hegel, but I cannot recall which one or point you in a direction. There are certainly Hegelian aspects of thought to some of Nietzsche's ideas, and I have secretly suspected him of being quasi-Hegelian for some time, those points aside the PoS alone would leave Hegel largely unaffected if Nietzsche's epistemological beliefs were refuted. The other 2 being later developments is not quite what I was referring to, and that would be true if they were earlier developments as well, an outright refutation will likely not come from a competing philosophy, the only thing a competing philosophy would be able to do is perhaps leave Nietzsche to historical obsolescence, but so far none have managed this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzsche was steeped in Hegel. Nietzsche was a studious and dedicated philologist who showed such a level of prodigiousness that he was given the youngest professorship ever awarded for his subject.
            OP by contrast is a seething nobody who's definitely never read Hegel. OP is an idiot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NEETzsche could not read and he was a cretin.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well if it’s not hegelianism, pragmatism, or some kind of phenomenology then I have no idea what you’re talking about

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    not enough em dashes; didn't read

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nice bait OP, gotta give you that.
    Now have a nice day once and for all.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And dont forget to cut your dick off

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Childhood is when you idolize Nietzsche. Adulthood is when you realize Wagner makes more sense.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I read Artwork of the Future. It was garbage.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based. Wagner is the endboss of Western Philosophy.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Inspires elden Ring century later I'd say he's pretty based. I am IQfy man.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He attracts a lot of anons idk it just is

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche is a project for atheist and so is doomed to fail. Embrace Christ.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The externalized centralization of truth (God) is no longer tenable, or desirable. God is one dead b***h and that b***h ain't returning.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Like I said, a project for atheist. It will fail because no matter how much you wish for it to be so, truth will be irrelevant to your desires

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It might fail, but we won't return to Christianity, because God is dead.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is the epitome of a "filtered" post

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    He's making christcucks anf midwits seethe a hundred years later, that's good enough for me. Also, read Deleuze.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think anyone here does

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