[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File *
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Sister Boards [ History ] [ Christ ] [ Politics ]

File: 1411489462074.jpg (83.18 KB, 322x421, 322:421, Plato&Aristotle.jpg)

aea53a No.86[Reply]

Rules

1- Respect the Global Rules.
2- Moderation will be kept to a minimum. Shitposting is not encouraged and spamming the board will result in a ban.
3- SFW board.


Resources for Beginners

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - probably the most complete source for philosophical content available online
http://plato.stanford.edu/

Open Lybrary - over 250,000 books available to browse, read or borrow
https://openlibrary.org/

04ade2 No.3643

File: 1456239360186-0.jpg (513.08 KB, 2048x1366, 1024:683, philosophy.jpg)

File: 1456239360188-1.jpg (1.07 MB, 3672x3024, 17:14, Start with the Greeks.jpg)

File: 1456239360188-2.jpg (415.66 KB, 1858x1354, 929:677, lit guide to philosophy.jpg)

For beginners:




File: 1458690467377.jpeg (121.82 KB, 855x569, 855:569, image.jpeg)

009e35 No.3781[Reply]

It amazes me that we enable elites to become so rich when they are so wasteful and tasteless. This painting sold to a Chinese bilionaire for 170 million USD.

009e35 No.3782

File: 1458690806881.jpeg (67.18 KB, 620x387, 620:387, image.jpeg)

And here is the same billionaire victoriously sipping tea from an rare ancient chinese tea cup he bought for 30 million in an auction. Purchased just for his vanity! Tasteless people like him (usually Chinese) are destroying art. These brutes never should have been allowed to become so rich in the first place without giving back. My impoverished geography teachers have had comparably better tastes than this friend to the mafia. I can't stand how we glorify the wasteful and culturally destructive lifestyles of the rich.


cdb229 No.3783

>>3781

>>3782

>the chineese are to blame

m8, avant garde shit up the art world decades before china came to be any kind of power. but you are correct in blaming this on the rich, just not on the correct ones.


7dc075 No.3788

rich people often buy expensive paintings and automobiles not because they really want to drive them or look at them but to keep there wealth in physical form while also being inflation-proof.

learn2invest




File: 1458376264200.png (26.37 KB, 803x400, 803:400, isthere.png)

000000 No.3756[Reply]

any good stand alone intro books into philosophy? with available torrents or libgen scan available?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

000000 No.3777

>>3764

becuz the republic totally a good foundation for looking into post-platonic modern philosophy.


a019ff No.3780

>>3775

Translation: reading coherent thinking is SO BORING TO ME and it hasn't helped me establish my identity as a poser-atheist-enlightened-wise-beyond-my-years fedora kid.

Actually, if you really want to get something good out of your reading more than some plagiarized talking points to seem interesting to morons, you should read the translation of Plato's writing by Jowett. But that's just my advice. Republic is a razor sharp dissection of society extremely relevant even now. It's a very good example of effective rhetoric. I've never seen anything quite as good on the whole.

Looking at things as "philosophy" or not is really pretentious. It's just a word you have to use some times because it's all the common language provides. Be honest about what you're doing. You are looking for ideas you can't get from talking to anyone you have in your life. You are looking for social interaction. But you are also looking for truth. Don't let the former hurt the latter


83da67 No.3784

>>3777

did he ask for an introduction to post-platonic modern philosophy? besides, modern philosophy is generally hair splitting epistemology that wouldn't necessarily interest a beginner, outside of Nietzsche, marx, and stirner because muh maymays.

what better way to begin your studies of the subject than a single book which covers nearly every topic of philosophical inquiry in a palatable, and i must say somewhat enjoyable, manner? i understand pointing people towards compendiums on the history of the philosophy (i have even recommended some myself on this very board) i just disagree on it in this instance because OP hasnt specified hes a college student. anyway i probably should just link to republic, since i didnt before.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqGsg01ycpk

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0167

the youtube link is my preferred translation

>>3775

and what do you think philosophy is?


50fe7c No.3786

>>3780

That's quite the assertion from so little having been said. Looks like someone struck a nerve.


83da67 No.3787

File: 1458706200113.jpg (304.34 KB, 1512x1057, 216:151, Périclès.jpg)

>>3786

>lol u mad?




File: 1458530523491.jpg (63.04 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 800px-Libyan_Dessert.jpg)

39a8fc No.3768[Reply]

Women believe ANYTHING they hear in the social sphere they grow up in.

About the changed nature of women:

From having to watch over others constantly since the beginning of humanity, they became selfless. Because they were so close to all the needs and wants of their people, they developed the instinct to trust them absolutely and a true understanding of their people was taken for granted.

When they were relieved of many responsibilities to their people by the 'modernization' of society the trait of selflessness became hollow and so turned to nothing but self-unawareness, leaving the instinct to implicitly trust their social sphere intact to be turned to purposes other than what made it to begin with.

Considering the addition of 'the media' to the general social sphere, with all of its inherent falsehoods, the women go absolutely crazy. Literally insane; completely turned against their own nature.

Their nurturing instincts are used to nurture the interests of the upper classes as handed down from the media rather than those of the actual people they see and interact with every day, even their own children.

Instead of being warm with compassion they are cold with judgements calculated from the information they are brainwashed with.

So it is that women are the primary tool of the upper classes to control us all, because men will do anything for their women. So it is that love is turned against us and the very foundation of our existence is betrayed.

This is the great vulnerability in the mind of the human that is exploited to make civilization by slavery.

Men and women were never much different in their minds. Now even our men are being feminized so they too can be exploited and used to exploit in this way.

Feminism is really feminization. <but also just as significant is the masculinization of women>

By making women interchangable with men, men will be more likely to follow the example of a woman. This makes a man take on traits of a woman, and so he becoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

a060c0 No.3771

>>3770

>Yeah I know they would. That's why I'm not going to post it there.

okay ill do it for you then.

>Do you have any refutation?

yes. you have fundamentally misunderstood what is and isnt free in the first place.

>How is it that you suppose I am passing judgement of right or wrong?

well, the title of your piece is stating that someone has discovered a method to destroy something anyone would deem as good, to turn us into slaves, which no one would think is good. but how is this passing judgement? you are saying someone is doing something that is' bad. but idk im presupposing a lot there. i blame it on the heady atmosphere of loaded words in your piece.


a060c0 No.3772

>>3770

>am I meant to take the whip you have provided and lash myself?

no need to be all homo about it fam.


39a8fc No.3773

>>3771

Haha well. I was going to rewrite and expand it for such an audience but I wanted the criticism of cooler heads first.

I wrote this to be provocative, yet I would assert that its foundations are reserved.

To your reply I only have one comment: It is not anyone who would think that the destruction of freedom is evil. To a slaver this would be good!


08762a No.3779

File: 1458664320941.webm (7.45 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, my feel when.webm)


8bcae1 No.3785

>>3773

>Haha well. I was going to rewrite and expand it for such an audience but I wanted the criticism of cooler heads first.

well you can still post it there, i only pasted it onto dae lae supper sekrit /pol/ that no one browses, so you can still post it on cripple/pol/

>It is not anyone who would think that the destruction of freedom is evil. To a slaver this would be good!

no slaver would want to be a slave, though.




File: 1454987812465.png (68.95 KB, 216x324, 2:3, subgenius-praise-bob.png)

629bab No.3544[Reply]

One can only do what one desires to unless force otherwise.

Therefore whatever someone does of their own free will is something they desired to do.

Therefore any good action someone does of their own free will is not a good action because it is an action they desired to do anyway.

69ad93 No.3545

>Therefore any good action someone does of their own free will is not a good action because it is an action they desired to do anyway.

An awkward conclusion, resting on a lot more premises than given in your argument. Good and evil are properties that do not require free will, though that position has become somewhat of a truism lately.


7202c5 No.3547

>>3544

i dont follow your logic.why cant you choose to do good?

ill just go ahead and save the philosophy majors around here their time by posting their defacto response

define good action

define desire


2e214f No.3676

>something good isn't good because you desired for it to happen

This is a false statement. Nowhere in the definition of "good" does it say it must happen by chance and never of free will.

I understand you're really posing the question, "Do we ever do anything because it's good, or do we only ever act in self-interest?"

But this ignores the fact that we can desire to do something because it is good. Humans are vain creatures, and they have fought and died for what they believed was right and wrong, for no personal gain.


938b9f No.3778

>>3544

I think what you are trying to say is that when we help someone or do any good deed, you do it because you fulfill some narcissistic needs or it makes you happy, you recieve some emotions from it, you do not do it solely for doing good, you do it in exchange of something, and that is caused by our nature.




File: 1457805904353.jpg (27.82 KB, 372x400, 93:100, 9781862075962.jpg)

cf7063 No.3736[Reply]

Read it /philosophy/. Especially if you've also read Stirner and other pessimistic works such as Schopenhauer, Cioran, etc. It also would be helpful to have knowledge of evolutionary theory.

It makes me cry tbh. But probably the best 21st century philosophy book I've read.

c73056 No.3741

Oink oink. We're animals, porkies that aimlessly scatter, eating, eating, eating.. with no point to it. All of us, glorified pigs. Now, aren't we, aren't you, such a porky?


dff9ae No.3742

I wouldn't say Stirner is a pessimist. Rather, he'd have to be a very naïve optimist to think his brand of philosophy would ever work anywhere but inside his own mind. And the milkshop tale associated with him very much corroborates this.


343a6e No.3776

Reading it now after seeing this post.

Very good book. It's a nice coalescence and breakdown of ancient and modern philosophical thought in regards to the progression of the pervasive thought that humans are different from other animals.




File: 1447175718035.jpeg (42.79 KB, 365x403, 365:403, image.jpeg)

98d4da No.2357[Reply]

Is this what XXI century philosophy looks like?

http://mundusmillennialis.com

26 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

0499b5 No.3755

>>3754

>You have semicolons, colons and incorrecrly used commas.

His punctuation is correct. Please, show me ONE instance of his "incorrect use of punctuation".

>The writing style could not be more pretentious.

How is his writing style pretentious?

>And it's completely garbage. "The linguistic progression of a concept?" The linear progression? Temporal progression?

It's pretty self-explanatory. The progression of a concept in language...

>What if concepts dont progress?

But they do.

>Its assumptions based on vague definitions

What assumptions?

What "vague definitions"?

>written IN ALL FUCKING CAPS

And?

You just seem frustrated and mad at not being able to understand.


0f9d7f No.3762

>no ure just mad

great arguments there bro

",secondly," is a punctuation mistake

What if concepts exist simultaneously? Why must there be any "progression"? That's an assumption.

Why would abstraction come before particulars? Aristotle and nearly half of the consensus is the other way, that the particular comes before the abstract.

Like I said, assumptions based on vague definitions.

"Linguistic progression", based off of one language or all languages? Some languages? What is linguistic? Does writing count as linguistic or is it just speech? Or both? Pretty vague definition.

Oh wait, let me say your response.

>ure wrong and stupid


970003 No.3765

>>3762

you are wasting your time talking to this redditor, lad.


0499b5 No.3766

>>3762

It seems that you need to go to /philosophy101/


33f37f No.3774

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>2357

Nah, 21st century philosophy will be like this.




File: 1458530103532.gif (88.18 KB, 550x100, 11:2, Tumbleweed01.gif)

d36b17 No.3767[Reply]



File: 1453305505987.jpg (110.89 KB, 500x500, 1:1, fragezeichenmädchen.jpg)

d5a0bc No.3434[Reply]

Does determinism result in nihilism?

12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

fd57c6 No.3663

File: 1456549604122.jpg (90.66 KB, 563x650, 563:650, 1435002714531.jpg)

>>3662

let me post the pic now, dunston


af3115 No.3664

>>3661

Fatalism says something will be regardless of preceding events, the other says something will be the necessary consequence of preceding events.

For a practical application, take the judicial system. Fatalists would say that if that person is fated to commit another crime, then why bother punishing or imprisoning them? If it's fated there's nothing we can do.

Some determinists (because there are many different strands of determinism) would say that the only way to stop them committing crimes against would be punishment/rehabilitation, since that is the cause that is required for them to stop doing that. Without doing that the person is more likely to re-offend. The imprisonment/rehabilitation is what causes the person to stop committing crime, rather than merely fate.


100fd2 No.3668

determinism sucks muh radical freedom


f36aa0 No.3760

Indeterminism results in nihilism as well. A better question would be what doesn't result in nihilism


274855 No.3763

>>3760

stoicisim




File: 1437677238749.png (865.99 KB, 1166x764, 583:382, continental1.png)

423946 No.1867[Reply]

Can a philosopher be "overrated"?

If so, is there an example of one?

38 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

492b01 No.3190

File: 1451616807754-0.png (2.58 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 4436575-2538626751-H2A_-.png)

File: 1451616807754-1.jpg (68.36 KB, 850x400, 17:8, quote-do-not-go-gentle-int….jpg)

File: 1451616807771-2.jpg (52.23 KB, 551x380, 29:20, streets-houses-books-monoc….jpg)

>>2888

>Still want to be reborn in heaven? Once again Buddhism offers that. It is a more sophisticated and mature religion.

It doesn't say anything about it, considering the matter acinteyya or "imponderable". It in fact even discourages one from thinking about it, claiming that such question are distractions that should be avoided for the sake of "practicality". How's that for sophistication and maturity?

>[Grumbling] This one's "heresy", and this one's "attachment", are the same

There's no more reason why a person achieving salvation through Christ would want to return to Earth than someone escaping rebirth through the Eightfold Path.

>Buddhism tries to prepare your mind to accept the natural end of all things unlike in Christianity.

And in doing so, guarantees such ending. Mr. Thomas has some words for you

>>2889

>But like most people you do not know what you really want

lol, #rekt amirite?

> And you give me the choice between a description that is sure but that teaches me nothing and hypotheses that claim to teach me but that are not sure. A stranger to myself and to the world, armed solely with a thought that negates itself as soon as it asserts, what is this condition in which I can have peace only by refusing to know and to live,


b6267f No.3203

>>2889

Do you know what I want? No? Then I guess I'm more qualified to say what I want.


9388a5 No.3227

File: 1451795997767.jpeg (29.53 KB, 585x442, 45:34, image.jpeg)

>>3190

>There's no more reason why a person achieving salvation through Christ would want to return to Earth than someone escaping rebirth through the Eightfold Path.

How about compassion? Bodhisattvas delay their departure to help others to esape from suffering first.

>It doesn't say anything about it, considering the matter acinteyya or "imponderable". It in fact even discourages one from thinking about it, claiming that such question are distractions that should be avoided for the sake of "practicality". How's that for sophistication and maturity?

Buddha spoke about his past lives in some texts. He remembered being the head god of gods 36 times (undoubtably for many long eons each time), and don't you think you would get tired of that?

"Thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the devas. And many hundreds of times I was a wheel-turning monarch, righteous, a king of righteousness, conqueror of the four regions of the earth, maintaining stability in the land, in possession of the seven treasures."

Yes, you are "supposed" to focus on escaping samsara. But you can focus on other things as some schools do. The pure land school believed you the dharma had become so corrupted it was necessary to seek to be reborn in a pure land before seeking pari-nirvana.


453a49 No.3236

>>2741

..Julius?


ac89b6 No.3761

Foucault, a thousand times Foucault. Also Chomsky, but if he is looked at in a more sobering light after his death, he has a chance




File: 1444946028502-0.jpg (Spoiler Image, 182.24 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, image.jpg)

File: 1444946028503-1.jpg (Spoiler Image, 76 KB, 500x715, 100:143, image.jpg)

ad472f No.2139[Reply]

Discuss whether any of these are 'morally wrong?' Pictures are of Saaya irie when she was 11.

36 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

f4ae82 No.3321

>>3316

>>3317

interesting


befa20 No.3430

>>2934

r/K theory is obsolete. Smarter people tend to wait until they're older before they try to have kids (when they're more able). Also, they tend to be able to control themselves better.

>>3317

>>3316

This definitely merits further research.


3f0a22 No.3512

Only thoughts I ever had on the subject comes from when I was going through puberty. I used to search the Internet for younger girls porn because that was my age and older women seemed wrong, not teen porn.i also wasn't very smart and never tried to hide behind proxies or anything while doing this so I got very lucky that I was never caught because if I was I would be guilty of a crime. A crime that would both be telling me that I'm not old enough to consent to sex but is also inherently a sex crime. This makes no sense and should never be enforced and really needs to be changed


6ab2a9 No.3744

It's obviously not a very black and white issue when it comes to attraction. Being attraction to OP's pic isn't wrong. She is incredibly mature and is wearing revealing clothing. If she looks like a toddler and you were sexually attracted to that then it would be worrying. Eitherway knowingly and willingly having sex with someone so young is definitely wrong. They are not mentally and possibly physically able to go through with such an act in good judgement.


08442a No.3752

>>3316

Though I mostly share your conclusions, I did not reach them through much scientific research, though anecdotes and forums helped. Rather, being more of a social liberal and trying to have an open mind while questioning the foundation of sexuality did it. It was a slow thought process, and I don't think I could have made the cognitive jump if I were still prejudiced against gays, trannies, "sexual deviants", the sexually promiscuous, and fornificators. It's really not society's business to harshly judge and punish people for what they consent to do in a bed room, or to dictate in absolutes which bonds are off limits. People should become accustomed to finding fair exceptions for every rule.

For example, I know of a forum post where an older woman has admitted to fucking her younger brother. They both post and say they're in love with each other, and the brother has a heart condition that will give him an early death, and they both have a lot of emotional issues from childhood abuse - the brother even tried to kill himself once. If these two can find stability in each other and don't have retarded kids, it shouldn't matter that the brother is technically still a senior at High School and it's incest.




File: 1458079044445.jpg (4.44 MB, 2048x2912, 64:91, Hilary_Putnam.jpg)

b730f3 No.3748[Reply]

GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE

e6389b No.3749

I always thought he was a woman due to the name. I was surprised when I found out I was wrong a year or so after I had first read the name.




File: 1455113437782.jpg (385.46 KB, 4096x2304, 16:9, get ready.jpg)

8ba3e0 No.3557[Reply]

:^)

11 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

72fd57 No.3714

File: 1457340860303-0.jpg (40.8 KB, 640x360, 16:9, what.jpg)

File: 1457340860347-1.png (162.13 KB, 476x575, 476:575, 1450921184995.png)

Wait, wait, wait. Was Hypatia black?


5bb1a2 No.3717

>>3714

WE WUZ PHILOSOPHERS N SHIET


ea5048 No.3718

>>3714

>>3717

It's great because she was based in Egypt.


52f342 No.3746

File: 1458001867982.jpg (29.62 KB, 320x240, 4:3, 11572-2782.jpg)

>tfw these meme course videos are actually used in classrooms

I want to die


f50076 No.3747

>>3746

MODS MODS MODS




File: 1428462105093.jpg (24.77 KB, 440x330, 4:3, 1422011075070.jpg)

3d7704 No.1362[Reply]

Are you happy /philosophers/?
53 posts and 10 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

c0e630 No.3445

>weeks out

>still no reply from the r/philosophy mod

kek

>>3425

theres only like 3 total ancient stoic works, you should read all of them, and i will link them all to you, but you should start with epictetus, and the enchiridion in particular http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html because its short and a good guide to being a stoic. next you should read the discourses http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html ( although if you have the money, you should buy this translation instead, as it has excellent annotation http://www.amazon.com/Discourses-Fragments-Handbook-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199595186/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 ) to acquire a more in depth insight into all things stoic. just know that the discourses were notes taken by a student of Epictetus, and the discourses are notes that he took of Epictetus casually conversing with students, and not even necessarily intended to be a book.

Marcus aurelius is next (http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.1.one.html but this is a rather antiquated translation, if you have the money i would reccommend this translation http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Aurelius-Transformation-Paganism-Christianity/dp/B004AXL5NE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453532814&sr=1-1&keywords=marcus+aurelius+classics+club as it is modernized in terms of speech and has excellent annotation,) and both gives further insight into leading a virtuous life, and is an excellent example for how to write your own meditations

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

5ec90b No.3511

>>2060

And if you don't know that you don't know? What if I think maybe I do know.


c9cec2 No.3706

>>3308

back to reddit you go, you can enjoy your egotism, sense of worth, and censorship there.


a07014 No.3733

Why be happy when I could be interesting?


a82663 No.3745

>>3733

Why live a life worrying about what other people think about you when you could be happy?




File: 1447995062019-0.jpg (44.06 KB, 490x700, 7:10, kierkegaard.jpg)

File: 1447995062019-1.jpg (201.86 KB, 1381x874, 1381:874, albert-camus.jpg)

0a5e3b No.2456[Reply]

Who is your favorite existentialist, /philosophy/?

24 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

6f28f1 No.2520

>>2519

The minute I hear someone invoke the ad hominem fallacy, I automatically assume you are a stormnigger who throws around logical fallacies as though they will necessarily win every argument.

Anyways: Existentialism is objectively, demonstrably a pop philosophy on the basis that it is the only branch of philosophy that has enjoyed any popularity in popular media (muh Fite Club XDDD although I actually like that movie kek). And this is more or less the extent of its significance, aside from Sartre's influence on Focault and Simone de Beauvoir's influence on the feminist movement (which sadly has taken a turn for the worse; she must be rolling in her grave).

Existentialism itself is a worthless branch of philosophy because its content consists almost entirely in prescriptive claims about how to approach the human condition. Sartre blatantly stole from Heidegger - whose conceptualization of the idealistic plane that post-Kantian philosophy confines us to is, in my opinion, a brilliantly accurate one - and added to it that we all "create" meaning. But the very idea of "creating" meaning is as absurd as the concept of meaning itself - which in language is more or less impossible to locate (see Quine's "Ontological Relativity"), and which elsewhere is a pseudo-philosophical concept (the "meaning of life" - could there be any more a stereotypically "deep" question!?). It is not so much that humans can consciously create meaning or that we phenomenologically "create" meaning, so much as we are under the illusion of meaning which corresponds to absolutely nothing outside of us. And this is without even addressing the problems in developments since Existentialism that have been raised vis a vis post-structuralism, which would critique it on the basis that we do not create meaning so much as we regurgitate the historical and cultural circumstances we are thrown into. While we cannot help but believe that our words have a shared meaning or that our lives have purpose, much like we must believe we are free and act as if we are, in both cases we have no rights to these beliefs. They exist in our minds alone and on this basis any privileging of them in any philosoPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


6f28f1 No.2521

>>2520

(keep in mind that I am not counting Nietzsche and Kierkegaard here as Existentialists; they are proto-Existentialists).


6f5c78 No.3734

>>2494

It's not. I mean, it can allow for agnosticism, but that's not the point of it. The point of it is that we can find meaning in the struggle.


6f5c78 No.3735

>>2520

>who is socrates

I don't agree with your analysis. Existential philosophy purely stems from the premise that existence precedes essence, that essential arguments are after the fact semantics which almost always come from wishful thinking. Instead we should look towards what we perceive and what our desires are.

If existentialism was purely pop philosophy, then Stirner would be a lot more popular, given that he influenced most of it. Individualism and egoism stem directly from existential philosophies such as absurdism, and so I oppose your analysis that it is worthless. We don't "create" meaning I agree- we form our own identities is the point. It's about dealing with human desires and needs and their conflict with both reality and their standards, as opposed to metaphysics.

Existentialism isn't a monolith so I also disagree with your suggestion that it makes "gross and indefensible claims" unless of course you're arguing against the core premise that existence precedes essence which I don't think you have demonstrated.

The meaning of life is only one part of it, that's the part that's been pop-ized.

I think you are confusing existentialism, which is just the branch, with Sartre and such's philosophies.


1208de No.3743

>>2520

Advice: I agree with your opinion, but that's merely a coincidence. Ranting like this won't ever get anyone on your side.




Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
| Catalog
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]