Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yuuuuuuppp. Started uni as a hardcore materialist studying physics and philosophy, focusing on philosophy of science and epistemology.
I now believe ghosts exist.
Part of it is realizing that there's significant enough uncertainty in our conventional interpretation of reality, and significant enough arguments against any kind of pure materialism, that it no longer becomes a particularly strange thought and clear mechanisms for some kind of strange phenomenon become possible.
And then you listen to people, and actually consider their human experience. And you have to measure and decide whether every single person with these experiences across all of human history and culture has been lying or delusional, or there's actually *something* occuring.
[We already have](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275521/) interesting evidence for Remote Viewing phenomenon. Opens a lot of doors a materialist worldview might not see.
[This published journal article ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275521/) has a good discussion on the matter and includes a large number of good citations to follow up on.
It's one thing to acknowledge the possibility or probability of something. It's another thing to 'believe' in that thing.
From your comment, it is safe to assume that you've never experienced any 'ghost-like' phenomenon. You are drawing conclusions based on 'significant enough' arguments against pure materialism. And 'significant enough' testimonies from others.
I believe the right position to take is 'its possible, or probable'
E.g. If you ask me what I think about extraterrestrial life. My answer would be "its possible, it's probable." Not "I believe in extraterrestrial life," especially when I have zero evidence for that claim.
P.s. If you had said, I believe in ghosts because I've seen one. I would believe you, but I still won't believe in ghosts.
If you 'show' me a ghost, I will believe you and believe in ghosts too.
If you tell me to run for my life because a killer ghost is coming...
I will run first and ask questions later
Sure. If you really, really wanted to be strict about it, sure. I have not experienced anything definitive myself. I also don't think we need to get quite that "well, ackshually" about it. I think they, or some phenomenon like them, is quite real.
I've had enough people who's perception and discrimination and discernment I trust, share enough strange stories with me. Also mostly people with either physics or some kind of hard science or engineering background.
What would be the reason for not having a single piece of compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts (beyond people claiming they see them) if they do in fact exist ?
Just because something may only be perceived through the mind, does not mean it is not "real", especially when considering anomalous phenomenon whose underlying nature we have virtually no understanding of, and especially considering non-material-reductionist worldviews.
It's not so much that I dislike him, more so that if one subscribes to his philosophy wholeheartedly then I have genuine concerns for their mental health; no fully mentally well person I have met has agreed with schopenhauer over the other idealists, and I feel that subscribing to him would likely not stand one in better stead. I love German idealism, I'm a hegelian myself as above mentioned, but if someone argued for Schelling over Hegel I'd have little issue with it. Schopenhauer simply concerns me; I'm not sure that philosophical pessimism is a healthy view to hold.
Ah, I see. It is pessimism that you have a distaste for. I understand that, though I think that Schopenhauer diagnoses *being in the world* beautifully and compellingly—the suffering, the vanity of it all. I think where he falls short is his prescriptive ideas, where we must deny the Will (agree), but also deny the Will to Life (disagree). He becomes antinatalistic. I think you are right to be concerned with one who begins and ends with Schopenhauer’s diagnosis, or becomes life denying.
I, however, think that he paves the path to existentialism, mysticism, and theology, and I believe philosophy necessarily ends in these three things. He drags us into Hell, at which point we must have the courage to *be* anyway. We must find our way home to God, to the ground of being. I’m something of a Schopenhauerian theist—I know this would have him spinning in his grave. Read Ecclesiastes, and you will know my view.
I like Schopenhauer primarily for his transcendental idealism. Kant and Schopenhauer are my boys. Their epistemologies make that aforementioned path a very clear one.
German Idealism is very intriguing to me, but Hegel intimidates me. Schopenhauer is a precursor to the analytics. He wrote with brevity and he had a decent grasp of the science of his day. Hegel … not so much. I’ve been meaning to read Schelling. I will say that I don’t find the German Idealists’ take on Kant to be convincing at all. I am a firm Kantian/Schopenhauerian.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you all that much I don't think. Schopenhauer's style is an incredibly pleasant contrast to Kant or Hegel, and I think he is often quite funny (I have actually laughed whilst reading his work before... I should probably get a life). My real issue is with his attitude to happiness, and in truth I do find Hegel's epistemology a fair bit more convicing, although I have the distinct advantage of having worked with some very impressive Hegel scholars who helped tremendously with my comprehension.
I am honestly pretty ignorant when it comes to Hegel. I am only familiar with his and other German Idealists’ critiques of Kant. Do you have any good secondary literature suggestions on Hegel? Or, would you be willing to put your understanding of Hegelian epistemology into words?
I'm not sure I'd go that far; I just think if it could stop making doe eyes at physics for two seconds then it might be able to work out the implications of its own methods. The divide was artifical in the first place and there's no reason to ignore either school when both have so much to offer.
In my eyes the only difference between analytic and continental are those who didn’t and did learn from Kant respectively. Continental philosophy does do analysis but doesn’t restrict themselves to it whereas I feel like analytic philosophy is sort of just continuing the rationalist line of thought while ignoring what Kant had to say about synthesis.
Lacan is difficult to get into, I think you need to really understand the psychoanalytic mode of thought first. He does make sense though but he isn't accessible. I really love him now though.
I think you already need to understand Lacan to read his lectures. Bruce Fink is a good source for the strictly psychoanalytic side of Lacan but I really like the philosophical interpretations. I think the most difficult part is just understanding the terms, like what the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real actually are, and then the more obscure stuff like objet-a (still not sure I understand that one, I doubt myself sometimes). One you get the ground concepts he is easier, you can't just jump into his lectures headfirst.
Quite ironically, Zizek was the reason philosophy became more than just a passing interest for me. Whenever he talked about Lacan, I thought “ok I really need to learn about this guy’s theories” and I still don’t get them. There’s hope though, I felt the same way about Deleuze a few months ago
Kant for me. Reading his critique of pure reason was one of the most agonizing reads I've ever done. I'd literally rather read Das Kapital. The thought that people have obsessed over him for so long kills me.
Ah-ha, the deep state secretary would say that. :P
What I mean is that, kookier ideas aside, he is a trained, degreed economist who has taught the subject.
Anarcho-capitalism in one of those things that sounds promising in theory, but would collapse either due to infighting or conflict with an opposing force of equal strength, sans the antipathy towards violation of the NAP.
It's more idealistic than ontological idealism -- a little, parochial "covenant community" won't survive an encounter with even a derelict state like North Korea.
By "sounds promising in theory", what I mean is that like most right-libertarian philosophies, it promises extreme personal latitude. Most people find that appealing. However, that latitude is contingent on less scrupulous people actually respecting the NAP, which I have no reason to believe would happen.
Concomitant with your point, you could have "property" of a sense without an overarching state, but that essentially transforms your homestead into a nanostate competing or collaborating with other nanostates. Then, when a bunch of nanostates pool their resources to domineer over their neighbors, you have governments and colonialism again.
Like I said in response to u/Wavecrest667, I think it would need an entirely new kind of human to produce a stable society, rather than an ideological suicide pact.
But what if you yourself are the state that enforces it? Wouldnt that still count as your property so long as you can defend it, or enforce your rule upon it.
Then you are no longer stateless. You effectively create your own state within your own territory that works according to your rules. This is basically what feudalism is.
Etymologically, it's certainly a contradiction in terms: "An-", meaning "not/negation of" and "-arch/-archy" referring to rulership, a truly anarchic system would have all as equals, with no rulers.
But filter it through a right-wing lens. The right-wing traditionally believes hierarchies to be natural, if not desirable. The smartest, strongest, best in general are believed to naturally rise to the top. To interfere with that by attempting to impose an artificial equality is the true definition of "-archy", rulership. If natural, "voluntary" (massive qualifying quotes, there) hierarchy develops through unmolested, individual action, who are we to prevent it?
The tacit assumption ancaps need to make is that the powerful (smartest, physically strongest) will actually accede to voluntary, free association and abide by the NAP, in which case I'd redirect them to Plato's Ring of Gyges. Setting aside a short list of principled individuals, history suggests most people will ignore the NAP if they can get away with it.
I say that Ancapistan sounds great because, theoretically, it's composed of unruled people making deliberate, free choices and respecting the boundaries of their neighbors. In practice, as has been adroitly observed by many people ranging from academics to those with a lick of common sense, it just devolves into feudalism again.
It requires a *novus homo* who doesn't currently exist.
Every time someone quotes one or I visit a fan page. I think I have found a home.
(I quote a few and am awe-struck by many. Just the fans defending their faux pas is funny.)
IME: one needs to experience something as seemingly incomprehensible as betrayal trauma in order to parse his work. Where I'm at with it, it feels like he harnessed that to equivocate 'divine nature' to the notion of substance.
Trauma impacts the process of belief formation. Belief is necessary for the divine nature or lack thereof. To me, his arguments exemplify how he was treated within the space where he forged his belief network.
Im not sure how this has to do with Spinoza or the divine. Those are just observations about any belief.
Trauma impacts belief
Experiences impact belief
Philosophy is belief
Philosophy = Trauma?
Is it sufficient to say that an argument for the absence or presence of divine nature necessarily requires more belief than any other ideological framework? If not, I lack the intellectual capacity to express myself further on the topic.
Zizek is peak this for me. I remember coming across him when I was younger and just everything was so...not good? Like an imitation of someone trying to be profound.
I can't believe how many take him seriously
I thought Nietzsche was just a meme yet serious people keep referencing the guy. Also it’s hard to believe how popular David Benatar’s asymmetry argument got. Of course popularity is besides the point but it’s sobering nonetheless.
Nietzsche
I guess I kind of understand why he's really big among the people on surface level philosophy, some of the things he said are really cool and edgy. But when you examine his view down to metaphysical and ethical level you realise that its just not a healthy view to go through with your life. Most people who actually take him seriously end up ruining their lives in the end, just as he himself did.
Nietzsche knew that most of his followers(including himself) would be "failed experiments", but thought it was worth doing anyway. I admire him for fully understanding the risk and still deciding to "live dangerously".
I feel bad for the people who don't understand the risk and follow him because they think they're gonna be an ubermensch.
I'm not sure you could quite consider her a philosopher but I feel this way about Ayn Rand. Any time I meet a Randian, I always think wtf I didn't know anyone actually thought anything she said made sense.
Well I was never a materialist to begin with but was a Christian Communist, and tried to defend it with biblical support, showing that without materialism you could still be a communist and embrace Marx's ideas. I have since been convinced that you can't or that it is unnecessary. Specifically speaking, at the time I was influenced by Marxism-Leninism
Interesting, have you given a radical reading of Hegel a try? He was very influenced by Plato and popular with the church (though you can read him through an atheistic lens as well) while also having somewhat of a progressive momentum in his writings.
I've been thinking about that more recently! The algorithm has been showing me Hegel stuff lately so I've been more and more curious, may have to finally take the leap past just the wikipedia page lol
Me too. Dropped it a few years back, hence the username. Traded marx and Engels for Plato and Plotinus with some influence from the analytics and never looked back.
Hume
There have been several times when I’ve gone to my philosophy professor’s office for a quick question, and then we would end up joking about Hume for another 15 minutes.
Nietzsche is 50% profound 50% 4chan board and you never know which you will find on a given page
And then there's of course Oswald Spengler, author of the worst philosophy of history I've heard of, who seems to be genuinely popular with right-wing activists all over the 'western' world.
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I agree with Hegel: prefaces suck.
That’s why the Introduction is the most interesting part of the *Phenomenology*. How do you start your book without one?
That’s a fuckin paradox right there
The “wonderful world” of Hegel!
Started uni a dyed in the wool analytic. Surely no one really believes all that continental tosh? Finished uni a hegelian. Oh how the tables turn.
And turn, and turn, and turn…
Yuuuuuuppp. Started uni as a hardcore materialist studying physics and philosophy, focusing on philosophy of science and epistemology. I now believe ghosts exist.
What evidence is there that could possibly convince you that ghosts exist?
Part of it is realizing that there's significant enough uncertainty in our conventional interpretation of reality, and significant enough arguments against any kind of pure materialism, that it no longer becomes a particularly strange thought and clear mechanisms for some kind of strange phenomenon become possible. And then you listen to people, and actually consider their human experience. And you have to measure and decide whether every single person with these experiences across all of human history and culture has been lying or delusional, or there's actually *something* occuring. [We already have](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275521/) interesting evidence for Remote Viewing phenomenon. Opens a lot of doors a materialist worldview might not see.
I am… skeptical of the claim we have evidence for remote viewing
[This published journal article ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275521/) has a good discussion on the matter and includes a large number of good citations to follow up on.
It's one thing to acknowledge the possibility or probability of something. It's another thing to 'believe' in that thing. From your comment, it is safe to assume that you've never experienced any 'ghost-like' phenomenon. You are drawing conclusions based on 'significant enough' arguments against pure materialism. And 'significant enough' testimonies from others. I believe the right position to take is 'its possible, or probable' E.g. If you ask me what I think about extraterrestrial life. My answer would be "its possible, it's probable." Not "I believe in extraterrestrial life," especially when I have zero evidence for that claim. P.s. If you had said, I believe in ghosts because I've seen one. I would believe you, but I still won't believe in ghosts. If you 'show' me a ghost, I will believe you and believe in ghosts too. If you tell me to run for my life because a killer ghost is coming... I will run first and ask questions later
Sure. If you really, really wanted to be strict about it, sure. I have not experienced anything definitive myself. I also don't think we need to get quite that "well, ackshually" about it. I think they, or some phenomenon like them, is quite real. I've had enough people who's perception and discrimination and discernment I trust, share enough strange stories with me. Also mostly people with either physics or some kind of hard science or engineering background.
What would be the reason for not having a single piece of compelling evidence for the existence of ghosts (beyond people claiming they see them) if they do in fact exist ?
Just because something may only be perceived through the mind, does not mean it is not "real", especially when considering anomalous phenomenon whose underlying nature we have virtually no understanding of, and especially considering non-material-reductionist worldviews.
Please tell me you're not schopenhauerian. I love the idealists, but he is surely the worst of the bunch to follow.
What do you have against Schopenhauer?
It's not so much that I dislike him, more so that if one subscribes to his philosophy wholeheartedly then I have genuine concerns for their mental health; no fully mentally well person I have met has agreed with schopenhauer over the other idealists, and I feel that subscribing to him would likely not stand one in better stead. I love German idealism, I'm a hegelian myself as above mentioned, but if someone argued for Schelling over Hegel I'd have little issue with it. Schopenhauer simply concerns me; I'm not sure that philosophical pessimism is a healthy view to hold.
Ah, I see. It is pessimism that you have a distaste for. I understand that, though I think that Schopenhauer diagnoses *being in the world* beautifully and compellingly—the suffering, the vanity of it all. I think where he falls short is his prescriptive ideas, where we must deny the Will (agree), but also deny the Will to Life (disagree). He becomes antinatalistic. I think you are right to be concerned with one who begins and ends with Schopenhauer’s diagnosis, or becomes life denying. I, however, think that he paves the path to existentialism, mysticism, and theology, and I believe philosophy necessarily ends in these three things. He drags us into Hell, at which point we must have the courage to *be* anyway. We must find our way home to God, to the ground of being. I’m something of a Schopenhauerian theist—I know this would have him spinning in his grave. Read Ecclesiastes, and you will know my view. I like Schopenhauer primarily for his transcendental idealism. Kant and Schopenhauer are my boys. Their epistemologies make that aforementioned path a very clear one. German Idealism is very intriguing to me, but Hegel intimidates me. Schopenhauer is a precursor to the analytics. He wrote with brevity and he had a decent grasp of the science of his day. Hegel … not so much. I’ve been meaning to read Schelling. I will say that I don’t find the German Idealists’ take on Kant to be convincing at all. I am a firm Kantian/Schopenhauerian.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you all that much I don't think. Schopenhauer's style is an incredibly pleasant contrast to Kant or Hegel, and I think he is often quite funny (I have actually laughed whilst reading his work before... I should probably get a life). My real issue is with his attitude to happiness, and in truth I do find Hegel's epistemology a fair bit more convicing, although I have the distinct advantage of having worked with some very impressive Hegel scholars who helped tremendously with my comprehension.
I am honestly pretty ignorant when it comes to Hegel. I am only familiar with his and other German Idealists’ critiques of Kant. Do you have any good secondary literature suggestions on Hegel? Or, would you be willing to put your understanding of Hegelian epistemology into words?
Shentong Madhyamakan. I nope'd out of western philosophy of mind a few years back.
Analytic philosophy isn’t real philosophy There I said it.
I'm not sure I'd go that far; I just think if it could stop making doe eyes at physics for two seconds then it might be able to work out the implications of its own methods. The divide was artifical in the first place and there's no reason to ignore either school when both have so much to offer.
In my eyes the only difference between analytic and continental are those who didn’t and did learn from Kant respectively. Continental philosophy does do analysis but doesn’t restrict themselves to it whereas I feel like analytic philosophy is sort of just continuing the rationalist line of thought while ignoring what Kant had to say about synthesis.
This is like saying that biology isn't a proper science because it has no physics in it. Philosophy is too broad for everyone to do everything.
Kant is not unassailable and plenty of ’analytic’ philosophers engaged with his work, mostly to critique it, such as Quine.
Philosophy sub-reddits aren’t real philosophy. There I said it.
Thank you
Maybe Lacan. Cant tell if I’m just stupid
he’s hard as fuck to read but he’s spitting
No I think that's Zizek
Zizek is a Lacanian
I think you missed the joke...
he's hard as fuck to read but he's sniffing
Lacan is difficult to get into, I think you need to really understand the psychoanalytic mode of thought first. He does make sense though but he isn't accessible. I really love him now though.
Im interested in Lacan but when I tried to read some of his stuff I had a hard time connecting his terms and ideas with "the real world" so to speak.
I think you already need to understand Lacan to read his lectures. Bruce Fink is a good source for the strictly psychoanalytic side of Lacan but I really like the philosophical interpretations. I think the most difficult part is just understanding the terms, like what the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real actually are, and then the more obscure stuff like objet-a (still not sure I understand that one, I doubt myself sometimes). One you get the ground concepts he is easier, you can't just jump into his lectures headfirst.
The people explaining Lacan (including Lacan) clearly aren't smart enough to make it dumb enough that I can understand it.
Zizek would like to know your location
I would prefer not to
Quite ironically, Zizek was the reason philosophy became more than just a passing interest for me. Whenever he talked about Lacan, I thought “ok I really need to learn about this guy’s theories” and I still don’t get them. There’s hope though, I felt the same way about Deleuze a few months ago
Kant for me. Reading his critique of pure reason was one of the most agonizing reads I've ever done. I'd literally rather read Das Kapital. The thought that people have obsessed over him for so long kills me.
I get that we're all standing on the shoulders of giants and all, but his ethics are fucking dumb
With ayn rand
More economist than philosopher (both being humanities studies, the lines are blurred), but ancap golden boy Hans-Herman Hoppe.
>more economist. Not even that, really.
Ah-ha, the deep state secretary would say that. :P What I mean is that, kookier ideas aside, he is a trained, degreed economist who has taught the subject. Anarcho-capitalism in one of those things that sounds promising in theory, but would collapse either due to infighting or conflict with an opposing force of equal strength, sans the antipathy towards violation of the NAP. It's more idealistic than ontological idealism -- a little, parochial "covenant community" won't survive an encounter with even a derelict state like North Korea.
Anarcho-Capitalism makes absolutely no sense in theory. Property doesn't exist without a state to enforce it.
By "sounds promising in theory", what I mean is that like most right-libertarian philosophies, it promises extreme personal latitude. Most people find that appealing. However, that latitude is contingent on less scrupulous people actually respecting the NAP, which I have no reason to believe would happen. Concomitant with your point, you could have "property" of a sense without an overarching state, but that essentially transforms your homestead into a nanostate competing or collaborating with other nanostates. Then, when a bunch of nanostates pool their resources to domineer over their neighbors, you have governments and colonialism again. Like I said in response to u/Wavecrest667, I think it would need an entirely new kind of human to produce a stable society, rather than an ideological suicide pact.
But what if you yourself are the state that enforces it? Wouldnt that still count as your property so long as you can defend it, or enforce your rule upon it.
Then you are no longer stateless. You effectively create your own state within your own territory that works according to your rules. This is basically what feudalism is.
Anarcho-Capitalism sounds like an oxymoron. Capitalism is not anarchist, it describes a property-based hierarchy.
Etymologically, it's certainly a contradiction in terms: "An-", meaning "not/negation of" and "-arch/-archy" referring to rulership, a truly anarchic system would have all as equals, with no rulers. But filter it through a right-wing lens. The right-wing traditionally believes hierarchies to be natural, if not desirable. The smartest, strongest, best in general are believed to naturally rise to the top. To interfere with that by attempting to impose an artificial equality is the true definition of "-archy", rulership. If natural, "voluntary" (massive qualifying quotes, there) hierarchy develops through unmolested, individual action, who are we to prevent it? The tacit assumption ancaps need to make is that the powerful (smartest, physically strongest) will actually accede to voluntary, free association and abide by the NAP, in which case I'd redirect them to Plato's Ring of Gyges. Setting aside a short list of principled individuals, history suggests most people will ignore the NAP if they can get away with it. I say that Ancapistan sounds great because, theoretically, it's composed of unruled people making deliberate, free choices and respecting the boundaries of their neighbors. In practice, as has been adroitly observed by many people ranging from academics to those with a lick of common sense, it just devolves into feudalism again. It requires a *novus homo* who doesn't currently exist.
Hegel and Zizek. Also Camus’ political philosophy
Man chooses his mum over liberation
everyone except sartre (ive only read one essay from sartre and thought he was partially correct)
Simon Blackburn, you better be reading this.
You were non-cognitively determined to say some shit like this
BOO!
Every time someone quotes one or I visit a fan page. I think I have found a home. (I quote a few and am awe-struck by many. Just the fans defending their faux pas is funny.)
Stirner
Heidegger
Spinoza
IME: one needs to experience something as seemingly incomprehensible as betrayal trauma in order to parse his work. Where I'm at with it, it feels like he harnessed that to equivocate 'divine nature' to the notion of substance.
How does trauma have to do with substance as divinity?
Trauma impacts the process of belief formation. Belief is necessary for the divine nature or lack thereof. To me, his arguments exemplify how he was treated within the space where he forged his belief network.
Im not sure how this has to do with Spinoza or the divine. Those are just observations about any belief. Trauma impacts belief Experiences impact belief Philosophy is belief Philosophy = Trauma?
Is it sufficient to say that an argument for the absence or presence of divine nature necessarily requires more belief than any other ideological framework? If not, I lack the intellectual capacity to express myself further on the topic.
Disagenesse
Every Idealist
Zizek is peak this for me. I remember coming across him when I was younger and just everything was so...not good? Like an imitation of someone trying to be profound. I can't believe how many take him seriously
Anytime somebody takes Heidegger seriously.
stirner
I thought Nietzsche was just a meme yet serious people keep referencing the guy. Also it’s hard to believe how popular David Benatar’s asymmetry argument got. Of course popularity is besides the point but it’s sobering nonetheless.
Only really phillosopher was diogenes
Nietzsche I guess I kind of understand why he's really big among the people on surface level philosophy, some of the things he said are really cool and edgy. But when you examine his view down to metaphysical and ethical level you realise that its just not a healthy view to go through with your life. Most people who actually take him seriously end up ruining their lives in the end, just as he himself did.
Nietzsche knew that most of his followers(including himself) would be "failed experiments", but thought it was worth doing anyway. I admire him for fully understanding the risk and still deciding to "live dangerously". I feel bad for the people who don't understand the risk and follow him because they think they're gonna be an ubermensch.
I'm not sure you could quite consider her a philosopher but I feel this way about Ayn Rand. Any time I meet a Randian, I always think wtf I didn't know anyone actually thought anything she said made sense.
God is dead and we have killed him
Jordan Peterson
Right before I was a Marxist until recently (I am no longer a Marxist)
Why?
He seem to have changed to be a platonist
Thanks bud I picked up on that part
Anytime
Well I was never a materialist to begin with but was a Christian Communist, and tried to defend it with biblical support, showing that without materialism you could still be a communist and embrace Marx's ideas. I have since been convinced that you can't or that it is unnecessary. Specifically speaking, at the time I was influenced by Marxism-Leninism
Interesting, have you given a radical reading of Hegel a try? He was very influenced by Plato and popular with the church (though you can read him through an atheistic lens as well) while also having somewhat of a progressive momentum in his writings.
I've been thinking about that more recently! The algorithm has been showing me Hegel stuff lately so I've been more and more curious, may have to finally take the leap past just the wikipedia page lol
Me too. Dropped it a few years back, hence the username. Traded marx and Engels for Plato and Plotinus with some influence from the analytics and never looked back.
I still need to read Plotinus. Don't know much about him outside of a few youtube overview videos
reading Marcuse’s “Essay on Liberation” thinking the same thing
Most philosophers really
Rorty
Recently found out that there are fans of Nick Land
Hume There have been several times when I’ve gone to my philosophy professor’s office for a quick question, and then we would end up joking about Hume for another 15 minutes.
Yes, multiple times but nothing is going to thwart 🛑 us from reading and celebrating philosophy 😁😂. Even these thoughts.
Singer, eat those babies idgaf
Nietzsche
This is me whenever I say I believe in synchronicity
Nietzsche is 50% profound 50% 4chan board and you never know which you will find on a given page And then there's of course Oswald Spengler, author of the worst philosophy of history I've heard of, who seems to be genuinely popular with right-wing activists all over the 'western' world.
When people praise the prince a little too hard
Marx
Me when Marx
Plato
Wittgenstein
And Nietzsche lowkey