Is it just me or does it all come across as gay redditor tier half truths and self righteous autofellatio? I have never felt like I learned anything from reading it, it just reads like a bunch of Freemasons giving each other accolades for each other's word vomit.
Because it's all derivative of the enlightenment. Either things succeeding or countering enlightenment claims, but always within the framework of enlightenment presuppositions. Nietzche for example presupposes a nihilistic, godless world, and then his entire philosophy is how to cope about it and pretend it's not. In pre enlightenment philosophy, that would be a thought experiment, not an entire framework of philosophy to be taken seriously. Even the philosophers outside of the enlightenment framework, like Chesterton, spent most of their writing countering enlightenment thinking. The enlightenment and it's consequences have been the downfall of the West.
>>532812919Nietzsche has correctly foreseen that the fall of Catholicism in Germany will lead to nihilism and eventually to an inevitable bloodshed.
>>532812919Schopenhauer and the following pessimists weren't bad at all. Only copers are bad, copers who think that this shitty life has a meaning. Nietzsche was one of the coping retards.
>>532814092Schopenhaur still reads like 48 laws of power and I still am left wondering what I have gained by reading it
>>532812919Nietzsche ideas and observations were nothing short of prophetic. and if you can't understand his writings, you probably need to stop and go back to something more pedestrian and easier to understand like areleus or tzu.
>>532814260Schopenhauer doesn't give you shitty machiavellian kike advices. He just shows how shitty this life is.
>>532813543You are mistaken: the problem is that nihilism is actually NOT an element within the same constant theoretical posturing, but an actual real condition created by the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment saw the razor of skepticism become sharp enough to force inquiry about everything, even the very foundations of logic, reason, perception, experience, and then project of philosophy itself; and that project has always presupposed that human intellect is capable of discerning the true nature of "the good", which was always assumed to be something real, eternal, and immutable. Once goodness itself comes under scrutiny by the very process mandated to reveal its "truth", philosophy begins to look something like a failed project. Nihilism is what happens when skepticism is more powerful than anything that can be affirmed. Maybe that attitude is entirely misguided and God is the ground and source of all being and goodness; but when skepticism is more compelling to philosophers, it seeps down into the world and causes a kind of collective insanity, where nothing and no one can be believed in earnestly, even as people try to believe. The questions people are left with, like "what is the point of all this if I'm just going to die", are themselves leftover residue from when those questions seemed like they could lend answers to our minds because the divine gave us supernatural intellect...When even the questions we're asking seem pointless, we can go one of two ways:1. Keep asking, double down on inherited meaning.2. Create an entirely new framework for meaning that does not depend on absolute metaphysical Truth.
>>532812919Philosophy has always been bad.
>>532814455sounds like secular gnosticism, interesting but still nihilistic and void of meaning
>>532812919Dude, if you have an imaginary crown on your head nothing of it will make sense
>>532812919Because they they were just bored NEETS living off daddy's money.
>>532814699>nihilistic and void of meaningThat's the reality unfortunately.
>>532814848Another casualty of the enlightenment, I'm sorry schopenhaur made you feel that way
>>532814541Interesting point, it makes a lot of sense when you relate what you're saying to critical theory and such. It becomes like a meaningless spiral. I support the second option, but I like the idea of absolute metaphysical truth even if it doesn't exist. It's easier to be productive in the world if you accept absolute metaphysical truth even if it's not completely true.
>>532815241I understand, but good luck making that compelling to others in this environment. Only once you've personally felt the utter collapse of all inherited meaning can you produce your own authentic vision; and only a certain type of person can do that without apology - and THAT is precisely the requirement to solve this problem.
>>532814541That's literally the cope I was talking about. I'm not saying it's not a good conversation to have, but it takes what should be a "what if" into a "OK, I give you X, but...". Nietzche built his framework upon the idea that the march of liberalism (enlightenment in action) would plow through Christendom (which so far has proven true, at least politically). If it can plow through the roots of its host, it will have no problem plowing through whatever new system is made by people living within the monster.
>>532814092>pessimistsRealists. What happened in europe in the XXth century has been their vindication.
>>532812919Stefan Molyneux already figured all this shit out but everyone hates him because he has a slightly annoying personality or something.
>not starting with descartes
>>532815459Well honestly, how are you missing the part about no longer building your system around Truth? Skepticism is successful against truth claims, not an aestheticized vision of the future rooted in biological drives and impulses ordered by rank and ruthlesslessy administered by people who feel themselves superior.
>>532812919>it just reads like a bunch of Freemasonsthat's exactly what's behind it
>>532812919What's the appeal of such a large mustache? You'd be eating more beard hair than anything
>>532816057I understand, I'm saying that it hasn't actually worked.
>>532816272Oh I see. So it's not necessarily Enlightment philosophy you're saying keeps crushing on, but more like the total force of it and its aftereffects? Because one could feasibly argue that Liberalism was used to hammer down the nails of autocracy in the 20th Century, but saying "the Enlightment" did that would be a stretch. Strong upstarts are just not defeated by philosophy or skepticism; they're defeated by stronger entrenched forces which mostly run on capital interests.
>>532816135Live dangerously
