User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 114

  1. #61
    noʎ ɟo ǝʇnɔ ʍoH Mademoiselle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    MBTI
    -NTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan of Beans View Post
    Coelho claims to be a philosopher?
    You question that? Have you read his meaningless books?
    Imagine this is the best thing you've ever read.

  2. #62
    hypersane Hive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    But it's not like I've read him or anything.
    You have read his works as edited by his anti-Semitic sister who was affiliated with the Nazi party and became his curator and editor after Nietzsche himself suffered a mental breakdown.

    Her versions ran contrary to Nietzsche's own beliefs and if those are the versions you've read, you've wasted your time.
    I FEEL ALRIGHT

  3. #63
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tkae. View Post
    How can anyone like Nietzsche? The man was a proto-Nazi asshole who argued that some arbitrary definition of superiority is enough to render half of humanity subservient for selfish, arrogant purposes of the "strong". His theories, if put into practice, would completely undermine some of the very foundations of civilization and society.

    And I'm a libertarian. When a libertarian says a theory is dangerous to society, you know it's pretty fucking bad.
    I am inclined to agree with you in some ways, disagree in others, perhaps it is a question of degree somehow.

    I have read a lot recently about both Nietzsche and Machavelli written by an Italian philosopher who interprets them in the light of a lot of much older thinking about fortune, often an actual personification of fortune too, an actual force, like that conceived of and deified by the Greeks and Romans, and some classical music like Carmen Baruna (spelling).

    It goes a long way to rehabilitating those authors in my eyes, they were definitely in the "great man(sic)" school of thinking and if you want a modern day equivalent in style or focus then you'd have to consider the Badass books by Ben Thompson, or perhaps Maddox or Tucker Max, though both of them employ the styling on very, very, very different topics or themes.

    I cant remember the name of the guy but he even did an excellent book comparing Jesus and Nietzsche, demonstrating how similar the two were and contrasting them were differences were apparent, and it was much less a matter of night and day than you might suppose.

    The popular, often quite juvenile, fans of Nietzsche are woeful and that in turn creates a lot of distortion.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    I dont like Ayn Rand, I dont know if anyone considers her writings seriously as philosophy or not, I'm not sure if the thread is meant to be about academic philosophy or philosophy in the wider sense of leitmotif or something. The original post seemed to be working out some academic antagonism but some of the posts after that are pretty different to that.

    Rand's views about self-interest I think are tempered with a kind of madness which marks here writing and her life, fleeing to the US as a refugee I think traumatically damaged her and she consciously sought to work out as extreme and contrary a position to that of those she considered to have been responsible for her plight.

    I'm trying to think of others I dislike, perhaps Hobbes, Locke, some of other other anglo-saxons, the neo-liberals, such as Novak, Freidman, Rothbard, in socio-economic thinking, all of the chicago school and austrian economists like Hayek and Mise (although I think Hayek was a great writer and some of the standard barers for his thinking, such as John Grey, are good writers too, I just think their positions are wrong).

    Overall those authors all appear to be dismally pessimistic about life, the universe and everything, its not a wonder the poets and romantics could not stick political economy and described it as a dismal science, on that note I hate Malthus, I also hate neo-Malthusian thinking and there is a lot of it in one guise or another, and love the ways in which Cobbett took down his thinking, even if Cobbett is commonsensical some of the time.

    Then again while I dislike those authors and their thinking most of the time they are a necessary counterpoint to other positions or deserve a place in a chain of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, new thesis (which may make me an unintentional hegelian or marxian). For instance I really dislike Martin Luther, I think a hell of a lot of things would have been different and better in the world if there had not been the reformation, and definitely if it had not taken the shape it did with the characters it did, but that said there is no Discourse on Free Will without Luther, Erasmus' points are counter points to his, so in so far as he contributing the bringing forth of that thinking his contribution was worthwhile.
    Likes TheUnknown, Bknight, Ingrid in grids, EcK liked this post

  5. #65
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Hegel , it's not that I don't like him , but when I read that :
    If, now, consciousness hereby becomes aware in its work of the opposition between willing and performance,
    between purpose and means, and again between this inward nature, taken all together, and actual reality−−an
    opposition which as a whole shows the fortuitous character of the action of consciousness−still the unity and
    the necessity of this action are just as much present too. This latter aspect transcends the former, and
    experience of the fortuitousness of the action is itself only a fortuitous experience. The necessity of the action
    consists in this, that purpose is directly related to actuality, and the unity of these is the very notion of action:
    the act takes place because action is per se and of itself the essence of actuality. In the work there is no doubt
    comes out the fortuitousness which characterizes accomplishment when contrasted with willing and the
    process of performing; and this experience, which seems as if it must be the truth, contradicts that notion of
    the act. Still, if we look at the content of this experience taken in its completeness, that content is seen to be
    the transitory work. What persists is not the transitoriness; rather this is itself actual and is bound up with the
    work, and vanishes with it; the negative falls away along with the positive whose negation it is.


    Please....

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    I thought badly of Socrates ever since I heard the anecdote about him immersing a kid in water because he asked for his source of wisdom. Likely apocryphal, and I know far too little of him to judge.

    Oh, and allegedly he was also an 8, so he was likely a douchebag anyway.



    What with all this talk of Nietzsche, it should be remembered that many scholars regard him more as a literary figure than philosophical because he didn't really use any clear system of logic to search for the truth. At least, that's what I recall.
    Friedrich Nietzsche (Creator) - TV Tropes

  7. #67
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,488

    Default

    I find this subject really interesting. I mean, they always say you're supposed to separate Art from the Artist. Are you supposed to separate the Idea from the Philosopher? If you don't like hir and what they've done as a person does that invalidate their body of work? Some, especially existentialists would say yes. I say no, I wonder if that makes me some sort of Classicist. Maybe I do hate Heidegger, but think his ideas are exceptional.
    Likes Evee, Kas liked this post

  8. #68
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hive View Post
    You have read his works as edited by his anti-Semitic sister who was affiliated with the Nazi party and became his curator and editor after Nietzsche himself suffered a mental breakdown.

    Her versions ran contrary to Nietzsche's own beliefs and if those are the versions you've read, you've wasted your time.
    I wouldnt say its a complete waste of time, although the context you just mention will cast it all in a different light.

    I personally like reading Nietzsche because I always ask myself, was he mad yet, was he mad yet, he's definitely mad now.
    Likes Hawthorne liked this post

  9. #69
    Lost in the Multiverse Bknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Never been fond of Ayn Rand. Her egoism combined with far-right and purist capitalist sentiments made her look to be far too Nieztsche-esque.

    Speaking of Nieztsche, I've never been fond of him either. A few of his quotes are good, but on the whole he was way too obsessed with the feeling of power.

    Basically, anyone that believes that might makes right is a complete scumbag in my book.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cygnus View Post
    I thought badly of Socrates ever since I heard the anecdote about him immersing a kid in water because he asked for his source of wisdom. Likely apocryphal, and I know far too little of him to judge.

    Oh, and allegedly he was also an 8, so he was likely a douchebag anyway.



    What with all this talk of Nietzsche, it should be remembered that many scholars regard him more as a literary figure than philosophical because he didn't really use any clear system of logic to search for the truth. At least, that's what I recall.
    Friedrich Nietzsche (Creator) - TV Tropes
    He uses aphorisms and literary tools, all the existentialists were the same, I think it makes them easier to read and perhaps closer to what the general public thinks of when it talks about philosophy or philosophising, or maybe I'm just thinking of myself at the age of seventeen and my circle of friends at that time when everyone was forging their outlooks on life.

    Although there's a lot of talk about Freud and psychoanalysis being only of literary merit, I take all that with a pinch of salt, I listened to audiobooks and other sources from when cognitivism was in vogue and it said that the unconscious or subconsciousness doesnt exist and that's been reversed.

Similar Threads

  1. [INTP] INTPs, which types do you favour the most?
    By intprocrastination in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-21-2017, 09:28 AM
  2. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 07:20 PM
  3. [MBTItm] NFs, which types do you dislike most?
    By SoraMayhem in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 07-26-2012, 07:19 PM
  4. Which type do you dislike the most?
    By IceBlock in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 05-16-2012, 04:40 PM
  5. Which questions on personality tests do you find the most difficult to answer?
    By Such Irony in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 08:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO