Arthur Schopenhauer
What is, is.
- Joined
- May 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,158
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 5
NF's would be the idiot savants, methinks.
Every type can be geniuses in their own way.
It seems to me that philosophy, or perhaps as it is practiced academically, is concerned precisely with questions that are unanswerable. When a question can be answered it becomes part of another discipline. Look at economics as a social science or even the grpwth of natural philosophy to science.
Perhaps these questions are philosophical in nature but asking them of yourself does not make you a philosopher, it makes you human. Most of the well known philosophers lived so far from the normal human experience they have little to offer in terms of guidance.
... dammit I'm philosophizing again.
Indeed, by studying these grandiloquent and dead philosophers and their philosophies, we may come to a better understanding of ourselves and what we want to accomplish and what we think is good or bad. By studying these certain sorts of philosophies a person can come to a better of himself...
Indeed, by studying these grandiloquent and dead philosophers and their philosophies, we may come to a better understanding of ourselves and what we want to accomplish and what we think is good or bad. By studying these certain sorts of philosophies a person can come to a better of himself -- Suttree has somehow forgotten this is true and so his paragraph borders upon the ironic.
I find it odd that he is using a philosophical approach to justify his position -- philosophically. Hehehehe.
+1
I believe it was that great philosopher, Hunter S. Thompson, who said something along the lines of, "I'm not so arrogant as to think I could reach the same heights without standing on the shoulders of other great men."
Seriously, what has Kant done for you lately? Logical positivism? Platonic ideals?
I'm glad I'm not the only one entertained by the thread.
"Everything my generation discussed, inwardly exposed itself to, you can say: suffered, you can also say: unfurled - all that had already been expressed and exhausted itself in Nietzsche."2) Attempting to construct systems of thought around an individuals goofy ideas. See Plato, Nietzche, Kant, Ayn Rand. You want arrogant and stubborn? See these guys. Fruitfull and useful? Not particularly.
Shouldn't philosophers have studied the famous philosophies?
There seem to be quite a few activities that are being lumped together as philosophizing:
1) Inspiring and guiding peoples journey towards meaning, mindfulness and fulfillment. This seems to be the use Zarasthustra et al seem to be defending. I would argue most writers, teachets, parents, friends, etc engage in this activity without the logical approach of philosophy and while philosophers have also engaged in this activity, the activity itself is not philosophy.
2) Attempting to construct systems of thought around an individuals goofy ideas. See Plato, Nietzche, Kant, Ayn Rand. You want arrogant and stubborn? See these guys. Fruitfull and useful? Not particularly.
3) Long winded arguments in reaction to previous long winded arguments. See the progression of analytic philosophy. This is the stuff of professorships. Useful? Every once in a while it may spin off a new discipline, as Z suggested. It keeps book publishers making money as undergrads buy stuff fpr class. And it maintains a long tradition fpr what thats worth.
C'mon, dude.
Reading Plato is excellent for one's development and thinking.
Kant and Nietzsche can be as well (as long as one doesn't go off the deep end).
Ayn Rand: well, she mostly sucks. Hers was basically a weak, sickly version of Nietzsche's philosophy, with a few changes. The one thing I will give her credit for is her critique of libertarianism, which, as a libertarian, I found compelling.
You're a dumbtard.
NFs can be scientific geniuses, literary geniuses, philosophical geniuses, you name it.
And, ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!
Read up on some stats regarding IQ and MBTI type correlation, there are plenty of NFs who are, in fact, geniuses.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
There should be a stupidity filter for certain posters and certain topics.
I would like to see the passage in which Kant states that murder is preferable to masturbation.I take issue with making ridiculous claims in earnest. Like Plato's metaphysics. Or Kant claiming murder is preferable to masturbation.
I would like to see the passage in which Kant states that murder is preferable to masturbation.
I think I would have chosen another name had I known that at one point I would be called Nico.I think he's just making a joke, Nico.
Me too. I am actually a non-cognitivist. But if you buy his premisses, it is hard to argue with Kant. Most people are consequentialists by nature; if it comes to torture, though, you will most likely have recourse to a deontological approach much like Kant's.I do find many of Kant's "moral examples" to be ridiculous, though.
Where do your views diverge from mine?