This man's psycho-analytic writings are good, but his philosophy is a joke. Cartesians get out!

This man's psycho-analytic writings are good, but his philosophy is a joke. Cartesians get out!

prove me wrong and so on

ignore tripfag threads

The only relevant trait of philosophers nowadays is how much meme potential they have, which is why Zizek and Stirner are top tier.

Well there's the door.

That explains why Chomskek is never discussed here, he's too serious.


Name one.

Wow you've got it totally backwards. The bad thing about him is insistence on thinking psychoanalysis isn't worthless.

So will you defend his Cartesian subject nonsense?

Are you implying you've refuted the cogito?

Can't wait for another thread where Rebel makes a complete idiot out of himself.

ITT Rebel attempts to refute the incorrigible.

...

"cogito"
"cogito debunked"
"descartes critique"

Not me, Kierkegaard. There are many refutations of Cogito Ergo Sum, Kierkegaard's being that Cogito already assumes the I exists.

You guys know you're memes right?

Hey I shilled for Kierkegaard just today defending you christfags for some reason. Watch it buddy. Thin. fucking. ice.

That's not how Descartes' argument is developed.

Have you actually read Descartes?

Kant already had that covered. The I is that which remains constant in each successive iteration of referring to I, it's that which makes those sentences make sense.

Oh rebel

Not an argument. The statement is a tautology.

it's like you want to be enslaved

It's like you want to be in eternal despair.

Isn't thought the most fundamental aspect of our being? Don't you need to think you're going to pray prior to praying, or think you are in love to realize you are in love?


But Camus is edgy.

It's not a tautology though, you are ignoring what came before it, there's a reason it's called Methodology.

Confirmed for not reading Descartes. Great thread, Rebel. As usual.

No, being is the most fundamental aspect of being.

Camus is fine, but he's not a great philosopher.


The tautology was the conclusion shown by the previous reply, in which I showed the quote explaining that the methodology was shit, and that philosophy cannot be grounded in doubt.

wtf

you still haven't made an argument against

All philosophy is grounded in doubt.

Kierkegaard's argument was even addressed by Descartes himself I believe.

Isn't that the whole point? If can doubt your own existence, you must in some sense *be* - or else how could you doubt it?

But you said we have to live in eternal despair. Don't you know Rebel? You must imagine Sisyphus happy?

smugstirner.jpeg

Confirmed for never reading Kierkegaard.


No, it wasn't.

My God. You are embarrassing yourself. The Cogito is exactly a way out of doubt, you baboon. It's a grounding on knowledge. READ THE FUCKING BOOK YOU ARE SUPPOSEDLY BTFO'ING YOU MISERABLE IDIOT!

Is not the foundation of philosophy.

If I do it ironically my internet friends will think I'm cool.

You still haven't made an argument.

no shit sherlock. Doubt is the primacy, Descartes argues.

No, but it's knowledge that you are doubting. So it's knowledge that you in some sense are.

...

He is in polemics with the skeptics, you fool.

Why are you still talking about doubt without proving that it has primacy?

Wow start arguing any time.

...

My ready-to-hand is about to be ready-to-handjob

I'm sure it was, and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter what the activity is, "think" can be anything, indeed. However Cogito is the moment of reflective consciousness where you apprehend the I, as you are not in that mode in any other activity, are you?

...

When are you going to answer the argument that you are a liar and manipulator by self-definition, thus shouldn't ever be listened to by anyone?

Communism is a meme. We just LARP on this forum to deal with the anxiety which results from the inevitability of the dystopia that awaits us.

You have said in several threads you like Sartre sauce, Simone and Camus. Your position changes every week on shit though so who knows now.


Don't talk to me or my son ever again.

Exactly
Sartre is normie-tier existentialism

This is my point precisely, the objects of thought do not exist because they are thought. Even Descartes would agree with this. The particular activity is the important part for Descartes, what you call the mode of thinking. That ALREADY posits the primary act of existence.

heh, hehe, nice joke kid.

...

I hate Sartre with a passion, so that's an outright lie. Simone is pretty useless too. Camus is not an existentialist.

Ive seen Zizek say he defends the Cartesian subject, but I don't know to what extent this could be true. Wasn't Lacan, to a degree, a phenomenologist? And do we not typically think of Hegel today as being an early theorist of embodied cognition? He denied the existence of the wall between subject and object. Idk. I haven't read enough of Zizek.

I read his Ticklish subject, the whole point of which was defending the Cartesian subject.

Of course it does, that's the argument. That's why there's the category of synthetic a priori. Under your definition all philosophical knowledge is tautological because the conclusions are already contained in the words' meanings and their arrangement.

I'm not doubting you. I've seen him use the phrase "Cartesian subject" before. I'm just saying I haven't seen him do it since he so often references Heidegger and Hegel and so on blah blah.

...

Doesn't matter if it affects you or not, my argument is not to you, it's to everyone else you would try and influence, and now will fail, always and forever.

*i mean to say I don't understand he does it considering herefences Heidegger and Hegel so much.

No, that's not at all what that means. It means that knowledge comes from faith.

Yep and it's already contained in the binary decimal expansion of a transcendental number such as pi if you make it ASCII, same with all these posts, everything ever written, and everything that ever could be written. :^)

The end of our species doesn't sound so bad now

Lmao, if you think this is Kierkegaard's argument you misunderstand him as well, and are an aesthetic mode amateur, (like all liberals).

So Anthony Storm is wrong as well?

define

So you never heard of his illustration of the ideal religious life as a bourgeois normie then.

Have we just reconciled analytic and continental philosophy?

An aesthete is someone who sees the world as "boring" or "interesting". More broadly, intellectual aestheticism is philosophy for the sake of philosophy for example, such as Hegel obsessing over putting everything in a system instead of actually having a love for wisdom and living his philosophy.

...

Tricking ML's into reading Kierkegaard is a pretty good meme idea

ITT: Dualist Cartesians squirm to defend their muh rationalism against both Hegel and Kierkegaard.

read Searle you fucks

What are you talking about, I blew you out already

Are you going to be the one to finally explain this passage from Hegel to me?

Not a single person in this thread can make a cogent argument. They think I'm saying Cogito Ergo sum alone is the tautology, when I'm clearly saying the methodology itself is based on tautology.

You didn't clearly say that. You just assumed your misunderstanding of Kierkegaard was the epistemological ground. It isn't.

what kind of theory of mind are you proposing hten

It's not like Zizek has written on this.

ahahaha

Actually I can do this one, because this is subjective spirit and just an idea of Fichte's.

You still can't show that my (and Anthony Storm's) interpretation is wrong. Stop wasting my time fool.


Uh yes he has.

Line. By. Line.

Who the fuck is Anthony Storm?

I'm sure you can remember what he wrote, can't you.

The…famous Kierkegaard Scholar? Who died a few years ago? His resources are up online?

I don't need to, because I have the book with me.

Oh I just read Kierkegaard, didn't need the sparknotes.

Just watch it
I'll hebe you auf you little transcendental idealist

Clearly you haven't read anything by Kierkegaard at all, though. Because you can't make a single argument.

So does muke.

"Sparknotes" is a fine way to dismiss a leading scholar, you pretentious fool.

Except one of us reads the books and the other doesn't.

Is this like those riddles where you end up being the same person

What's up with tripfags and their "famous" advocate professors?

...

I'm just making fun of you now, because you've not even come close to refuting the cogito, and you've said, and I quote "the ground of knowledge is faith", without qualification, and made an appeal to authority to back it up

LMAO you really don't know who he is do you

...

You didn't even try to refute the argument I presented, nice try moron.

...

Where are you going. Come back, fam.

if anyone wants to try and dispute this post please go ahead and try.

What argument? You agreed with me from what I can recall.

refer to

I already explained that, though. Reflective consciousness is the mode of the cogito, of course it already presupposes the I, everything does, that's the whole point.

The fact that you think Kierkegaard doesn't think knowledge is based in faith means you haven't read Sickness Unto Death or Postscript both which posit it, despite your ignorant claims otherwise.

And I already explained to YOU that the mode of the cogito already presumes the knowledge of the existence.

It's actually been a few years, I barely remember it tbh

Oh so great then you can stop talking shit about how much you "don't need the sparknotes" (AKA actual scholarship)

So you agree? Wew lad

WEW LADS HE'S GONE MAD

Just read the Meditations Rebel. It's good. There's even a dope ontological argument in there.

I've read Descartes' Complete Works, Discourse on Method is far more interesting.

Besides, it's actually where our argument lies, so can it about meditations.

What was your argument against methodology again? "It's shit"?

We've been over this 3 times. If you're just too stupid to understand that's not my problem.

I'm not the same guy: From that quote you posted earlier; his point was that Descartes Cogito fails to learn anything but the idea of things. He was not saying faith is the ground of all knowledge. Although I don't doubt you that he says it elsewhere.

You haven't stated it clearly at all. You've just said existence follows from cogito. That's not a refutation my guy

Is this Rebel??

Not at all. The quote is only half saying that. The second half explains that the mode of thinking (the cogito) is already based on a mode, that is a form of being. Hence the ACT (a stable relation, as he would call it in Sickness unto death, of not doubting) can be called faith.


So you ARE too stupid to read, okay.

Right. The actual argument is that the cogito contrsdicts experience or that Descartes' methodological doubt leads to knowhere since we can only ever know the idea of things (and that also means then his ontological argument fails because we can't know God exists, we can only know the idea of God exists).

No, I'm actually good looking =).

This just seems like a broad complaint against anything smelling like idealism. But too bad, "unproductive" doesn't mean untrue. Reals > feels (actually they're not in opposition :^) )

Ontological arguments proceed from the idea of God to God.

I don't think you're right about this. He even says why didn't Descartes use "loving" instead of "thinking" as the answer to his skepticism (I love, therefore I exist)? Instead, he chose "thought" and "object of thought" and that crates a ton of issues.

The ontological argument doesn't work. Sorry to be the first to tell you this.

That's because the change in modes doesn't affect that they are modes of existence and hence acts of faith. You can only act under stability.

[Googling finished]

No you haven't.

...

Why would you even bring that up? The context was Descartes.

Actually I remember reading some recent scholarship on Descartes' second or lesser known ontological argument that makes it work. Pretty cool paper IIRC (completely forgotten the argument tho lmao) I'll try drag it up.

*tries to make it work.

I don't actually think the ontological argument is much itself but it's form is very interesting.

any good theory for this feel lads?

Read Milo Yiannopoulos :^)

Yeah I'm at a party too, except everyone started clapping, not at home shitposting rn

He said he read Adorno through Deleuze, and I called him an idiot because Adorno isn't hard and Deleuze is a french idiot

Adorno was completely wrong about experimental music. He idealizes experimental music as emancipatory, which leaves no room for it in utopia and undercuts its ability to bring on catharsis on an individual level. He conflates how experimental music awakens an emotionally stunted individual, with the challenge it poses to the individual.

A basic critique of Descartes ontological argument was that if starts from the premise that we can only know the ideas of things, then he would have to conclude with "the idea of God exists". If we start with Cartesian doubt, then thoughts are thoughts themselves and we can never establish the reality of God.

And even then, it's weird that for a guy that doubted everything, he used a really controversial argument for God's existence. Even Thomas Aquinas rejected ontological arguments. Idk if the ontological argument can give us anything more than a useful definition or coherent concept of God.

I was hoping Rebel would at least give us an indication of where Zizek gets it wrong. like an excerpt or something would be nice.

It can't really give us that, because it tends to rely on concepts like "perfection" which are never explained further.

Wrong.

...

He's got the book beside him.

nerd

post-war french philosophy is all bourgeois decadence, user
except maybe foucault, but you might as well read adorno if you want to read foucault

...

...

-Michel Foucault

it's not crude materialism, so it's shit

Try actually reading Foucault

...

...

Žižek isn't even a Cartesian, for fuck's sake. This really pisses me off actually. It's like when A.W. claims Žižek is a Schellingan; all it makes y'all look like is ignorant and unread.

...

lel, Foucault never said that
Why are Marxists such liars?

My copy of minima moralia says otherwise
nice meme

Wew. Critical theory is cultural marxism, user, it's used to subvert the west using panoptic techniques.

...

...

Wee oooh weee oohh it's the pol detectives on the case

Every time.

Or perhaps Chomsky isn't a philosophy, and isn't a particularily deep thinker. Have you seen his talks? He repeats the same things every single time.

gultural margism xDDD

Chomsky's made some contributions to the philosophy of mind and language.

He is a pretty deep thinker; just probably not in the areas you are interested in.

Oh, ok then enjoy your cultural capitalism then.

fuckmedaddy

What's the reason for the smug '…'. Why would you expect any person to know a 'famous Kierkegaard Scholar' off the top of their heads?

To you expect this level of expertise out of people in real life, or are you just showing off online?

Thanks, Rebel. I needed that extra push to convince myself to stop taking you seriously.

I'm reading it right now, it's fucking life changing.

the guy is a narcissistic clown

God, look at that bulge…

somehow Rebel manages to be worse than n1x. Reminds me to filter him again.

...

Pic for proof?


Fuck off retard