Centuries of philosophy have reached the conclusions that:

In a communist utopia, should philosophy be made illegal to prevent abuse?
People would just invent meme ideologies virtually indistinguishable from religion and destabilize society.

I forgot Wittgenstein

Holla Forums pls

I am talking about fascist uprisings trying to take over. Do you think they can't gather enough followers to become a problem?

Rid Eggel :DDD

really, kys

*tips*

anyway, shitty assertions, shit thread

Both these trigger me hard.

You're at the bar and these two slap your girlfriends ass.

How do you respond?

I have no reason to think that the one on the right actually slapped it, I only saw the moment before and the moment after, what reason do I have to connect the 2?

As for the left….fuck it, he looks badass.

:^)

Probably stutter something about moral universalism while trying not to cry.

reading Philosophy is for autists, i make my own philosophy.

...

Hume and Benji Franklin used to hit up the saloon and get their fat laps grinded on by all the booty bitches. That was before cuckin kant came along.

OR we all read Quine and just stop taking philosophy seriously because we wanna be boring again.

This. The ability to recite chapter and verse of received opinions on mouldy tomes and regurgitate them eloquently is not thinking.

That is true, and the people who namedrop philosophers and cite books to bolster their arguments are nothing but intellectual masturbators. However, it is extremely useful for providing a person with different perspectives from which to approach questions. Philosophy is a tool and should be regarded as such. The first philosopher whose works I read decades ago was Bruce Lee, and the fundamental premise of his Tao of Jeet Kune Do is that a person should first learn absolutely everything that he can, throw it all out, and then create his own path. Do not allow it to become binding as so many others do, but also do not forget the first step where you learn it.

This post is obvious bait, but I laughed.

Well, we actually can know quite a bit–and that knowledge is itself structured by a priori and necessary principles that inhere in the cognitions and whole of experience for all human subjects.

Whether or not we can cognize and represent the totality in theoretical, discursive understanding or simple utilize it as a necessary presumption for the activation of cognition is another matter still up for debate.

Just read it before you embarrass yourself.

...

I thought Commies hated Kant

They like everyone they're too stupid to understand.

No, he's just enjoying his property.

Do nothing.

Stirner will attack Hume for slapping his property, Hume will deny that any of it ever happened since Stirner can't know that Hume slapped that ass since that ass may have simply been attracted to Hume's hand. Stirner won't take that shit because the Ego knows what it decides to know, and anyway, Hume's hand is also his property and he doesn't want those two pieces of his property touching.
The two of them get dragged out of the bar by a bouncer who still believes in naive realism, and me and my girlfriend continue drinking until I realize she is not real.

Are you human?

...

It still requires you to gather knowledge, aka, read.
also reminiscent of Zizek's ideological supermarket being fit only for looting

Sure, have fun that status quo, it's worked great for everyone so far

Belief in a sharing economy usually isn't compatible with a primary philosophy of pure-reasonable "If I can get away with it, I will" self interest including claiming more resources than you can utilize.