/lit/ - Literature

Kierkegaard
Aristotle
Wittgenstein

>>13765830
>mfw he wants proof for something that cannot be proven

>>13728492
based and kierkegaardpilled

>>13724118
>I have a real philistine doubt to its worth
k good for you

>Christian
>hero

>>13575172
>>13575179
>he thinks the year matters
read philosophical fragments and try again sweety

>>13565134
Yes and no.

>>13494822
Absolutely trivializing

>tears hegel apart with superior dialectic
>pinpoints schopenhauer as a representative of the merely "interesting" and momentary, who can't take the leap to becoming an ascetic himself
nothin personnel.....

>>13423354
I pick repetition

>>13404433
pshh, can you even make an infinite movement at a single instant? didn't think so, kidd....

>>13399019
That all knowledge is recollection

Your dialectic is shit

>>13231736
Hegel, so that I could advance my own critique of his charlatanry completely independent of that grumpy old bastard that got everything wrong

>>13158737
Nope

>Schopenhauer is so far from being a real pessimist that at the most he represents 'the interesting': in a certain sense he makes asceticism interesting--the most dangerous thing possible for a pleasure-seeking age which will be harmed more than ever by distilling pleasure even out of asceticism… is by studying asceticism in a completely impersonal way, by assigning it a place in the system.

>After reading through Schopenhauer's Ethic one learns - naturally he is to that extent honest - that he himself is not an ascetic. And consequently he himself has not reached contemplation through asceticism, but only a contemplation which contemplates asceticism. This is extremely suspicious, and may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous melancholy: a profound misanthropy. In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses. Schopenhauer makes ethics into genius, but that is of course an unethical conception of ethics. He makes ethics into genius and although he prides himself quite enough on being a genius, it has not pleased him, or nature has not allowed him, to become a genius where asceticism and mortification are concerned.

>>13116760
>After reading through Schopenhauer's Ethic one learns - naturally he is to that extent honest - that he himself is not an ascetic. And consequently he himself has not reached contemplation through asceticism, but only a contemplation which contemplates asceticism. This is extremely suspicious, and may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous melancholy: a profound misanthropy. In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses. Schopenhauer makes ethics into genius, but that is of course an unethical conception of ethics. He makes ethics into genius and although he prides himself quite enough on being a genius, it has not pleased him, or nature has not allowed him, to become a genius where asceticism and mortification are concerned.

>muh fast reading pace
If something can be read fast, it's either shit or will not be retained. Read good books slow and aloud.

>>13057656
Read Philosophical Fragments, pseud

>>13048130
>>13048130
>How the FUCK do people read the book of Job and still not believe in the Bible?

>>13001359

>>12980135

>>12878942
>proven through logic and science
miss me with that gay shit