Midwit authors

[Anonymous No.22834205]

Post authors that are/were, at best, midwits. Starting off with the king of midwits:

[Anonymous No.22834217]

I get that OP is trying to troll epicly but there really is something midwit to the Nietzschean appeal to emotion and rejection of logos/reason. Guy had some interesting ideas but not making real arguments is suspiciously close to midwit territory.

[Anonymous No.22834253]

>>22834217
If he would have been a bit less mentally ill, he would probably been able to compose a pretty good coherent philosophical system.

[Anonymous No.22834258]

[Anonymous No.22834264]

>>22834205
The Bible will always be the definitive midwit text.

[Anonymous No.22834354]

>>22834264
Jesus loves you despite your shitposts.

[Anonymous No.22834374]

>>22834354
The king of kings for the midwits, no other authors come close.

[Anonymous No.22834978]

>>22834374
>>22834264
kike detected. your mothers will get raped and slaughtered in this and the next world. niggers

[Anonymous No.22834996]

>>22834264
the bible is the only true book
there should be a the bible general here since it is the most important book ever made

[Anonymous No.22835028]

>>22834978
It's also notably a book for dimwits.

>>22834996
There usually is a Bible general on here. Feel free to make one if you want to, the tradlarps on here generally just let them die since they aren't actually interested in talking about the Bible, and likely haven't even read it either.

[Anonymous No.22835036]

>>22835028
Seething Nietzschecel.

[Anonymous No.22835168]

>>22835036
Nietzsche threads are also a staple on here as well.

[Anonymous No.22835183]

>>22834264
Say Jesus is lord.

[Anonymous No.22835188]

>>22834217
>inability to do logic
dimwit
>over reliance on logic
midwit
>mastery of logic but realizing it's pointless to constrain yourself to ultimately arbitrary axioms
topwit

[Anonymous No.22835196]

>>22835188
Are you implying that Nietzsche displayed a mastery of logic anywhere in his writings? Because that's really far off the mark.

[Anonymous No.22835200]

>>22834217
Horrible take. The most midwit thing is by far appeal to reason over emotion or to have absolute faith in rationality.
By what rationality are you judging your own preference of reason over emotion? It's not a logical superiority, it's your own emotional preference.

[Anonymous No.22835201]

>>22834217
>and rejection of logos
That motherfucker did what?

[Anonymous No.22835208]

>>22835200
You sound 16.

[Anonymous No.22835209]

>>22835188
You can't escape logic faggot. Even idealists and christcucks use transcendental logic.

[Anonymous No.22835214]

>>22835183
Why would he say that? He's clearly not a Christian.

[Anonymous No.22835219]

>>22835201
Christoid word games designed to say they‘re inherently right because only yahweh decides what right is.

[Anonymous No.22835236]

>>22835208
Again your argument is essentially along the lines: this would be an opinion held by someone I consider to be immature, it feels immature therefore I don't hold it. No sound logical basis to your preference.
I personally think there's a difference between reason and rationality (Vernunft and Verstand), the first takes account of emotion and the second opposes itself to emotion. My preference is of course grounded in emotions, I'm at least rational enough to admit it.

[Anonymous No.22835242]

>>22835196
It was a general statement. I'm not a Nietzsche scholar so no not really. Maybe his proof sketch of the eternal recurrence in Will to Power, otherwise perhaps in his early work, probably unpublished. He was one of the youngest professors ever appointed at the time.

[Anonymous No.22835255]

>>22835236
The reason you "sound" 16 is that you haven't read anything apart from Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.22835262]

>>22835209
At a certain point you realize logic is intimately to language and language is an inexact construct of the human mind, so there's no particular reason it should correspond to the external world, let alone anything transcendental. This is why we need empiricism for anything useful and not just mathematics. Also christcucks are deluded dimwits.

[Anonymous No.22835264]

Nietzsche was a tremendous admirer of Kant and Kant was a great admirer of Hume. This thread is stupid

[Anonymous No.22835269]

Heidegger, Nabokov, & McCarthy imo

[Anonymous No.22835271]

>>22835262
>*intimately tied to

[Anonymous No.22835277]

>>22835262
How is language a construct when its just the sounds humans make organized using logic btw grammatically. Its no different in this regard from dancing or gesturing.

[Anonymous No.22835279]

>>22835242
Lol he doesn't even attempt proofs like that.

[Anonymous No.22835280]

>>22834264
bible isn't even midwit, it's completely retarded

[Anonymous No.22835287]

>>22835219
That's right anon, only the author of the book gets to decide what happens in the book.

[Anonymous No.22835292]

>>22835264
>This retard was a great admirer of this other retard who was an admirer of the biggest retard of them all
Incredible.

[Anonymous No.22835299]

>>22835262
>At a certain point you realize logic is intimately to language
Dimwit indeed.

[Anonymous No.22835305]

>>22835292
What have you done in your life again?

[Anonymous No.22835307]

>>22835255
Do you not see the irony of claiming superiority for reason over emotion without actually making any kind of argument and simply making completely off the mark ad hominems?

[Anonymous No.22835319]

>>22835305
I didn't bash my brains by repeatedly hitting my head against a wall like Hume did, metaphorically speaking.

[Anonymous No.22835327]

>>22835307
I didn't make any such claims. I was merely laughing at "your" (Nietzsche's) idea that all preferences are a result of emotions.

[Anonymous No.22835370]

>>22835277
Language is the collection of words, their definitions, and the grammatical rules to join them together. Definitions are not exact, grammatical rules are not universally followed, and because of that every philosophical question if approached from a purely logical standpoint ultimately devolves into arguments over semantics. Arguments for the existence of God for example ultmately just depend on how you define "God", etc. Logical positivism failed.
>>22835279
Will to Power, Book III.
>>22835299
Sneed. >>22835271

[Anonymous No.22835391]

>>22835327
I think that's possibly a slight mischaracterisation. Nietzsche's not saying that all preferences are *only* the result of emotions, but only that there are no fundamental logical axioms by which such preferences could ultimately be justified, as they have their fundamental basis in an emotional preference. It doesn't mean there aren't degrees of truth and degrees of logic only there is just no absolute truth or pure logic.

[Anonymous No.22835404]

>>22835183
This Christcuck wants to demote the midwit king of kings to a mere lord. Midwit was too generous by a fair margin.

[Anonymous No.22835406]

>>22835370
Logic existed before language. Animals can count and do some math and they can even communicate via some primitive form of grammar, dolphins and whales do this, etc.

[Anonymous No.22835444]

>>22835406
>Logic existed before language. Animals can count and do some math and they can even communicate via some primitive form of grammar, dolphins and whales do this, etc.
>[citation needed]
You pulled this out of your ass, but even if it were true, it's because it's rooted in biological instinct, ultimately a heuristic. It's like how a neural network can approximate a function without being the function itself; animal brains can evolve to exhibit a behavior which approximates some kind of logic, without them necessarily "doing the logic". I see where you're coming from though; you want to estabilish that there is a system of logic (more like cause and effect) that exists in the universe apart from language. I would say there has to be since the universe behaves mechanistically, but the difference is that our "human" logic is not the same as any purported universal logic by virtue of being tied to our language and ultmately our biological instincts. At best it's an approximation to it with big problems as Gödel found.

[Anonymous No.22835474]

>>22835444
Its a heuristic that works in the same way among both humans and animals. It doesn't need to be problem free, that's just a function of wanting answers to meaningless statements. Its only an approximation from the point of view of that failure, i,e the failure to connect thoughts that need not be connected, such as:
Humans talk
Ants exist
Therefore ants can talk.
Not all thoughts that originate in your head need to make sense and this need to make sense of them is what leads to problematic approximations such as this.
But logic still exists even as an approximation.

[Anonymous No.22835524]

>>22835391
You wrote nonsense. If there's no absolute truth there aren't degrees of truth either. Use your brain for a second.

[Anonymous No.22835534]

>>22835474
>But logic still exists even as an approximation.
I think we're on the same page. I'd just emphasize that our heuristic/approximation which we call "logic" is not the same as universal logic, which is why it's pure midwittery to jerk yourself off over semantics when ultimately it's all just in your head.

[Anonymous No.22835558]

>>22835534
Yes but my point was that using language to connect concepts is ultimately subject to some form of logic, whichever form you might prefer.

[Anonymous No.22835623]

Why is being a midwit bad? Genuine question. It is implied to be bad or undesirable.

[Anonymous No.22835641]

>>22835623
It is a go to insult for /Lit/ in the vein of pseud. In actuality IQ has very little relevance outside of intellectual dick swinging in the absence of a coherent point to be made.

[Anonymous No.22835648]

>>22835623
Midwits are contemptible bugmen, soibois, betacucks, blind followers of authority, mere simulacra of real human beings (NPCs). They are ngmi, which is why it's even preferable to be a total retard, who can at least get rich and fuck stacies since they are not inhibited at all by lackluster faculties of reason, being closer to animals thriving on base instincts.

[Anonymous No.22835652]

>>22835524
That's black-and-white thinking and inability to accept fuzzy boundaries. "If it doesn't exist completely it's not there at all". Type of dogmatism that leads to hardcore Catholic positions or analytic philosophy autism. You need a dose of later Wittgenstein and Iain McGilchrist.

[Anonymous No.22835684]

>>22835652
No it isn't, brainlet. The existence of absolute truth doesn't necessarily mean that the truth is completely knowable.
Nietzsche was a honest nihilist hence both truth and approximation of truth are irrelevant in this discussion.

[Anonymous No.22835698]

>>22835684
>The existence of absolute truth doesn't necessarily mean that the truth is completely knowable.
So your position is that absolute truth exists but we can't know it? So essentially a Kantian position?
You haven't read Nietzsche if you think Nietzsche was a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.22835736]

>>22834264
As opposed to Richard Dawkins, right?

[Anonymous No.22835740]

>>22835214
It’s a command not a suggestion

[Anonymous No.22835751]

>>22835736
OP is looking for a king, the Bible has attracted more midwits than Dawkins could dream of. Although given the quality of responses in this thread midwit is seemingly generous at this point.

[Anonymous No.22835761]

>>22835740
You must have missed the response if you want to continue the tic for tac retard. It's right here: >>22835404

[Anonymous No.22835984]

>>22835740
Did you have to pray to sky daddy for a set of nuts you colossal bitch?

[Anonymous No.22836269]

>>22834217
>but not making real arguments
He makes hundreds of arguments per book, though.

[Anonymous No.22837456]

>>22834217
failing to understsand the limits of reason and rationality is in itself MIDWIT

[Anonymous No.22837460]

>>22834205
>115 IQ christfags think that midwit actually means "atheist"

[Anonymous No.22837467]

>>22834978
Would jesus approve of this post?

[Anonymous No.22837483]

>>22834978
remember that when you are interacting with a christian and he immediately starts screaming about jews and non-whites, he is pre-emptively compensating for the fact that his religion is jewish and that everybody knows it

[Anonymous No.22837487]

>>22834205
If you worry about such things you are probably a midwit

[Anonymous No.22838394]

>>22834264
Considering both the noble lords and stupid peasants of nearly every civilization were religious id say by default religious texts arent midwit but all encompassing of the whole range of IQ.

To be a midwit book it has to be something rejected by both the serfs and the lords.

[Anonymous No.22838398]

>>22834264
Its literally low IQ sandnigger babble, midwit is far too generous
>>22835183
Say rabbi jeshua is jewish

[Anonymous No.22838404]

>>22835264
He literally says kant is a retard and subhuman in several books, especially compared to his contemporary goethe, in antichrist he calls him chinamen of koningsberg

[Anonymous No.22838959]

>>22835524
Holy john dimwit brainlet anon

[Anonymous No.22838971]

>>22834205
OH HAI