Who was the best existentialist?

Kierkegaard of course

Best: Kierk
Worst: Nietzsche

How is Heidegger evil?

kierk was a cristian thinker, nogame with nietzsche.

black diary

>Nazi
>fucked over his jewish fuckbuddy
>fucked over his jewish mentor
>destroyed over 1,000 years of western thought

Is that so? I was under a different impression. See >true neutral
Swap Heidegger and Satan

>Nazi
>fucked over his jewish fuckbuddy
>fucked over his jewish mentor
So he was a lawful good, according to this. A true paladin, slaying that demon pussy and demons themselves.
>destroyed over 1,000 years of western thought
Now, I already knew where his chaotic part came from.

it is based on the notion that a man still can freely choose DESPITE being "shaped by psychological, genetic, cultural, economic factors"

das rite

retard

>Tolstoj
>Lawful

Why is Nabokov Chaotic Evil? I've read most of his novels. And I don't understand why he would be Chaotic Evil. What is Chaotic Evil?

Get the fuck off this board, it’s very clear why nazis are wrong

tell my why, if it is so clear.

I agree with Carl Schmitt, it is Kierkegaard.

> hitler was a brainlet
> he killed innocent people and let much of Europe in ruin
> he invaded Poland for no good reason

>Heidegger
>existentialist

no, the problem is the delusion that they can transcend it, while claiming no transcendence as well...basically authenticity is a big meme

>Brainlet
maybe compared to your own august intellect.

> he killed innocent people
neither good nor bad.
>let much of Europe in ruin
see above.
> he invaded Poland for no good reason
see above

I just finished Fear and Trembling and really want more Kierkegaard now. What should I read next? Sickness Unto Death seems to be the most notable, but is it the best?

>it’s very clear why nazis are wrong
No, it's not.
The Nazis killed people en masse just like every other ideological position in the 20th century (and in every other century by the way).
You are allowing the modern societal shibboleth of "the Nazis as absolute and objective evil" to form your view of morality. You need to step outside of yourself and look at the events of history as an unbiased observer.

go back to /pol/

you can't even reply to the right post, and tell me how killing innocents methodically in camps and attacking a country that was not challenging you not bad? also mien kampf is literally a prison rant, but retards like you think its a manifesto

I'm a Socialist, you Liberal shitstain.

Read Two Ages. His most prophetic text.

>acts of evil are justified if others do them too

Lawful has its own problems. The order fetishism may strain normal ways of life of its joy simply by being too harsh. However, this is hardly Heidegger's problem or flaw, but it is one of protestants (before secularization) and that of Germany, Prussia...
Jews, however, are evil. There is no doubt about that. Example: they see fun.

just because other people committed atrocities doesn't mean that everyone is excused, nazis are just the one who did it in such an organized manner

To expound a bit on this, Kierkegaard pretty much predicted the current state of modernity. His diagnosis of the present age in Two Ages is uncanny in its precision today, despite being written about the 1840's. Much of Two Ages was more or less plagiarized by Heidegger, at some points you could make the case that Heidegger (in Being and Time) actually took entire sentences of Kierkegaard's and swapped a couple of words for synonyms.

Yes. Self-defense, for example, is violence justified by the violence of others. Of course, with Nazis this point means that they can't be relatively more evil than the others, simply because they killed people systematically.

Here's a short example of Jewish capitalism: youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Trotsky is an example of Jewish communism, and modern Israel is example of Jewish nazism.

What is "Evil"? If everyone is doing "evil" things, is it really evil? Or, are you just using the word "Evil" as a pejorative to indicate and justify violence against a socially agreed upon "Other".

I guess we could always start this dialog with me murdering you, and then try to sort it out from there.

Not if I pre-emptively murder you!

L Ron Hubbard

>Le I'm so above le masses maaaan
Fuck off you posturing pseud.

you thinking jews are evil is the same as blacks thinking whites are evil
you both think somehow these people are magically in control and you ignore the act that the people who belong to the same group never receive any special treatment from anyone
you're entire argument is just "jews are evil dude" but the blacks can say" whites are evil" and have the same fucking reasoning

>you thinking jews are evil is the same as blacks thinking whites are evil
Did I say that blacks are wrong? (Most slave traders were actually jewish, as Christians thought of the practice as immoral).
>you both think somehow these people are magically in control
No. Bobby Kotick is not magically in control, he is in control of Activision-Blizzard. His desire is to remove fun from making video games and to maximize profits. Two very jewish things. He said it himself. Trotsky wasn't magically in power either, and neither is Madeleine Albright magically rewarded.
>and you ignore the [f]act that the people who belong to the same group never receive any special treatment from anyone
Now you're just lying to yourself. Just go to /pol/ and ask for redpill on jewish nepotism. Yet you are too scared to find out yourself.

The masses are egalitarian. Stop trying to pull everything down to their level.

But every ideological position, that has had hegemony over a governmental system or large area of land, has willfully committed atrocities.
So-in that scenario-because I challenged your subjective conception of "Evil", you would justify violence against me.
How is advocating for an unbiased amoral view of history elitist?

You assumed that the other poster thinks that the Nazis are evil not because he arrived at that conclusion himself but because he got brainwashed by the current cultural zeitgeist. It's a pretty retarded thing to do and it makes you look like a posturing pseud.
>inb4 evil don't real
Fuck off.

because one faggot want to ruin fun for your call of duty doesn't mean it is a trait in all jews.
tell me, do you think jews get random deposits of cash in the bank for being Jewish? Or maybe they somehow receive insider info? Or get away for white collar crime?
because none of that shit actually happens
>and you should already know most of /pol/ sources are extremely bad
even if somehow jews became demons from hell, him attacking poland even though Britain told him not to was a dick move

Unironically go back to /pol/
Genocide is not an act of self defense

If you had to make a list of evil acts it's fair to say genocide would be on that list

Morality is just that set of the majority's norms which are imposed on the whole of a society by force at a given time.
But, Please, prove that objective evil exists and that the Nazis were the most evil force in human history because they committed one of the smaller genocides in human history.

You only hold that view because of a common narrative that happened to be popular during the early part of your life.

Also, You're arguing against more than one person in your post.

>tip tip tip
Read some philosophy, retard.

>You assumed that the other poster thinks that the Nazis are evil not because he arrived at that conclusion himself
Yes, and?
>It's a pretty retarded thing to do and it makes you look like a posturing pseud.
Shaming is useless. Go back to r/literature.

>because one faggot want to ruin fun for your call of duty doesn't mean it is a trait in all jews.
It is, for obvious reasons, a stereotype of jews. Hollywood is nothing but this act on functional models. "Efficiency in art." - what bollocks.

>Genocide is not an act of self defense
Stop being so damn emotional and reread my post.
Shut down holocaust.exe, your brainwashing program.

Genocide is also something that every single ideological system, that has had hegemony over a government or any large area of land, has willfully committed.

you cannot sit there and tell me that organized genocide is not an evil thing to do? any philosopher will tell you killing a person is bad, let alone millions of them. you would have to be a sociopath to think genocide is okay in any sense.
nazi are the most evil because it was all planned out. the Rwandan genocide was also evil but was spontaneous, ill-organized, and suppressed.

Still waiting for that argument about how "objective evil exists and that the Nazis were the most evil force in human history because they committed one of the smaller genocides in human history."

can /pol/ please fuck off?

thanks in advance

Sure, and the definition of apple is only useful because it's one we collectively agree on as a society. By the common definition of evil, Nazi's are unjustifiable. You're free to argue otherwise, but if you aren't interested in real communication, you're only being obtuse.

>you cannot sit there and tell me that organized genocide is not an evil thing to do?
You do the exact same thing by ignoring the other systems in order to uphold a "evil enemy" spook. All humans are evil, all systems are evil. National socialism has no qualities that make it worse than the other models, morality-wise.

>National socialism has no qualities that make it worse than the other models, morality-wise.
No, morality-wise it has many qualities that make it worse. You're the one arguing that morals don't real, remember?

No, you're welcome.

I remember when people had the decency to lurk a few months before posting

please reread How does the fact others do the same justify an immoral act? Are you retarded or just a nazi sympathiser?

and every single ideology has been called out for it
the crusades, the native american removal, the Armenian genocide, all of them have been shown in a negative light

>No, morality-wise it has many qualities that make it worse.
Like? Last time I checked, it didn't include a materialist world view that forces chemical alteration of people for them to bother with living, nor did it starve its citizens or move them around in the millions for sociological studying.
>You're the one arguing that morals don't real, remember?
No, that'd be the other guy.

Another thread ruined by /pol/ that couldn't resist talking about jews
epin
hope mods delete this shitty thread soon

>nor did it starve its citizens or move them around in the millions for sociological studying.
lol

>How does the fact others do the same justify an immoral act? Are you retarded or just a nazi sympathiser?
Is there specifically wrong with something the nazis do? Since they are already dead, punishing them is something in the interest of the remaining evils.

This

I'm on it

t. OP

It is rejecting the mindless autopilot that is caused by those.

Kierkegaard. Only answer.

It didn't. In the best/worst case scenario, they did it to Jews (who were at war with them).

>Error: You cannot delete a post this old.
fukk

>Yes, and?
I'M SO FAR ABOVE LE MASSES MAN, EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME OR WHO ADOPTS A EVEN REMOTELY POPULAR POSITION MUST BE WRONG AND BRAINWASHED
>Go back to r/literature.
I literally didn't even know this existed, but thanks for letting us know where you come from.
That's entire field called metaethics that can answer your sophomoric questions.

could have been a good thread
wasn't your fault
I'm at fault for accidentally feeding some (You)s

>Another thread ruined by /pol/ that couldn't resist talking about jews
Nobody said anything about the Jews.
People are arguing about what is and is not evil and if evil even exists.
Not /pol/ vs /leftypol/ but rather moral conception of reality vs amoral conception of reality.

oh my god
>Is there specifically wrong with something the nazis do?
yes read the fucking thread you troglodyte
>Since they are already dead, punishing them is something in the interest of the remaining evils.
we're educating people on their actions and explaining why it's fucking bad because we don't want another nazi regime and fascist government, which is based of militarism

And Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, gays, and literally just anybody with a disability.

...in relation to the topic of killing jews

go away

we're stuck with these retards huh?

>I'M SO FAR ABOVE LE MASSES MAN
I am, by the virtue of not being them. Masses demanded equality, they cut off their king's head. Why? To be equal.
>EVERYONE WHO ADOPTS A[n] EVEN REMOTELY POPULAR POSITION MUST BE WRONG AND BRAINWASHED
Ever since psychology and mass media got married, the latter point is true.
>I literally didn't even know this existed, but thanks for letting us know where you come from.
Ebin flustered. I've only ever seen references to it here on Veeky Forums, it is a common sight, ye newfag.

Let me rephrase that, because you can't think from all your emotional trauma.
"Why is a genocide made by the nazis worse than a genocide made by anybody else? "
>we're educating people on their actions and explaining why it's fucking bad
Why, then?

If it is so easy to answer, why don't you explain to me how the Nazis killing 6 million Jews is morally worse than (for example) western colonial governments killing 10s of millions of native inhabitants in Africa?
Because you can't and your conception of the Nazis as the greatest evil is entirely emotional.

>It is based upon the notion of a man as a radically free tabula rasa
are you stupid? the self is a relation's relating itself to itself, and one of those poles is the finite or the necessary — i.e. the shit with which you are saddled. grounding human identity in a blank slate leads to mania if you're lucky, according to Kierk. even if you don't believe in God, you are still limited by externalities and contingency.

read The Sickness Unto Death and get back to me.

In relation to the topic of genocide in general

...in relation to the holocaust

baka fuck off to your containment board

>I am, by the virtue of not being them. Masses demanded equality, they cut off their king's head.
Ah, I see! You were a buttblasted monarchist all along! Now, please bend over and let me chop your head off.

[note: this post is humourous, don't reply seriously]

It's not. We villainize them, as well.

and in relation to genocides committed by colonial governments in Africa and the atrocities of the USSR, just to name two of the other genocides brought up in this thread already.

>the self is a relation's relating itself to itself, and one of those poles is the finite or the necessary
You're not wrong, but your reading comprehension needs some improvement to say the least.

why are moral nihilists so cringe-worthy?

We already said it, because it was planned and organized. they made murder as simple as microwaving your food.all genocide is wrong, but they had methodically planned for the extermination of jews, disabled, gay, etc

...in comparison to the holocaust

No, Western Society does not villainize Leopold II to the same degree that it villianizes Hitler.
That is a retarded statement.

Either/Or is his most accessible introduction, but you already read Fear and Trembling, so... The Sickness Unto Death contains the core of his thought and is a very moving work. If you decide to read it, ignore the stuff you don't understand and push on (he's probably making fun of Hegel).

If you want to see K as a prophet, is right in saying Two Ages. It is worth reading Either/Or when you can get around to it; parts of it still haunt me today — "Are you not aware that there comes a midnight hour when everyone must unmask?..."

. . . Because the holocaust is also a genocide, you dumb fuck.
You're missing the point of the entire conversation.

If you mean we don't spend as much time villainizing him, sure, but I would dare you to find anyone who knows Leopold II and thinks he's better than Hitler.

>Ah, I see! You were a buttblasted monarchist all along! Now, please bend over and let me chop your head off.
But then I will be equal with all the other martyrs!
>[note: this post is humourous, don't reply seriously]
That's a good trait to have. Keep it. I haven't been humorous for the past 14 years...