Who's in the right here?

someone put Zizek in the middle

Philosophically yes but realistically no. He takes his kid to McDonald's so that he doesn't have to talk to him.

It's basically showing the philosophers through the lens of how they would be as fathers (they are father figures, after all). How they react to their kids's question is generally how they react to philosophy as a whole. Those on the left are tough but harsh--dark horses, really, though I think Socrates should 1) not even be on this list and 2) at least be halfway up, and instead Plato should be right next to Aurelius on top. These ones on the left, as fathers, will fuck with their kids, but really, they love them. Kierkegaard has good placement here. Those on top represent the calm and the rational dad, whose stoic (sorry), stern, and, not necessarily boring (though the person up here has put the toughest philosophers up here and then decided also to put Aurelius). Those on the right are Camus.

But really, those on the right are the freespirits, the dads who are always smiling and loving their kids and letting them do what they want. Personally I fucking hate Sartre and Camus even just on the basis that everyone I know who loves them coincidentally has a life in which they're depressed, so I guess there really is a correlation between letting your kids do whatever the hell they want and being a lost fuck.

Marx should be place at the end of the left since he literally let his kids starve to death while smoking cigars and living the NEET life.

Can you explain Hume's position there? I really don't get it.

Obviously a mix between top and left

Hobbes, Captain Kierk and Heidegger. What a team

>Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

Wouldn't camus just drive the car off a cliff instead?

Get your own mc donalds.

t. Doesn't get the meme

They need to make it their property.

How could they make it their property when its already my property

It's only yours if you can defend it.

Nope you don't understand Stirner. Its already mine

Maybe he doesn't feel like it.

shouldn't nietzsche be somewhere between "food at home" and "mcdonalds"? if i'm understanding correctly, his current spot seems like it would be more suited to schopey.

Those little shits have got to struggle if they want their McDonalds.

>those on the right are the freespirits
those on the right are reddit*

Why do degenerates love Camus and Sartre so much?

>nietzshe
>mcdonalds
brainletism

what's your favorite food from mcdonalds, Veeky Forums?

Three McChickens plain and a large fries

thx m8

When I was a teenager I got a big mac and put a mcchicken inbetween the two burgers.

Because they create excuses for debauchery.

Usually any number of items as long as the bill comes out to >$20.

For example, 5 hash browns, a double quarter-pounder, fish fillet, ten piece nugget, a sausage mcmuffin, french fries, chicken salad, three mcchickens.

And yes, the number I decide to purchase of each item is a matter of whim instead of any logical system.

Sometimes I'll buy all that and eat it through 2 meals. Don't forget the antacids tho, specially if you're drinking beer.

This is what my soul looks like.

lol nice

My life is that interesting. I get major pussy with that story.

Camus' prose is good.

I see I'm not the only American on here today.

now that they have breakfast all day, i get a mcdouble and a hash brown and put the hash brown patty into the burger. sometimes i also get a fruit and yogurt parfait.

4 1-Euro cheeseburgers

It’s a fucking coffee.

...

kek

the monterosa cheesecake (im a girl)

chicken nuggers

The one with Marx at the top of the pyramid is the best desu

Royal TS with Bacon

>is-ought
dont tell me this is actually a hume quote

>Pour toujours, je serai é t r a n g e r à moi même

how long were you in a coma?

This is a john mulaney joke

Hume didn't actually disregard the "ought", he only pointed out that it can't ever be derived from an "is" (or be a product of reasoned contemplation, for that matter).

From what I recall, he said that moral evaluation and normative judgment are perfectly acceptable, but one has to be aware that it's all just a bucket of feels in the end.