What literature/philosophy is in the same vein as this image?

What literature/philosophy is in the same vein as this image?

Attached: 103.jpg (600x760, 79K)

mental masturbationism

Philosophy hit the cultural roadblock before the material roadblock. For Donald, counter enlightenment in general, like Hamann. For Mickey, Hegel, Foucault, Heidegger, Derrida.

>inserting pseudointellectual messages into Disney cartoons
Jordan Peterson.

Nietzsche but its for immature Brainlets

the chemicals makes him trust the chemicals, there's no paradox there.

I'm so sick of brainlets posting this image

I wouldn't call the message psued when almost none of the actual populace seems to be able to get it.

It's circular logic

>Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?
How does this follow from the rest of the conversation? Did whichever autist who wrote this just think it was a badass thing to say?

it's a meme so it's de facto entry level pleb shit so I at least want to find something of substantial substance that strikes the same chord in me that this does

What's there to get? Mickey is throwing non-sequiturs around

who knows
ad hominem though, either way at this point it's in so deep that autist lines are to be expected

the fact that the chemicals create something that make us trust something in itself is enough reason to go with Mickey on this

Epistemological Scepticism.

some Camus, Hume's problem of causation, a reference to the Nietzschean rhetoric, and I guess a bit of nihilism.

Attached: IMG_0441.jpg (640x695, 58K)

If you are an epistemological coherentist, then there is no paradox. If you take the position of the foundationalist or infinitist views of justification, then there is indeed something objectionable in

The non sequitor thing is obvious. I'm just talking about how the first part of Mickey's rant pisses off the "I LOVE SCIENCE OMG XD" crowd

This is my biggest issue with the image. Given that I've seen it posted dozens and dozens of times, and you're the first person I've ever seen point out what a posturing non sequitur the last two sentences are, I convinced that nearly 100% of the people who read this don't even fully attack or think out what it says. It just sounds smart and revolutionary so they think "awesome" and hit "save image."
Same thing with "hypocrite that you are," it means absolutely no sense next to the rest of the sentence. Either the "for" in "for you" should be dropped, or "hypocrite that you are" must become something like "you are a hypocrite."

that shit is obviously just for meme's sake and for being funny, I don't think that should be taken with a lot of reverence when interpreting the greater whole of what to take away. That said I don't think that it is actually detrimental to the point itself as it still gets it position across anyway, the details and questions over these miscellaneous words/phrases that are there just need to be understood as being present for no other reason than to just sound good

There's a million terms of movements and types of philosophy and philosophers and shit, I can grasp concepts of abstract things0 decently if they're explained well but when it comes to all these pronouns that philosophy has and all the background knowledge that's necessary to be able to maneuver through it I just become a retard. Can someone explain some of the answers in this thread to me like I'm 5?

Its horribly out of context but i'll always love this quote from Heidegger: "Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy."

Ironic considering Heideggers writing is so fucking boring.

interesting point, I'm just clueless as how to navigate all this information when it's all coded and compressed into terms and words that are used as building blocks for arguments and require background knowledge of in order to even understand the points themselves

I feel ya. This in particular:
>If you are an epistemological coherentist, then there is no paradox. If you take the position of the foundationalist or infinitist views of justification, then there is indeed something objectionable in [reply number]

That's because you haven't taken a historical approach to philosophy. Yes, technically you can get acquainted with the meaning of terms and positions by cramming them from a contemporary philosophy textbook, but a far more natural approach is to follow along the development of philosophy as these issues arise during the writings of major thinkers, and how others respond to them. Things like "Epistemic justification" doesn't really click until you read, say, Kant.

Kill yourself

my diary desu

nothing can be proved on the sole fact of scientific notion, i.e. chemicals, so it all boils down to a decision

Attached: 16306729472.png (1028x526, 231K)

>getting this angry over a reddit meme

The Trial, Notes from the Underground; Notes first and foremost.

Attached: pencil_skirt_zizek,x300,front-c,145,17,210,230-bg,f8f8f8.lite-1u1.jpg (210x230, 8K)

Good one

>identifying with mickey

r*ddit