Lets be serious Veeky Forums. How hard would Aquinas BTFO NEETche in a debate?

maybe it wasn't written for you

maybe it was intended for NEETs with delusions of grandeur, like me

>Should have just said.
But there is nothing to get. NEETche didn't bother to do philosophy.
He just spewed a bunch of bullshit based on half truths that he took as universal facts and went full autist writting theology around his meme religion (and all his work is basically about creating a new religion)

Nietzche presents his rational lots of times. He just realized the limits of the traditional style.

Aquinas's then 800 year old philosophy had been ripped apart by later philosophers like Hume. Nietzsche was at the least well read in philosophy

>he took as universal facts
WRONG

>Aquinas
>BTFO of anyone
>mfw

>You cant really understand anything so why bother lol.
>Music approaches reality better than science lol I won't even try to argue it though XD
Yeah he was an autist

>universal facts

But this is wrong, have you actually read Nietzsche?

You're not up to date with any of the philosophy of science, are you?

>Nothing really exist lol.
>All logic is shit lol because maybe there is a penguin that can fly so saying that all pinguins can't fly is just wrong lol

>You cant really understand anything so why bother lol.
what

read nietzsche before you make threads about him

>Reality cannot really be understood. This is a fact.

>Doesn't know the difference between formal logic and pattern recognition

>read nietzsche
>There are no facts, only interpretations.
t.NEETche

Well probably not directly
Are you familiar with any philosopher after Aquinas or did you just figure he got everything right and stop looking into things

Oh hi Ælian, are you having another Æutistic fit again?

stop saying really as if it means anything

if you didn't put really in there you'd be wrong and you know it
some interpretations are superior to others or "real" if you mean

>some interpretations are superior to others or "real" if you mean
>Like dude you can't really know anything lol.

you can know that you're right

>I have no argument so I will just strawman the other guy in a blatant attempt to make him look stupid.

>I'm into philosophy, but for practical purposes, sophistry will do

>Claims Nietzsche is a Sophist
>Post Sophistry the entire thread

Really makes you think

>Unicorns dont exist
>Like dude I was high the other day and I saw 4 lmao. Reality just doesn't exist dude like maybe in my interpretation of reality unicorns exist

He suffers from Æutism, he doesn't know what sophistry even means

Is not something the writings of Nietzsche or Hume imply or suggest

It's something his Æutism suggests though

> truths are illusions
t.NEETche

>I'm an Æutist
t. Ælian the Divine King of Æutism

it's more like perception is truth

what you are percieved as is what you are

>it's more like perception is truth
But this is just a fallacy.There are objective truths

Yes, for instance, the fact that you're an Æutist is objectively true

those truths are objective because people percieve them as being objective

>those truths are objective because people percieve them as being objective
They are objective because they are universal not because some people went and agreed.
>Lol this gravity thing is pretty dope can we all agree that gravity exist.

>They are objective because they are universal not because some people went and agreed.
they are universal because people percieve them as being universal

Nor do they need to agree on the universal fact that you're an Æutistic fuck

>percieve
You don't perceived the weak nuclear force but it is an objective fact that it exists

t.autist

Yep, that's what you are

idk how to spell perceive

you perceive the effects of it so you know it exists

This proves nothing.This is just pure sophistry

it's a more useful description of the way people think than "muh objective truths"

No it is not. Seeing the reality as perceptions is just purposely ignoring that there is any real truth.

>Seeing the reality as perceptions is just purposely ignoring that there is any real truth.
t. pseud

>Nothing really exist dude lmao. What about that?
t.sophist.

you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are

peace out

>you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are
t.pseud

peace

out

>116 years after his death, Christians are still butthurt are still butthurt about him

That's pretty impressive. Also everything good about Aquinas came from Aristotle, and every new about Aquinas wasn't good.

t.highschool philosopher.
Kek. Everyone comes from highschool with the same stupid ideas. When you read more about those autors you will realize how big of a moron you really are/were

>I don't have a response, so I'll just claim he's a teenager.

That's pretty impressive. But Aquinas contributed nothing of worth to anyone outside of the Catholic church to philosophy.

>But Aquinas contributed nothing of worth
He basically created the theory of natural rights which lead to english liberalism and his theory of the just price was the precursor of the LTV. On the other value NEETche influence has been a bunch of edgy fedoras,dumb pseudos like (You) and some cool quotes.Don't compare a titan like Aquinas to an intelectual midget like NEETche

>Natural Rights
>Something of worth

Maximum Kek.

Nietzsche single-handedly revolutionized philosophy and finally ended the dominance of Plato and Aristotle.

>Aquinas
>a titan

Only in that he was a fat, diseased fuck who twisted some ideas of Aristotle to fit into Catholicism.

>Nietzsche single-handedly revolutionized philosophy and finally ended the dominance of Plato and Aristotle.
NEETche is a joke.Existentialism is a joke.On the other hand liberalism is still alive and the whole economic left uses Aquinas theory of value. Stay mad.The impact of NEETche has been null outside of autistic debates and sophistry. NEETche was a pseudo profet not a philosopher

>Nietzsche is a joke.
>Existentialism is a joke.

Oh this butthurt is delicious. Don't worry, some day you'll find meaning and you'll stop flailing at your betters.

>liberalism is still alive

I'll give you this, doesn't mean that natural rights aren't still an utterly philosophically bankrupt concept that can't hold up to even the most rudimentary of scrutiny.

Actually the economic left uses Marx's theory of value, which is different from the standard LTV. So if it is indeed derived from Aquinas's (doubt) it took an atheist to make it worth half a damn.

>The impact of NEETche has been null outside of autistic debates and sophistry.

Oh you mean aside from basically killing metaphysic as a systemic discipline and forcing even moral realists to have to rework their entire philosophical framework? Yeah, nothing at all.

>Oh this butthurt is delicious. Don't worry, some day you'll find meaning and you'll stop flailing at your betters.
Not an argument
>I'll give you this, doesn't mean that natural rights aren't still an utterly philosophically bankrupt concept that can't hold up to even the most rudimentary of scrutiny.
t.dumbass
>Actually the economic left uses Marx's theory of value
Marx plagiarized Aquinas.But as you haven't read neither NEETche or Aquinas there is no point telling you this.
>Oh you mean aside from basically killing metaphysic as a systemic discipline
He didn't.NEETche is a joke and a pseudo prophet. His philosophical work is lower than Joseph Smith's

>Not an argument

Neither is calling them a joke you goddamned moron.

>t.dumbass

Go on then, mount a defense of natural rights that can't be picked apart and doesn't rely on "muh god."

>Marx plagiarized Aquinas.But as you haven't read neither NEETche or Aquinas there is no point telling you this.

t. moron. Marx based his LTV in Ricardo and it was significantly modified.

>He didn't.

You mean aside from the fact you can observe a significant change in the philosophical climate following Nietzsche? He spurred the Anglo butthurt that created analytic philosophy, and he basically established continental philosophy as we know it.

>His philosophical work is lower than Joseph Smith's

The only one here who bears comparison to Joseph Smith is Aquinas, since they were both charlatans taking advantage of Christianity to push their ideas.

ITT: someone who has never read Aquinas before assumes that their bitter adjunct professor's rants against Catholicism qualifies them to make judgment calls against one of the most influential philosophers of all time.

ITT a Thomist gets seriously asshurt.

>Marx based his LTV in Ricardo and it was significantly modified.
Ricardo plagiarized Aquinas but as you haven't read either you talk shit
>continental philosophy as we know it
That was Hegel.
>The only one here who bears comparison to Joseph Smith is Aquinas, since they were both charlatans taking advantage of Christianity to push their ideas.
Aquinas based his philosophy in actual logical principals. NEETche in the other hand just said >muh feelz and used that as the basis of all his sophistry

>>aquinas
>>logical principals
Yeah no, christards don't do logic, they do idiotic special pleading arguments.

>Ricardo plagiarized Aquinas but as you haven't read either you talk shit

Ricardo based his LTV in conventional economics of the time. The LTV does not come from Aquinas, it in fact has no single origin, though Aquinas likely got his views on it from Aristotle who held the view as well.

>That was Hegel.

Not really. Hegel experienced a comparatively brief period as something of a rockstar, until Stirner utterly destroyed idealistic left-Hegelianism, leaving Marxism as the only area in which Hegelianism still enjoyed a significant presence.

>Aquinas based his philosophy in actual logical principals. NEETche in the other hand just said >muh feelz and used that as the basis of all his sophistry

Nietzsche engaged in analysis. Logic is not a requirement of philosophy, and is in fact a highly overrated tool. There's a reason every attempt to ground anything (that wasn't first built for logic, e.g. computers) in logic has met with dismal failure.

Also stop saying sophistry like it's a bad thing. There were several sophists that were twice the philosopher that Plato or Aristotle combined ever were.

tips
>Also stop saying sophistry like it's a bad thing. There were several sophists that were twice the philosopher that Plato or Aristotle combined ever were.
t.I don't care about the truth I just care about literary works that are miningless for the pursue of the truth>Hegel experienced a comparatively brief period as something of a rockstar, until Stirner utterly destroyed idealistic left-Hegelianism, leaving Marxism as the only area in which Hegelianism still enjoyed a significant presence.
>Left Hegelialism=Hegelialism
Did your high school teacher taught you that?

>There's a reason every attempt to ground anything (that wasn't first built for logic, e.g. computers) in logic has met with dismal failure.
Do you realize that computation was developed mainly by the analytical philosophers which you have dished before? Go back to highschool

>t.I don't care about the truth I just care about literary works that are miningless for the pursue of the truth

Why should I care about the pursuit of truth? Our senses are as such that we'll never experience it.

Left Hegelianism was the only form of Hegelianism to really take off and accomplish anything. Marxism is still about the only place where you'll ever see Hegelianism matter.

>Do you realize that computation was developed mainly by the analytical philosophers which you have dished before? Go back to highschool

I wasn't besmirching computation or denying the contribution of analytic philosophers. But analytic philosophy did have its roots partially in a response to Nietzsche establishing the face of continental philosophy (and Anglo butthurt for him making fun of them). Computers are great, but computation is about the only place logic has accomplishing anything because they were built from the ground up to use it. But attempts to ground anything else in logic (morals, language, even mathematics) has met with complete and utter failure.

>>I don't care about the truth
>>he says while defending that dumbfuck Aquinas

Pot meet kettle.

Anyway, OP, all you've proven in this thread is that you're massive autistic faggot. Your gay insistence of your faggy memes (LOOK AT ME GAIZ I SAYD NEET-CHE GET IT? LOOK HOW AWESOME I AM I END EVERYTHING IN A ZANY GREENTEXT AND THEN PUT T. [INSERT EBIN FUNNY NAME HERE] MY REPETITIVE BEHAVIOURS TOTALLY SHOW HOW NON-AUTISTIC I AM).

So, OP, the real question to answer in this thread is this, have you ever considered killing yourself? I mean, it's obvious you're an autistic sperg and don't add anything to the human race, so can you please by a rope and hang yourself with it?

You can't call someone autistic as a perjorative and then therefore act with unfiltered autism. It doesn't work that way.

>Why should I care about the pursuit of truth?
It pretty much is the motor of progress and reveals new fields of advancement unlike
>Dude like nothing really exist lmao
>Left Hegelianism was the only form of Hegelianism to really take off and accomplish anything. Marxism is still about the only place where you'll ever see Hegelianism matter.
Because the left was the only one using Hegelian dialectics.Even then Stirner just critized the left Hegelians
>But analytic philosophy did have its roots partially in a response to Nietzsche
Nope the split happened way before that
>dumbfuck Aquinas
*tips fedora*
I am probably more productive than you Starbucks barista

Maybe he's self-hating.

>>*tips fedora*
Quality response, truly impressive.

>>It pretty much is the motor of progress and reveals new fields of advancement
Oh reeeaaaaalllllyyyyy? Dumbfuck christard mcgee jerking himself off in the corner is the reason why we have computers is it?

Hmm that sounds like bullshit to me for some reason...

>It pretty much is the motor of progress and reveals new fields of advancement unlike

We progress just fine without ever actually experiencing truth or even meaningfully pursuing it.

>Because the left was the only one using Hegelian dialectics.Even then Stirner just critized the left Hegelians

The left was the only side to ever do anything substantial with Hegel. Once the world was over him being a rockstar, they didn't do that much with his work.

>Nope the split happened way before that

Analytic philosophy didn't become dominant until the early 20th century. Sure some of the philosophers that would be influential on it are older than that, but analytic philosophy didn't become anything of note until then, and it was in part as a response to Nietzsche having such a massive influence on continental philosophy.

>*tips fedora*

Oh you showed him. Really zinged him hard there, didn't you sweetie? Did you spend all day thinking up that one? Because surely rehashing a tired meme is below you, brave defender of Aquinas.

>Oh reeeaaaaalllllyyyyy? Dumbfuck christard mcgee jerking himself off in the corner is the reason why we have computers is it?
>Hmm that sounds like bullshit to me for some reason...
Maybe if you knew about what Christards did in the past you will be less of a moron edgy high school atheist

And then scientific and technological advancement skyrocketed when it secularized. Funny that.

>without ever actually experiencing truth
What does this even mean? If I think that it means that progress happen without knowing the truth you are a moron
>Oh you showed him. Really zinged him hard there, didn't you sweetie? Did you spend all day thinking up that one? Because surely rehashing a tired meme is below you, brave defender of Aquinas.
>Calling one of the 5 most philosophers ever a dumbfuck
>Deserving an answer other than tips

>skyrocketed when it secularized
The XIX century advancements were all done by christians.Technology always grows exponentially. Secularized China were hundreds of year behind christian Europe

>What does this even mean? If I think that it means that progress happen without knowing the truth you are a moron

We're limited first by the fallibility of our senses, and second by the fallibility of our reasoning. We engage in truth only as a close approximation, but never as its reality. To try and account for either of these limitations is like trying to pull ourselves out of a bog with our own ponytails.

>rest of your post

You don't need to dig any deeper. You already showed yourself a master wordsmith and totally not just a Christian ideologue that's asshurt about one of the most influential philosophers of all time.

Also

>5 most

The five (when you're writing, you spell out fully any number less than ten you illiterate) most what?

>china
>secularized

Being highly bureaucratic doesn't mean they were secularized. Their old folk religion was still a hugely important force in their politics and sciences.

>We engage in truth only as a close approximation
Wow this is some fucking stupid new levels of sophistry. If we don't know the truth how can we simulate an experiment 100 times and get the same result. Sheer luck that repeats over itself?
>This mental gymnastics

>If we don't know the truth how can we simulate an experiment 100 times and get the same result. Sheer luck that repeats over itself?

And how do we know that this indeed actually occurring? We can take an educated guess on the matter, but we can never be entirely certain.

>This mental gymnastics

It would be these mental gymnastics and an argument you can't counter is not mental gymnastics.

Go whack off to the Bible and the Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus or something.