Was he the last great philosopher?

This

ZIZEK LIVES, IN DEATH

Hegel, if you can read

No one after Kant (including Kant) considered themselves to be Philosophers doing philosophy. Including Kant. Do you people "read philosophy" or just wikipedia articles?

Kant's work revolves around creating the basis of methaphysics as another real source of knowledge. Saying that X is not a philosopher because he didn't consider himself one is not an argument and brings nothing to the table

pic related

Nietzsche.

>b-but I said!

Don't give a shit. You being too autistic to understand his analysis doesn't make it not analysis.

>Nietzsche.
>any new or original ideas

laughingrochefoucauld.,jpg

>if I squint really hard, I can claim this philosopher did all he did before him

Nah. Nietzsche utterly smashed systemized metaphysics and was so influential that his thoughts are pretty much standard fare these days. You may not like him, and you're free to think he's not a philosopher (after all, truth is just perspective), but he's still vastly greater and more important than anyone you give a shit about and you'll just have to deal with it.

>1.52 m
What is this some kind of a joke? Just lost all respect for him and his philosophy.

>Nietzsche utterly smashed systemized metaphysics
His objections were obvious and unoriginal. There's nothing easier than skepticism
>. his thoughts are pretty much standard fare these days.
lol
>and you're free to think he's not a philosopher
Thank you for your permission, kek the fucking faggots on this board
>but he's still vastly greater and more important than anyone you give a shit about and you'll just have to deal with it.
You haven't even read la rochefoucauld, have you? Nietzsche is popular precisely because his thoughts are those of every slightly above average college boy.

Whitehead

>His objections were obvious and unoriginal. There's nothing easier than skepticism

Is that why they stirred up so much shit when he published them?

>lol

Not. An. Argument.

>Thank you for your permission, kek the fucking faggots on this board

Well of course. Someone as thoroughly insecure as yourself needs constant reassurance in their beliefs. "B-but I'm not insecure" people that are reasonably secure in themselves don't start constant shitposting threads about people that disagree with their beliefs.

You haven't even read la rochefoucauld, have you?

Nope, don't care. He's a literally who.

>Nietzsche is popular precisely because his thoughts are those of every slightly above average college boy.

Nietzsche is popular because he takes thinking back to the same sort of intellectually honest (as in there's no ridiculous leap you have to take to see the base of his thoughts, as you do most other philosophers) base as Stirner and then makes a relatively credible attempt to build something with it.

But autists like you will never get it, because you think philosophy is about detailed systems of metaphysics.

Do me a favour: never read anything outside of western philosophy. I sincerely don't want you shitposting about them, because they'd probably put you into full blown autistic freakout mode.

How can you call him a pseudo-prophet when he was actually right about everything?

>Is that why they stirred up so much shit when he published them?
Not an argument, atheism always stirred up shit back then
>Well of course. Someone as thoroughly insecure as yourself needs constant reassurance in their beliefs. "B-but I'm not insecure" people that are reasonably secure in themselves don't start constant shitposting threads about people that disagree with their beliefs.
Mere projection
>Nope, don't care. He's a literally who.
Kek, I knew it. You're just proving my point that Nietzsche only appeals to poorly read plebs. You haven't even read the basic writers of the Western canon, so why post as if you know anything?
>Nietzsche is popular because he takes thinking back to the same sort of intellectually honest
lel, in other words he shares your juvenile sentiments
>never read anything outside of western philosophy.
And how did I know you were into oriental trash as well? You probably think Buddhism is "deep" and "honest" for its basic use of skepticism

The whole point of Nietzche is that he wanted to move philosophy into a political realm because the German idealists like Kant basically dropped the mic on metaphysics and there was nowhere to really go with it. He marks the last great philosophical shift away from epistemology

New poster here, just want to set the record straight.

The guy referencing La Rochefoucauld is taking advantage of the Nietzsche defeners not having read him, for his argument. In reality Nietzsche broke away from LaR as early as Daybreak (he shifts from thinking people are hypocritical or dishonest about their 'evil' motivations to accepting them at face value but revaluing if they are truly 'evil' and not essential, if I remember correctly). And even before Daybreak:
>[his attempt at La Rochefoucauld] is unique; he covers a range of issues far greater than the social and psychological area of interest to La Rochefoucauld. To the cynicism typical of the genre, Nietzsche brings a new dimension by his combination of nihilistic energy with historical consciousness. Finally, he expands the genre to include not merely insights, but argument as well."[6]

He's basically doing the equivalent of referencing Schopenhauer and saying N. was an inferior copy, ignoring the obvious differences, if everyone hadn't already read Schopenhauer.

>Not an argument, atheism always stirred up shit back then

Stirring up shit in this case was revolutionizing philosophy and serving as a catalyst behind the analytic/continental split.

>Mere projection

Whatever helps you sleep at night. So tell me, why do you start these threads? I don't constantly obsess about Aquinas or Kant even though I think both of them would be best forgotten.

>Kek, I knew it. You're just proving my point that Nietzsche only appeals to poorly read plebs. You haven't even read the basic writers of the Western canon, so why post as if you know anything?

First mention I've seen of him here. Can't be that basic. Also you can't really be throwing stones here since you're the same idiot that didn't know who Lao Tzu was a week ago.

>lel, in other words he shares your juvenile sentiments

No. He doesn't have to take a leap in forming the basis of his thinking. For instance with Plato, I have to take a leap in valuing the core virtues of Greek philosophy (truth, justice, wisdom, temperance) before I can find any utility in his thinking. If I choose to not value them, his philosophy starts to fall apart. The basic thoughts of Nietzsche don't require that, and then he attempts to build from there.

>And how did I know you were into oriental trash as well? You probably think Buddhism is "deep" and "honest" for its basic use of skepticism

Actually I think Buddhism is deep for its accurate realization of a basic component of the human condition (the constant state of becoming and lack of an overarching, definable self coupled with nailing the nature of the hedonic treadmill thousands of years before we even described it, which is a concept that western philosophy could never get ahold of until it was introduced by eastern thought) but I'm actually more into philosophical Taoism.

Fucking manlets, I swear to God...

I find it curious that there is zero mention of his height by any of his contemporaries. 5'0 is ridiculously short even for his time period.

Stop feeding the child who hasn't posted one technical argument against Nietzsche beyond a false accusation ('no original ideas').

t. the guy who actually read La Rochefoucauld

>googles "why I'm right" and posts a random sentence as if it counts as a definitie argument
fuck off newfag
The sentence you quoted, by the way, is poorly written and meaningless.
>First mention I've seen of him here
you haven't even read the most basic writers of the Western canon.
Your other responses were exactly what I predicted, by the way. You like him because of his skepticism, because you believe that philosophy is a mere series of syllogisms and Nietzsche allows only the most basic and obvious shit into his philosophy.

Your description of buddha is so typical of this sort of sophomoric person as to be laughable. You even include the "thousands of years before we" shit.
> I'm actually more into philosophical Taoism.
kek, my sides hurt
Nice reddit spacing, btw

>Nice reddit spacing, btw

OH NOW YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR.

That is how people who aren't fucking newfags have always spaced their fucking posts, you goddamn cretin.

calm down, reddit

I'm glad the other guy stopped feeding you.

I explained to you how N. differs from LaR, and even pinpointed where the major break occurred (Human, all-too... to Daybreak).

It's also hilarious that you accuse me of googling, when your knowledge of LaR seems to be to that extent (despite you calling out others for not reading him). If you'd read him you wouldn't be saying N. is a copy. It's obvious from LaR's work and biography that he was the opposite of a prodigal scholar like Nietzsche, he makes no pretences of being well-read (he even refers to philosophers as a whole because he can rarely differentiate between them).

>I explained to you how N. differs from LaR, and even pinpointed where the major break occurred (Human, all-too... to Daybreak).
Your explanation was trash since I never claimed they were exactly the same.
>he even refers to philosophers as a whole because he can rarely differentiate between them
Jesus christ lol

rochefoucauld was all about how everything people do is self-love, i thought. wrote an essay on him

but my boy nietzsche, his whole thing was that people sometimes do things which are really profound and interesting which are NOT motivated by self love, unlike the ubermensch?

honestly anyone who says they understand my boy nietszche is fuckin lying he is obscure as hell

Camus could've been great if he hadn't died so young. I weep when I see the sketches he was laying out in his work.

Philosophy is such a fucking waste of time holy shit

Lol @ anyone who studied it at uni

Swami Vivekananda

>camus
Spoken like someone who didn't even make it through university, nevermind reaching a higher position to critique it.