Nietzsche is such a nihilist and so depressing user

most of the times I just hate fallacies, double standards, and leading questions.

but that's kinda natural so it's not much of a pet peeve as much as "common sense"

Anyone who considers UK "analytical" autists philosophers.

People who disregard a philosopher completely, refusing to read them, just because they disagree with their conclusions.

metaphysics of presence

>its a "Heidegger was a Nazi therefore I can completely disregard anything he ever wrote and his ideas" episode

Unless it's Wittgenstein

I refuse to read them because I don't have time to humor every 2-bit idea that comes from every random person that calls themselves philosophers.

if you value their ideas so much you can at least tell the main idea of it so I can tell if there is a difference between their ideas and the ideas of a random guy on /pol/

>Philosophy is useless, we have science now lol

>but user you study philosophy, I thought you like poorly articulated rambling arguments using undefined terms

>religion, and thus religious thought, offers nothing of value now that we have science, facts, and statistics

>religion, and thus religious thought, offers nothing of value now that we have science, facts, and statistics
Kek, never heard this pulled before.
>The way to a happy life is one standard deviation from the mean life happy people live.

My favorite is when materialists/marxists/whiggians get assblasted over Evola just because he was an anti-materialist.

>"The word means IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE"

>Caring for authorities rather than ideas.

He's more of an artist, an aesthete. His works are very poetic, but they don't fulfill the consistence and systematicism required of philosophy. Well, aside from his idea regarding the dionisian and appolonian spirits, I suppose.

>Philosophy is useless, we have science now lol
I wanna prepare myself for when someone says this but I'm too dumb to think of something.

Then you shouldn't say anything.

>someone brings up Marx
Always a sign that someone wants to appear more knowledgeable than they really are.

You just brought up Marx.

REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! *cough*

But seriously... Most folks don't realize that Nietzsche was actually extremely anti-nihilist. He saw nihilism as part of a journey of development towards personal enlightenment, a stage full of pitfalls that most men would not pass. He defined nihilism something to be overcome, not something to admire, and yet he constantly gets labeled as a nihilistic philosopher, or even as the father of nihilism by the blatantly ignorant.

Similarly, while he had a lot of really bad things to say about the church, organized religion, and of forced altruism in general, ultimately, "God is dead" was a lament, not a celebration.

Not that he wasn't more of an angsty poet with syphilis on the brain than an actual philosopher anyways, but like many of his day, it seems we seem to credit him with taking the exact opposite of the position he did.

Similarly with Marquis De Sade, who everyone remembers as the ultimate hedonist, advocate of desire for desire's sake, when in reality, all he ever wrote about was the futility and horrors of the resulting hedonistic treadmill. (Albeit, he was writing from experience, and most of his works just got digested as porn.)

i know people like this better to ignore them instead of explaining because they go in full circles in their arguments

>History will remember you not as you were, but as is most convenient for the arguments of their time

It is terrifying that we live in the Information Age, and yet the only thing people seem to have any care for is misinformation. Nietzsche is a Nihilist because Nihilism is COOL and and name-dropping philosophers is COOL. God is Dead doesn't mean that man must find a way to create meaning on a foundation of the self's Will, but instead that science is COOL and so is arguing with people on Facebook so we should worship the god of COOL ON THE INTERNET and COOL IN GRAD SCHOOL.

I don't know how many of you are in grad school, but the staggering amount of "I really liked this part of today's reading, it really made me think", devoid of any critical interaction, is so disturbing and maddening it feels as though the torch of learning has been snuffed out by the vapidity of bitchy white girls who've turned academia into a house of gossip. I don't want to learn about why one professor's blog mentioning a female colleague by her first name is sexism. God is fucking dead.

>God is fucking dead
God is as alive as ever. The invisible hand society uses to shelter the weak from the truth still exists, but in new forms. The invisible collective and the intangible identity keep the weak in line and subordinate the individual. God didn't die, He evolved.

I don't think he was using the statement in that context.

It seems like he meant that all meaning and sense of purpose in the world is dead. If that's what he meant, then he's right, especially since statistics have shown that people in this age of "Liberty" are more unhappy than they've ever been (Thanks, modernity.).

I agree with you but schop was spot on about aesthetics

Elaborate

1.science IS a philosophy
2.Science never asks the question WHY, which is important to atleast consider. That consider is philosophy

>>but user you study philosophy, I thought you like poorly articulated rambling arguments using undefined terms
This right here ruins my fucking life

That is what I was talking about. I think there is still meaning and sense of purpose, but that it seems as though people are doing their best to ensure it gets snuffed out and that in places of higher learning no one is allowed to think outside the "container of all ideology" that is Critical Theory.

I can see the defeatism in the eyes of some of my professors. When speaking of how he, as someone with legitimate Native American ancestry, used to find it interesting to combine mystic tradition with the work of Carl Jung, for example. "We're not allowed to do that anymore, though". We're all Materialists now. I can feel all well and good with Materialists who know what they're talking about even if I disagree with them, but students learning alongside me who will soon have Ph.D's have no understanding of their understanding, no meaning to anything.

It feels as though The Abyss has manifested itself in human form. It stares back at me when it rants in class about how some of their students disagree with them in the undergraduate classes they teach and how "they need to be taught how to think about the world correctly", in a particular way with no foundation in anything and no elaboration of meaning or thought. It's truly maddening to think the future of humanity's intellectual fire is being held in the hands of people who literally argue that they are automatons with no Self and no purpose and that nothing has meaning, and that everything is simply a political statement of a vast machine out of the control of everyone.

Ranting on Veeky Forums is all I have.

Either Popper or that Jewish guy who is (semi-mistakenly) thought of as the father of Neoconservativism (In a philosophical sense, not just Trotskyism with a new coat of economics) thought that Plato was responsible for dictatorship in general and that all dictatorships from Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Pinochet ultimately used Plato as justification for their crimes.

It's horse shit because I highly doubt Mao even knew who Plato was, Hitler and Pinochet certainly never sat down and read the works of Plato, and Stalin probably never read any philosophy in his life. Ironically, the only tyrannical dictator who would likely have any acquaintance with Plato was Pol Pot, and he only clocks in at a measely 1.5 million deaths which is less than fucking Lenin, so we can conclusively say that no, Plato did not cause more deaths than Communism.

Not to sound like /pol/ here, but I really think that killing debate as to what the meaning of life is, is the end goal of the establishment.

They won't rest until we've all become soulless cash cows.

I see him as an artist. For me Philosophy died in the XIX century when all social sciences (anthropology, economy, psychology etc) became their own thing.
In a way it is similar to how geography kind of died when the world was fully mapped.

the most important modern philosophers are economists, not people with philosophy degrees.

New-Sincerity will rice my friend, grab some chopsticks and brace yourself

>when people on Veeky Forums treat nihilism as if it means you dress in black every day and write poems about death in your free time. It just means there's no inherent goal or reason for life, you're free to make your life about whatever you want. What could be more positive than that?

But he WAS A Nihilist you dimp, he just actively fought against it.

It's also not very clear if you can "invent" your own meaning

Also, this is more of a politics thing, but people need to stop using 1984 comparisons as a political argument. It puts you on the same level as the college girls who can't express an original opinion about anything, so they compare real life to Harry fucking Potter to make their non-points for them.

Teleological end goal, sure, though I don't think there's an actual motivational mind or impetus to it. No cabal of shadowy individuals cackling in their dark robes. The Abyss is The Abyss because it doesn't need critical thinking on any level to do what it does--it simply spreads as a cancer by nature of being Nil itself. People have turned Nothing into their new God, above whom none shall reign, and whom none may take the name of in vain. No one is allowed to question the Nothing God, wonder about their place in the cosmos, the meaning of life, what the difference between reality and the dream state is, where consciousness arises from and why, etc.

I think the collective human consciousness has given itself autism and schizophrenia. Man is the school shooter of the universe right now. It has begun to worship inexistence itself, and constructed a bubble-reality around itself that must be waiting to pop.

>when you've been working on a holistic theory of metaphysics, physics, and phenomenology and your allegorical model of the universe resulted in a cosmological Banach-Tarski Paradox before even knowing such a paradox existed

Most people who do that don't actually understand 1984 anyway.

It was a critique of Collectivism, not authoritarianism.

Okay thank you for the explanation. I can see how people would view Nietzsche in that sense. I personally don't really like him either, I just wanted to see how you justified your claim and I can understand and agree with it desu

I wonder then, if it's just human nature for us to gravitate towards materialism? I think everyone on earth has had days where they don't feel like doing or thinking of anything.

How do we fight those impulses?

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it."

'And now abideth faith, hope, money, these three; but the greatest of these is money.

If you have no money, men won't care for you, women won't love you; won't, that is, care for you or love you the last little bit that matters.

A liberal intelligentsia is lacking. Bully-worship, under various disguises, has become a universal religion, and such truisms as that a machine-gun is still a machine-gun even when a "good" man is squeezing the trigger ... have turned into heresies which it is actually becoming dangerous to utter.'

Well, personally, I don't think the goal is set impossible goals for one's self, as that is an easy path towards self-destruction. Once upon a time, man had more room for the meaningful and the immaterial, but perhaps it was the stringency and the maxim of it all that pushed people away. Pushes people away constantly into counter-culture and the like.

In my opinion, the goal is to find the goal that speaks truest to you, and this can only be done via contemplation. As the Greeks thought, if you know the good, you will do the good, but this "good" is unique to an individual. How people in general escape from the monotony of materialism and find something worthwhile in themselves, I do not know...

For example, I remember reading a propaganda piece from the Industrial Revolution on how, with the miracle of modern engineering, people could now work menial jobs that required little more than pushing buttons and thereby people would have time for Plato and the like during working hours. We'd become a truly learned race. I also remember how my classmates spit upon the propaganda as truly the ignorance of Capitalist scum and a battle cry for the proletariat.

I also remember reading Kierkegaard during my shifts at McDonald's during high school, on my phone.

When you have all the knowledge in the world in the palm of every man, woman, and child's hands, what more can you do? What more can be done? Food is being put in the mouth of a dying creature choosing not to eat. We can all do what we can as individuals, I suppose, but past that... Things seem bleak, to me.

he was responsible for the philosophies of Christianity and Islam and all the people killed because of them

Yeah but Science can find concrete answers to those questions, unlike philosophy

Though there's no hard science for ethics, aesthetics, politics, economics, or existentialism so we have to stick with philosophy in those areas until we find them.

When people use the word "selfish" to mean "hedonistic, arrogant, and narcissistic."

When people use the phrase "self-consciousness" to indicate one's over-consciousness of how one is perceived by everyone but oneself.

These two things scramble my jim jams with especial severity

what do they mean frogposter?

"Self-consciousness" as it's commonly used means "over consciousness of how others perceive your self." This isn't "self-consciousness" in any literal sense. It would be better called "anti-self-consciousness."

Likewise with "selfish." If someone drinks themselves to death for love of it, they're not being "selfish" because what they have done in no way benefits their self. They're being unthinkingly hedonistic, which is a different thing from selfishness entirely.

Self-consciousness is the correct term you stupid piece of shit. You're conscious that you have an independent Self that is OTHER to "everyone but oneself", and that is the well from which anxiety springs. Stupid fucking frog. Self-awareness is the "disease" of humanity, as Nietzsche called it.

>start with the greeks
it's a horrible idea, and furthermore no one should be allowed to read plato or aristotle.

finally we see autism in its truest form

>Likewise with "selfish." If someone drinks themselves to death for love of it, they're not being "selfish" because what they have done in no way benefits their self. They're being unthinkingly hedonistic, which is a different thing from selfishness entirely.

>likes to drink
>drinks till the day they die

>likes to eat food
>eats till they die

I don't understand your reasoning

"Find something you love and let it kill you." - Hank Moody

that's good and all but you didn't answer what self-conscious and selfish actually mean

wait, why?

also what should you start with?

Get the fuck out. If you can't find use in Plato and Aristotle you have no use in being alive.

"Drinking till the day you die" is not "drinking till you die." It's just about as unpleasant to eat yourself to death as it is to drink yourself to death, though.

>You're conscious that you have an independent Self that is OTHER to "everyone but oneself"
Exactly: you're constantly interrogating yourself as the other (in the form of "me"). You'll say things to yourself like, "What do they think of the way I look," "Will I look weird (to them) if I do this," etc. You are detrimentally conscious of how you are perceived as an other by your other. "Self consciousness" only functions in the negative sense if you are frightened by the other. Stay mad

the social and intellectual environment of the ancient greeks is so wildly different from our own that not just naive readings, but reasonably close ones will just fail to grasp even the broad meanings of the texts. And then you get people who are even more horrible like Martha Nussbaum who ought to know what Aristotle and Plato, ancient Greek aristocrats, were talking about, but then pretends they were talking about liberal values.

Instead of pretending liberals existed 2500 years ago, people should just have a little humility and start with things that are in their own framework. People should start with Kant or Descartes or something.

>People should start with Kant or Descartes or something.

who took inspiration from the Greeks

A human being is innately frightened by the Other you sophist cuck. Where the fuck do you think anxiety comes from? Magic? Or that someone one day invented anxiety for shits and giggles and everyone does it now because it's cool?

Anxiety is blatantly related to the self, self-awareness, self-consciousness. Read some fucking Kierkegaard. Some fucking low-level despair here.

I guess I'm not a human being then. I'm glad you stayed mad as I instructed.

You're literally at the lowest level of despair if you pretend you have absolutely nothing to be self-conscious over. You have no fears? No desires? No beliefs? No loved ones? Nothing?

Yes, you've transcended the human condition. Congratulations.

Your telling me I'm at the lowest level of despair doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty happy with my life at this moment. I'm just not a manlet autist like Kierkegaard or Sartre who spergs out every time he has to walk down a well-peopled street.

This is true, but extreme authoritarianism is inherently collectivistic, and be it right or left wing, tends to look much the same.

I'm a different guy than the one you're currently slapfighting with but seriously fuck you if you think you can just walk into a conversation about philosophy and go "nah, this concept doesn't apply to me" and pretend it no longer carries any meaning in the world. Offer a counterpoint or a differing opinion. Don't just say you're happy with your life and therefore philosophical notions of anguish don't exist. You're like a high school sophomore that thinks being sarcastic and nonchalant makes you smarter than everyone else.

>but user you study philosophy, I thought you like poorly articulated rambling arguments using undefined terms

BTFO

I never said "it doesn't exist," and I'm not the one who brought my life up. He did. Since he did, I'm using myself as an example of how the concept is useless to a person (some people). And that's not to say it's useless absolutely: to be able to recognize anguish is helpful to extirpate it.

I know very well that anguish exists, I've experienced it. But I don't define myself by it, and this is why I can say that it is nothing to me.

I love you, user. I'm going to be studying philosophy next year, and, in the meantime, I have been talking to grade school 1st graders. They are so deeply convinced into meaninglessness that I couldn't believe it. I used to be like that and grew out of it, but I for them. It shows itself in their thoughts and actions, it is very deeply ingrained.

>tfw philosophy isn't taught in early elementary school

...

>, but they don't fulfill the consistence and systematicism required of philosophy
nietzsche is meta-systematic
you might still not call him a philosopher but when he's criticizing the very concept of philosophical systematicism it's dishonest to disregard him just for that reason like he just failed to be systematic

that's why you read the history of ancient greece first. To understand the framework. You won't understand shit starting with more recent philosophers since they built up from the greeks.

The way it's thought, I'd prefer it to not be taught at all. It only worsens the problem of relativism.

Left-wing philosophers.
Philosophers from monotheistic religions or ones defending any concept similar to a supreme entity with an unique and singular nature. I simply can't stand monotheists and closet monotheists with their continuous insistence on shilling a first cause, a great architect or whatever else.