How do you fix a gf who thinks Hegel and Kierkegaard are "boss" but thinks Camus and Sartre are "hacks"...

is this actually serious? she is right / more patrish than you. will you still be able to get it up knowing this?

>assuming she thinks by herself

>like an obscurantist and "dude faith lmao" over lucid philosophers with actually applicable philosophies
>patrish
No. No, she isn't.

>Hegel not applicable
>Kierkegaard not applicable

It's ok to admit you don't get it. There's no other reason to be reading high school philosophers.

You are right about Hegel and Kierkegaard, but Sartre is just junk-tier.

I concur. Sartre and Camus may be good but they're nowhere near the level of Hegel. Anyone who disagrees is an uncultured pleb.

Go back to /r9k/ user, you're not wanted here.

Tell her to read Spinoza, Nietzsche (maybe not Thus Spoke Zarathustra, everything he said there he said better elsewhere) and Deleuze (I advise his books on Spinoza and Nietzsche, the one on Leibniz (but I don't think there's an English translation)). Then she mauy become more willing to read those other folks and take something out of them - she doesn't seem ideologically disposed to ignore a thinker's good ideas, so it may be worthwhile.

For you.

She's right.
You're the pleb.

>Myth of Sisyphus
Essay for plebs.
There's nothing remarkable in it.
Probably everyone's first philosophical book.

>looking to women for companionship

You're getting what you bargained for

an apparently absurd reality doesn't negate the possibility of divinity you A B S O L U T E pseud

But Sartre is fucking terrible, she's right about that.

Sorry, but there are no fairies, dragons, gods, vampires, werewolves, gremlins, or unicorns. There is just your life, and what you make of it.

Fuck you I'm a dragon

>reads lit and philosophy
>"boss"
>"hacks"
>"yeah, taking them as a whole they're completely incompatible, but taken as teachers I still learn new things from both each time I read them."
I'd just ignore her to be quite honest family. Don't even break up or anything, just leave and don't talk to her any more.

>"I still learn new things from both each time I read them."
In the context of the full quote it's truly the quintessential
>"I don't know what's going on but I say I do"

why all the Sartre hate? he is basically just Heidegger for the layman

She is right.

I'm reading Sartre now and I'm thinking to read Heidegger next, is there a good piece to start with?

tell her that sartre wrote the critique of dialectical reason

Kierkegaard says Hegel's philosophy has no ethical or religious categories.

What did he mean by this?

>(but I don't think there's an English translation)

there is but its not done by one of the usual deleuzians and its consequently horse crap

the dialectic in part involves the systematic destruction of categories

what the fuck is your point you little twat? that sartre took too much amphetamine? i don't think even he ever read that book.

Camus and Sartre are fucking idiots compared to the two philosophers she mentioned.

Nice troll.

>that isn't what he meant

also, it's more accurate to say that john the ladder says hegel's philosophy has no ethical or religious categories.

also can you say anything without tons of jargon?

But in Infinite Jest, DFW lets us know pic related

don't you know its a bit gauche to attribute thoughts of a character in a novel to the author?

nice argument

>attention-seeking nature (seductive nature)
To what extent do you (or Schopy) imply their attention seeking is a subspecies of seduction?

I was gonna say that he says it through the Character, but I doubt DFW expected many of his readers to know those philosophers (pretty objectively, a small fraction of them will) and thus I can see no point in him not saying what he thinks personally of them here.

Listen to her

You really think he is assuming his readers don't know Kierkegaard, Camus, Rousseau or Hobbes?

Only a fraction will.
The book sold over a million copies and hardly anyone "in the real world" reads Kierkegaard, or raw philosophy texts at all, for that matter.

You're young, you're allowed to cherry pick and test out your beliefs and discard and add according to your analyses.

Is this prohibited when older?

>How do you fix a gf who thinks Hegel and Kierkegaard are "boss" but thinks Camus and Sartre are "hacks"?
Sounds like she should ditch you.

When you're older, assuming you sought out experience and life and actually tested your beliefs in practice and not only in logical analysis, your beliefs are more or less tested and you have your core beliefs.

An old man with a wishy-washy philosophical core is a useless old man. Still searching like a young man, he offers no wisdom to the younger generation.

ayy lmao u never read kierkegaard

>im an atheist because being anything else is irrational!

Oh, fair enough. I've looked around for it a while ago, since I wanted to talk about it on here, but couldn't find it. Can you point me to it?

You didn't answer my question.
And I don't live to serve other people. Teaching young ones will be a side effect, it's not an aim.

she sounds a lot smarter than you to be honest

>ayy lmao u

Back to /b/, son.

I can see you as an old man connecting bubbles of seemingly connected thoughts. No one's gonna knock for that.

if you think for one moment that Kierkegaard (or p. much any philosopher who talks about faith or divinity) is positing the existence of "fairies, dragons, gods, vampires, werewolves, gremlins, or unicorns" you're an absolute moron

Implying OP has read any of that. Anyone who's read those would know that Camus and Sartre are derivative of Kierkegaard,

Op is bait.

give her the spook

Read The Letter on Humanism so you can see why everyone in this thread is a fucking retard

Basic problems of phenomenology