Post your edgiest philosophic ideas

nothing is edgy on Veeky Forums

It'd be a good thing if the human race was extinguished.

Dull

They must organise Stanford Prison Experiment - like events in school for educational reason. For everyone.

making these up as i go along; i have not given them much though. i am willing to secede to a good argument against any of these. not entirely sure whether these count as edgy or philosophical or (even) ideas!

- a mathematic/science graduate can appreciate the works of shakespeare better than a literature graduate can appreciate the works of einstein or reimann.
- progessivism is not the bogeyman Veeky Forums portrays it as.
- translations are not all bad
- you are a pleb, however, if you speak only one language fluently
- rich people are generally better company than the poor, though a poor man can, at times, be better company than the kindest rich man.
- one who hate women does not understand them, or himself (looking at you shoppy)
- music is a greater art than literature, but far easier to create
- if you despise female authors - and have read the bronte sisters - you are pardoned
- if you despise female authors - and have read virginia woold - you have no excuse
- the great people we admire would most likely hate us.
- america is a pretty cool place
- trump is not post-political-correctness, he is pre-political-correctness, and hence to vote for him enthusiastically (i.e. not merely against clinton) is silly
- eugenics is far more impractical than it is immoral

It's A-O.K. to kill some people, and feeling bad about it is a conditioned response.

For instance, if you are attacked late at night by a gang of feral children intent on robbery or assault you would be perfectly within your rights to shoot every one of them, irrespective of age or degree of involvement in the particular act.

Sometimes you have to make snap judgements to benefit yourself at great cost to others - this is just nature.

most people here couldn't sufficiently back up the claim that the earth is round

>if you are attacked late at night by a gang of feral children intent on robbery or assault you would be perfectly within your rights to shoot every one of them, irrespective of age or degree of involvement in the particular act.

This is way too specific. What did you do/what happened to you??

Mostly, (You) have sounded statements of common sense.

Give me a telescope and I'll take you to the seaside so we can watch ships disappear over the horizon.

If you are an atheist, you are a walking paradox. Simultaneously believing that you are rational while having irrational "morals" is embarrassing.

Not so fast. Who is the telescope manufacturer? Jews. Check and mate, mate.

That OP is an underage faggot

Astute of you.

I didn't have a gun, but I disarmed three of them of nailboards.

I had to bludgeon a thirteen year old girl with one of said nailboards who'd grabbed my clothes and was loudly daring me to hit her as her fourteen to seventeen year old male accomplices tried to perform a flanking maneuver.

There was about ten of them so I had to make a fighting retreat all the way up the road - 45 minutes later I got picked up by a patrol car and the officer took me home.

This was about two days ago, I'm still covered in wounds from being pelted with bricks.

After I clubbed the girl none of her mates had the balls to go near me, I told them she was more of a man than they'd ever be, even if she was banking on me not striking her because she's a bitch.

On the contrary - if a person challenges me in such a manner it would be supremely disrespectful by my metric not to give them precisely what they ask for.

>1
STEM fags don't understand what it isn't taught to them, and lit fags would lose interest in about page 2
>2
You unironically think that a rotten apple of a tree should be suported by the whole branch instead of falling to the ground by it's own burden?
>5
Shut the fuck up Xhua Xi Xheng
>6
At least read what you critique
>7
Are you retarded? Music is to literature what a Land Rover is to a fucking boat
>10
Thanks Chinese cookie

Why would jew's noses be curved, if the earth is flat? Check mate

>Man cannot be well educated in both science and humanities.

all demonstrably false

low effort, very mediocre person

>very mediocre person

wow rude

They want you to think like that, they have bended their noses for purpose. Check.

>Implying I said anything of the sort

How can the earth be flat if the tip of my dick is round?
Btfo

> Implying you didn't
>STEM fags don't understand what it isn't taught to them, and lit fags would lose interest in about page 2
>

Gtfo of me with your science

There is no truth or objectivity when it comes to philosophy.

Analytic "philosophy" Isn't really philosophy

Continental philosophers ignore philosophical fiction out of spite.

Religious Studies had the opportunity to be great but tied itself so hard to sociology and postcolonialism studies it sank under its own weight

Theology is publishing incredible journals and
papers that put all of the aforementioned to shame.

>the analogy doesn't include hybrids because of obvious reasons
?

Patrician post

the elders should be euthanized past an age in which they can no longer do but their purely animal functions

I know that when I'll reach an age in which I can no longer do anything except eat and sleep, I will be happy to be put down.
Not every elder is in this situation, only those who are physically weak and their minds can't think properly.

That's some top quality disinformation.

Now take it to reddit.

all members of the media should be executed and I'd be glad to do it

If you strip the philosophic dialogue out of Atlas Shrugged it becomes a good story.

kek that guy is such a faggot

One should try to become as open to the idea of suicide as possible as hopelessly clinging to life eventually takes on the form of an addiction.

Hoo hooo. Other than the ending sure I guess. But the dialogue was mostly blended with the story other than the big speech.

equality is repulsive and its natural conclusion is mass suicide

t. europe

>equality
>natural
Pick one

Mainly political, not so much philosophical.

Politics is all philosophy.

Political Philosophy, to be particular about it.

The question of "How should we best live?" is not a scientific one.

politics are an expression of philosophy

How is political?

>Politics is all philosophy.
Fuck up.

Everyone except me is dumb lol

Intelligence should be welcome in every area of human life

therefore we should arrange every marriage because marriage out of "love" committ the naturalistic fallacy

allowing people to choose mates based on their stone-age sexuality is off the charts of clinical insanity

t. Plato Land

What's taught in schools, especially ethics, is politics. It's about what we want future generations to know, how we want them to judge, and thus, to a certain extent, how we want society to operate.

>translations are not all bad
I thought this was common knowledge. I'd even go so far as to say most translations are better than the original work. When it comes to translating pulp novels amd such typically over educated underemployed literary writers are used amd improve the work. The only time this is a problem is whem you translate the capital G Great works.

Plato was right about everything

>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"

Sartre is good

the highest virtue lies in shutting up

paradox

You really are overestimating how well science understands this shit. Give it another half century or so and maybe. These fucks can establish some correlations and learn how to tear shit down without building anything up and they think they are Jesus beholdeth. Master all life small and large. Please.

Magick is real. Socrates was referring to a literal daimon. Aurelius was referring to a literal daimon. Cioran was referring to a literal daimon. Half of what the average reader dismisses as "metaphorical" in philosophy is in fact perfectly literal, only they're too blind to see it.

Add Lawrence Krauss and other Reddit tier fedora tipping edge lords that deserve no respect.

danger and play is what women are and want [they want play = safe danger] and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.

once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism [hedonism of the will] of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].

Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women.

Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women in dwelling in hedonism of the will

The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.

I'd live in the republic tbqh

>women are the ultimate danger
explain this part

You are retarded

Atheism is far more effective at controlling people than religion.

"Silence is golden" is edgy

Atheism
-Nihlistic
-who gives a shit

Religion
-Original Sin
-Dont do a bunch of stuff
-wear this shit
-pay ur fucking taxes to the church or else

A lot of the linguistics academia is completely polarized by Chomsky, half blame the slow invertible decline of the discipline on him and his cultist followers and the other half post on Reddit.

Atheism is not nihilistic you undergraduate scum. Do not reply to this post.

secular ethics are a lot more effective at taking control of the mind senpai

The world is currently in a race to the bottom of deterministic excuse driven victim complexes, but /pol/ will win, because guilty conscience has more to rationalize and practice makes perfect. At this point, civilization will cease, and it is hard to say if it will start up again.

Deterministic philosophers aren't just dispelling notions of freedom, they are literally murdering freedom. Their words are incantations of the blackest magick, annihilating the will itself, and people buy into it because it absolves them of guilt, of pain, of responsibility. It would be ethical to murder determinists.

>The world is currently in a race to the bottom of deterministic excuse driven victim complexes, but /pol/ will win, because guilty conscience has more to rationalize and practice makes perfect. At this point, civilization will cease, and it is hard to say if it will start up again.

Since when has the prevailing thought on college campuses been edgy?

philosophy is escapism

But it's not

It's quite literally the same process #BLM use to justify their shit.

Dave chappelle a talentless hack

No, it's not. You just saw "anti-pol" and it short circuited your evaluation process. If you're even capable of evaluating and aren't just another idiot from /pol/ who lives their entire life in bad faith.

Consciousness was a mistake.

Can unintentional natural evolution be considered a mistake when it was never really an action in the first place

Human beings have become too intelligent for our own good. We have more intellect than what is demanded by nature, and we use this surplus of intellect on ultimately pointless acts of rumination and philosophizing.

There is no difference between the mind and the body, and the "soul" is just an illusion. Also, there is no such thing as an amoral action. All people are directly controlled by God and therefore everything that people do is moral and perfect, and so is everything else that happens. Science is the true Law, as it is the only Law that cannot be broken. Biblical law can be broken and is, therefore, not the Law of God.

>Humans are too smart
>Humans waste time on dumb shit

Pick one dumbfuck.

>pointless
and it would be less pointless if we simply spent all of our days fighting for our basic survival like animals?

Agreed. Every one of his jokes consists of, "I'm black, isn't that funny ? Look, this guy's white, he's different from me !"

Are you mixing up atheism with atheism-groups?

If not, how is atheism controlling anyone when all atheism means is that you do not believe in a god?

Not dumb, just useless. We can't stop ourselves from wanting. It's tragic.

>how does handcuffing someone make it easier to control them if handcuffs just restrict movement of the arms?

>how is atheism controlling anyone when all atheism means is that you do not believe in a god?

Not OP, but he could be arguing from a structuralist viewpoint I guess, explicit atheism is a result of ivory tower rationalists who also espouse liberal progressivism.

Upvoted

>- a mathematic/science graduate can appreciate the works of shakespeare better than a literature graduate can appreciate the works of einstein or reimann.
You STEMfags need to really gtfo muh Veeky Forums asap.

butthurt 2.9 gpa english grad detected

did you get any new ideas for the next great novel between making people's coffee today

There are inessential indexicals - an I-ness that precedes consciousness - allowing for a metaphysics of modality that could have seen me born at any other time, as any thing, human or non-human.

>Analytic "philosophy" Isn't really philosophy
Have they ever proven anything?

My understanding of Analytic philosophy is that they try to prove small facts slowly from the ground up while Continental philosophers make large claims that can never be proven. With neither ever being able to prove anything for certain.

Yes, it is. While they'll try to circumvent the idea with huge arguments, deep down, most people live in a constant certainity that capitalism / patriarchy / the west / the niggers / islam is on the verge of absolute dissolution and the world will be better without it.