Rate the impact of each on your life

yeah, like he said, a whiny piece of shit.

Lmao you guys show up to work and suck off your boss. None of these philosophers have had an impact on your life.

>no... i'm an spookfree ubermensch now

>1. Schopenhauer
haven't read anything by him yet (that's a lie, I read Death Is the Resume of Life), but he is pretty close to Hegel historically so I'd wager he'd influence me a lot
>2. Nietzsche
I avoid him
>3. Heidegger
muh dasein, I avoid
>4. Stirner
I don't know what a spook is

Minimal, mostly through N god
large
Massive
negative

None of them has any logical answer to the question why nihilists don't have to kill themselves.

1. some
2. eh
3. none
4. none

Hopefully they start making red ritalin pills soon

Stirner really opened my eyes. I'm not totally convinced by him but I can't find any satisfying arguments against him.

His philosophy doesn't impact my daily life but the ideas are always floating around in the back of my head. Similar to how The Conspiracy Against the Human Race does. I just keep going on as normal but I know Stirner and Ligotti are both right.

How does that not answer itself?

That's stupid. Nothing matters and there is just as much reason to kill yourself as there is to live. So logically you'd do nothing and if being alive is the state they are already in then it follows that they'd just remain alive.

>answers

well spooked friend

None
We only care about EROTIC literature

1. 4/10 mostly via N. Shitty aesthetic theory. Hurr durr music is better because it's unmediated. Then why ain't you anarcho-primitivist nigga?
2. 6/10 I think he falls into some holes in which I don't want to hang out with him. Best writer of any philosopher. When he's full of shit, it's still interesting.
3. 4/10 Wrote at least two god-tier essays. His existential ontology is garbage though.
4. Who?

>not reading the new idol as a dolcett masterpiece
leave

1. Haven't read but will
2. Limited knowledge of
3. High impact
4. ----

zero
zero
zero
zero

It'll be a cold day in Hell when I give a shit what some impoverished social outcast German egomaniac thought about ontology. Fuck philosophy.

hell is cold if you trust dante

Only the frozen lake at the bottom... but I don't trust Dante either.

i trust the cartoons too t.b.h.

Oh yeah, pointless suffering really doesn't matter.

>pointless
>mattering
well done user, you solved how antonyms work.

>All these people afraid to admit bring influenced by Stirner

>getting spooked by stirner memes
rookie mistake

3/10
6.5/10
Haven't gone through works of Heidegger yet
1/10

0. Kierkegaard
1. Nietzsche
2. Schopenhauer
3. Heidegger
4. stirner (haven't read)
Nietzsche kinda ruined my life but I still love him. Kierkegaard just captures despair perfectly and has a great understanding of humanity

I'll rate the impact of that girl on my dick if you know what I'm saying

>1. None
>2. None
>3. None
>4. None

Philosophy is for autists, I only read novels

Good man

>nietzsche
>DUDE, SOCIOPATHY AND AMBITION LMAO

right on.

this is the funniest sincere remark i've ever seen

>1. Schopenhauer

if you took to him first and foremost because of his views on women then you are a meme reader.

1. emo
2. based
3. eh
4. based

>Nietzsche kinda ruined my life

How

1. Nietzsche
2. Schopenhauer
3. Stirner
4. Heidegger

I haven't actually read Heidegger desu.

I do love my Nietzsche, however. Properly read, understood and appropriated, he grants you superiority over all sides of the political spectrum.

>implying life is suffering

you're the one with a problem here, maybe you should follow your own advice and become an hero.

religious people are such deprived little neurotics 90% of the time. the other 10% are god tier mystics who never say the kind of goddamned retarded shit you've been spouting.

Yes, life is suffering.

>implying life is suffering
Life is suffering, it is the fact, but you're not supposed to be wretched or avoid suffering. In christianity, suffering brings salvation. You must not escape suffering and faith is the grace that makes you invincible to pain.

However nietzsche has nothing to offer on how to handle pain from suffering, nothing but ego, which means that lying to yourself. It is escapism through ego, making yourself think that it is you who is strong. It's like injecting heroin until you die of overdose, you know it's bad but you keep doing.

Yeah, no one can prove whether faith is fake like heroin or not, but that's the point. No one can prove if it's fake, while it is a logical axiom that ego is fake, artificial. Christians wouldn't know if they're lying to themselves, but you do. That's why by implying that life is not suffering, you're lying to yourself with your ego.

zero
zero
zero
zero

well i guess unless learning all the words to the monty python philosopher drinking song counts as an "impact"

no
*your* life is suffering
everyone else's is great

That's because they deny suffering. Escapism.

>It is a logical axiom that ego is fake

Please explain why the ego is fake, but faith is not?
If you can't prove faith is wrong, how could you 'prove' the ego is wrong or fake?

Aren't both self percieved? Why do you think faith is'nt a similiar escapism/lying to yourself? Isn't religion as 'artificial?'

Why would it be a logical axiom that the ego is fake?

Half decent post. 6/10 for the effort.

>Why would it be a logical axiom that the ego is fake?
>If you can't prove faith is wrong, how could you 'prove' the ego is wrong or fake?
Because ego comes out from yourself, it is man made or artificial.

>Aren't both self percieved? Why do you think faith is'nt a similiar escapism/lying to yourself? Isn't religion as 'artificial?'
No, faith doesn't come from yourself. You choose to believe in something you don't know. It can't be proved that the bible and church tradition are artificial. Therefore you don't lie to yourself.

You forgot one OP

5. Schwarzenegger

Alright then.

I would argue that at least church tradition is WAY more artificial than the ego, because church tradition has objectively been made and formed by other humans throughout history, changing shape (which you can prove) through different social and cultural movement. At least the ego is 'original' and less contaminated by history and culture than tradition... I mean.. it's tradition, you simply can't deny that tradition is artificial.

As for the bible being not artificial, if you want to go as far as to believe that a book objectively written down by humans(at least that, if not inventend by humans) 2000 years ago is somehow more valid then your own very thoughts, i'd agrue that you are 'escaping' your own thoughts/feelings/ego through choosing to irrationally believe that a 2000 year old book was written by a deity. (Irrational because you choose to believe in something you can't prove. Not that it's somehow a negative to believe in something you can't prove, it's just inherent to faith that you make the 'unrational' choice to believe in an uncertainty.)

So you're accepting one uncertainty on purely based on the fact that according to you, you can't prove a 2000 year old book was written by humans.

Sounds like the exact escapism you like accuse people here off.

>church tradition has objectively been made and formed by other humans throughout history, changing shape (which you can prove) through different social and cultural movement
Based on the traditions before it. It can be rooted back to Abraham and faith.

>At least the ego is 'original' and less contaminated by history and culture than tradition
Artificial things can be original.

>a book objectively written down by humans
It is written by humans, based on the revelations by God, which can't be scientifically proven or disproved.

>irrationally believe that a 2000 year old book was written by a deity
It's not 2000 years old, and we do believe that the scripture can be flawed. Faith however can't be wrong and can't be disproved.

>Not that it's somehow a negative to believe in something you can't prove
Better than you who believe in something that is obviously a lie.

Wouldn't you agree those traditions have changed and formed it in a way that makes it in a way disconnected from the way it was in Abrahams day?

You you chose to believe that the unprovable is true in order to escape an atheist reality?

If scripture can be flawed, on what do you base you faith?

>Better than you who believe in something that is obviously a lie

Ad hominem. And an unrightfull one because i never stated my beliefs. I'm still searching and just curious. Nice job on the Christian tolerance and kindness there. No Alyosha points for you. It took you exactly three posts to become judgemental and call yourself better than me. Such patience. Nice job.

>Wouldn't you agree those traditions have changed and formed it in a way that makes it in a way disconnected from the way it was in Abrahams day?
Yes, but faith doesn't change. The church officials as the leader of the faith was given the authority to change the tradition by Christ, and in order to do it they're guided by the Holy Spirit. This is the foundation of the faith that is written in the scripture and and the foundation of the tradition is told in the lives of the apostles after they received the Holy Spirit.

>You you chose to believe that the unprovable is true in order to escape an atheist reality?
It's not an escape from reality, it doesn't deny reality. Faith transcends observable reality.

>If scripture can be flawed, on what do you base you faith?
Humans don't base it, faith is a grace. Scripture introduces the faith and tradition is a procedure to live the faith.

>Ad hominem
No, it is logic. Chritians believe in something that is unproven while nihilists believe in things that are proven to be fake.

>And an unrightfull one because i never stated my beliefs.
We're in a thread about nihilist philosophers. You questioned my belief, therefore I assumed you to be a nihilisit. Well forgive me if it was a wrong accusation/assumption, it was a human error. No offense, but maybe you should've typed I am not a nihilist in the name field to avoid my human error.

>call yourself better than me
Faith is better than the nihilist belief. No, I don't make the faith, but nihilists do make their own belief. I didn't say that I'm better human being than you.

1. None
2. Annoying comedian
3. Represents something i want to achive
4. Pictures on internet

never heard of any of the others besides Nietzsche

Taking classes now, hoping to come back to this conversation in few hours

AAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA FAGGOT

>Schopenhauer

He's among my least favorite philosophers. Had very little impact on my way of thinking. Good for memes though.

>Nietzsche

Nietzsche completely shattered my worldview. I don't agree with him on everything and I wouldn't classify myself as a Nietzschean but I can't think of many authors who have had as much of an impact on me as Nietzsche. He's probably my favorite author.

>Heidegger

I haven't read enough of his work to have a strong opinion on him. I enjoyed the bit I read though. I think I will probably have a positive opinion of him in the future.

>Stirner

Like Schopenhauer, he's good for memes but other than that, I'm not really a fan. I don't dislike him but don't particularly like him either. His brand of anarchism is too nihilistic and Lifestylist for me. I prefer Kropotkin.

More like BLACKEDpilled.

samefag

Good man

More like BLACKcucked

How is this different from saying "I'm queer, retard"?

So you would say the the fathers of the faith are given the authority to change traditions? Given that authority by whom? And do you believe that figures in the church are guided to their place and deeds by the Holy Spirit? Because if you do, then you think it's possible that Benedict was guided to his place by the Holy Spirit?
To continute on that, if you believe leading figures in traditions were guided, how do you explain the different churches and all the schizm's? Unless you believe they are all correct? And if they aren't, how do you pick a 'true' one? Theological debate (and what the difference between that and rhetoric?) Because you do seem to place value in 'true' beliefs, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Second, you could say the same for the ego? Faith adds to reality, i can't see why the ego couldn't accept reality (which fate does) and add something 'true' (which is what religion does, only in a grand and more traditional style).

Third: taking all nihilists togheter is just judging to quickly, they don't all believe there is nothing to believe and the difference between Stirner or anti natalists is huge. If you would want to speak in general you could say Nihilists believe in nothing, rather than in an ego or other things that are 'proven fake'. You could at most state that nihilists refuse to believe in anything, or attach value to anything because of 'proven false arguments'.

I understand you assumed i was a nihilistic or at least not Christian, but the way your argument turned to shit was really quite sad, especially for a person who supposedly shares Christian values. And Schopenhauer is not all a Nihilist, that's just plain wrong. Wether Nietzche is a nihilist needs some discussion and Heidegger is an existantialist. Kind of big differences there bud.

And last thing, i was just wondering how religious people keep their fate from being just a competition in rethorics (between churches, beliefs, philosophies) and a complete stubborn irrational believe. Because you have to arrive at one belief or Faith one time, so how do you decide that? If you just take the religion of your parents/ancestors/region you'd have to admit that you became religious through a social coincidence (since you we're born right there, out of those parents).

1. Not much, although I agree with him frequently enough in the essays. Don't really care for his metaphysics.
2. Tremendously, triggered my getting into philosophy and ultimately took me along for all his iconoclasm towards the very end where he left me with no solution, only his retarded letdown of a superman. Made me a nihilist through and through, will probably never get over it again. Probably ruined my life, or puberty did.
3. None yet.
4. Confirmed a lot of my own opinions in a more eloquent way, funny cheeky lad, I think the idea of ideas having reign over us is interesting. Very commonsensical but in areas where people don't dare to be so.

>Given that authority by whom?
Christ to Peter. "Upon this rock I will build my church."

>And do you believe that figures in the church are guided to their place and deeds by the Holy Spirit?
Yes, it's in the scripture. The Pentecost. These are basic christian understanding.

>Benedict was guided to his place by the Holy Spirit?
Yes, but I don't know the reason and circumstances.

>how do you explain the different churches and all the schizm's?
False teachings in christianity have existed since Nicolaism.

>Unless you believe they are all correct?
All wrong, but some are correct to some extent, but never entirely. According to my denomination of course (catholic), which I believe to be destined to be faultess by God. "The gates of hell shall not prevail."

>how do you pick a 'true' one?
There are so many factors that can be taken into considerations, such as how many Ecumenical councils they accept, their rites, eucharist, etc. It's pretty complex. Another reason is biblical hermeneutics is a really complicated process, so plebs have to trust the church which is given the authority to interpret the scripture, it is something the common man can't do. The church hired the most intelligent people in europe for hundreds of years just to define the christian teachings.

>Because you do seem to place value in 'true' beliefs, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
True beliefs are the beliefs that are irefutable and free of artificial beliefs. Buddhism, and maybe (I haven't dwelled much into these beliefs) pantheism, materialism, pessimism, and (non-nietzschean) nihilism are just as "true" as christian belief. As long as the believers don't deliberately lie to themselves.

>i can't see why the ego couldn't accept reality (which fate does) and add something 'true'
You forgot my argument? Ego is artificial, it denies the reality that everything has no reason.

>taking all nihilists togheter
I don't. It's just cumbersome to spell nietzsche, and most nihilists adore him.

>If you would want to speak in general you could say Nihilists believe in nothing, rather than in an ego or other things that are 'proven fake'.
I believe that if a man truly doesn't believe in anything, not even his own desires, he'd be dead. Dead people don't count. True nihilists don't exist because they'd all be dead.

>but the way your argument turned to shit was really quite sad
Too harsh? Too shallow? I really am full of flaws, but ellaborate.

>Schopenhauer is not all a Nihilist
I know. He's closer to buddhism, wanting to cut off desires and stuff.

cont.

>Kind of big differences there bud.
I think all Continental philosophers are nihilistic and existensialistic to some extent.

>how religious people keep their fate from being just a competition in rethorics (between churches, beliefs, philosophies) and a complete stubborn irrational believe
One has to believe in humility. It is an acknowledgement that the human mind is extremely limited. Humans are never free of errors, flaws, and weakness. Only God is all knowing and capable of everything, we are nothing and we own nothing, everything is God's grace. If our beliefs are correct, then it is God's grace that our beliefs are correct. If we are capable of doing something, than the capability is God's grace. All humans can do is answering the call of faith, which is called the work. Faith and work are necessary for salvation, humans aren't saved through their own effort.

>Because you have to arrive at one belief or Faith one time, so how do you decide that?
Well, it's all a grace. God calls when he wants to, and when he does it's your choice to accept it. When he doesn't call, maybe he has another plan. That's how faith works.

>If you just take the religion of your parents/ancestors/region you'd have to admit that you became religious through a social coincidence
That's why faith is a grace, not an effort.

1. None
2. Wow, this nigga sounds like /r9k/
3. None
4. Memes

1. 6/10
2. 6/10
3. 0/10
4. 3/10

is that Willa Holland?

Philosophy is practice for reading novels.

Basically this.

1.Leo

you've massively misunderstood nietzsche, friend. he was better acquainted with the bible than you, too.

1. 0/10
2. 0/10
3. 0/10
4. 0/10

Philosophy is for chumps

Ok, but this sounds to me like the kind of sentences that would be written into any kind of larger moral system throughout history, given themselves authority or at least justifying any need for future alterations to the system of faith? As you sound like a reasonable person, i'm sure that especially the part about prominent figures in the church being guided there by divine rule sounds a bit tricky to say the least, even to you?
The same thing for me happens as soon as "you can't comprehend the reasons'' become a prominent part of any kind of beliefs system. Ofcourse i'm willing to accept that a Deity would almost by definition be incomprehensible to human beings, but that only makes me wonder how Faith in God can be had through a church. I feel like there is a large risk that traditions, schizms, different churches and persons 'put there by divine rule' would over time corrupt a pure Faith. I'm sure this is something you've given thought?

Why do you believe the Catholic Church to be destined to be faultess by God? (Also what do you mean with faultess? As a system? Because as a group of people you simply can't deny the faults.)

And i actually meant picking a true religion. I would imagine that any system of belief picked up by rational humans would have to be the one they found most satisfying? So to make a choice you would have to compare the major religions/philosophical currents and then decide? (And it would seem that simply trusting the people of the past to make this out for you is a bit of a cheap option, even if you delve into it?) I mean, did you ever compare Christianity for example to Islam or Judaïsm, and if you did, did you come up with reasons why these weren't the true faith? If you didn't: wouldn't you than say that the religion you're most likely to follow is for a large part geographically determined? Meaning that at least a large part of your choice for Christianity was based of your location, parents, time, social status etc?

The Ego denies the reality that everything has no reason? This sounds vague user. Could you explain what you mean?

Also: i haven't had a religious discussion of this kind on Veeky Forums for months, thanks for not being retarded i suppose. Since i've now, for once seem to have found a sincere religious person who uses actual decent arguments (by Veeky Forums measures) i actually want to ask you i've you're familiar with the Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov and the chapter before it. I'm interested to hear the thoughts of a religious person on it.

We seem to have strayed kinda far off from the original starting point, i don't want it to seem as if i'm attacking your beliefs, i'm just being critical and interested. And im not spellchecking all of this.

Please explain? (i'm the other guy in the discussion)

In addition, if Faith is a grace, wouldn't you agree that that grace is geographically determined? Which raises alot of questions?

>Human life was a mistake

--Schopenhauer

3/10
0/10
idem
idem

1. Barely any
2. Made me think during my edgy angsty teenage years but I grew out of his childish mentality
3.Haven't read him
4. He hugely influenced me despite the memes.

Same.

>havent read it
>im 18 years old
>havent read it
>havent read it but i know the meme

Damn, you got me

>Ok, but this sounds to me like the kind of sentences that would be written into any kind of larger moral system throughout history, given themselves authority or at least justifying any need for future alterations to the system of faith?
It is.

>the part about prominent figures in the church being guided there by divine rule sounds a bit tricky to say the least, even to you?
It's not my business, so it's not tricky to say at least. They're the leader of the faith, the people is just obliged to follow.

>I feel like there is a large risk that traditions, schizms, different churches and persons 'put there by divine rule' would over time corrupt a pure Faith.
Yes, everyone in the church has given this quite a thought. St Aquinas considered the heretics to be much more damaging to the society than criminals. Back in the day, the heretics and schismatics who wouldn't give up their activity would be given a dead sentence to prevent the plebs from being exposed to false teachings. And it was effective, the church stood strong for 1500 years. Of course such policies wouldn't work these days, as liberalism becomes common and the church has known better.

And not just corrupting the faith. In my opinion, the church and society has degraded a lot since the Roman Empire fell. We now have all sort of ideologies here, it's because people only care about how to fulfill their desires instead of finding truth, where humans truly belong. Capitalism, globalism, and international politics gave endless wars and overpopulation to third world countries, it makes us care about things we shouldn't care about. Even the existence of the church and her teachings are treathened by judeo-freemasonic subversions. Many people say that Vatican II was an attempt by masonic agents at subverting the church, they might be right.

>Why do you believe the Catholic Church to be destined to be faultess by God?
"Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

>Also what do you mean with faultess? As a system?
They're incapable of wrong in teaching the people and leading their faith. Infallibility.

None of them have had aby effect on me.

Cont.

>Because as a group of people you simply can't deny the faults.
Of course, humans are flawed, but the church has doctrinal authority and infallibility. If they were wrong in their teachings, then the wrong would be forgiven. Of course people who deliberately try to corrupt the church are sinners and their sins wouldn't be forgiven just like that, but the "wrong" teachings would still be justified by God. I don't know if there has been any cases of this "wrong teachings", I don't believe there has been. But if there was a wrong teaching, then this justification argument would apply.

Read this for the details.
catholic.com/encyclopedia/infallibility

>I would imagine that any system of belief picked up by rational humans would have to be the one they found most satisfying?
Yes. A rational man is always full of questions, and the questions need to be answered.

>So to make a choice you would have to compare the major religions/philosophical currents and then decide? (And it would seem that simply trusting the people of the past to make this out for you is a bit of a cheap option, even if you delve into it?)
Yes, but keep in mind that the human mind is limited, and you can't expect yourself to be right all the time. If you have tried so hard to find the truth but still undeliberately fall into a wrong teaching, it's okay it's not your fault.

>I mean, did you ever compare Christianity for example to Islam or Judaïsm, and if you did, did you come up with reasons why these weren't the true faith?
Yes I have. Islam is a child of arianism and nestorianism, and Judaism as we know today is corrupt. Christianity itself is a continuation of Judaism, not a standalone belief, so I don't think religions such as Messianic Judaism are necessary.

>Meaning that at least a large part of your choice for Christianity was based of your location, parents, time, social status etc?
As I have said, faith is a grace, and not all people receive the grace. Faith isn't the fruit of your effort. Through certain circumstances, God gives his grace of faith, and you can't expect me to know what circumstances and for what reason. Our only choice is to answer with yes or no, accept the grace or not. Many people who were once christian left the faith, and it was their choice to leave the faith. Some people like Paul got it through an instant and illogical revelation. A child growing up all alone, disconnected from any kind of society and civilization, can be a christian if God wills it.

Cont.

>The Ego denies the reality that everything has no reason?
Our human perception is limited. We can't truly see anything beyond materials. With our sole perception we can't see for what reason these materials exist other than to create or destroy other materials. This is the reality, and by giving these materials our own meaning, we would have to go against our true perception. The continental phillosophy justifies that human feelings may deny this reality. But faith in the other hand is something that transcends our limited perception, not denying it.

>thanks for not being retarded i suppose
You're welcome. In order to appreciate quality literature, this board could use some serious discussions.

>Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov
Sorry, but I haven't read that book. I'm not a huge fan of fiction literature that isn't poetry. Even though I'm a fan of the person himself, the only Dostoevsky I've ever read is Crime and Punishment, and I haven't even finished that. I'm only a kid, I haven't got much time to read and finish many books. I'm even majoring in STEM, and lately I have been reading too much phillosophy and religious tracts instead of focusing on my study and career.

>We seem to have strayed kinda far off from the original starting point, i don't want it to seem as if i'm attacking your beliefs, i'm just being critical and interested.
It's okay. I'm a newfag on Veeky Forums and I'm very glad that you're really interested.

/thread

>novels
>not for autists

1. 10/10
2. 0/10
3. 0/10
4. 0/10

Daily reminder that Schopenhauer was right about everything.

1. Only in that he influenced Nietzsche, 2/5 .
2. Solid 4/5.
3. He influenced every continental that came after, 3/5.
4. Barely, 1/5.

>5. Sloterdijk: reinvented my world, 5/5

...

1. Zizek
2. Zizek
3. Zizek
4. Zizek