Where would be a good place to start on Kierkegaard

The toilet preferably, then you wipe your ass with it and flush.

Then you will learn.

>muh rationality
>lives a terrible lonely life

hmmmm really made me think

Fucking tell me you piece of shit

start with his nipples

Lol, you are clearly not ready for him. He requires a leap of faith, while you cannot manage a single step.

Start with the Greeks.

tell me now

Fear and Trembling is his best work.

Thank you

Rationality bottoms out at a certain point. You can't simply derive value, meaning, morality, or a spirituality out of pure reason alone. See things through a pro-capitalist lens? You've already taken a leap. A marxist lens? A christian lens? Do you think the poets that make up the so-called Western Canon have were in contact with the Beautiful, or do you think their poems simply codified the arbitrary values of those in power? Whatever position you take on anything is always already from within a certain interpretive context. And you can never rationally justify which context is intrinsically true/correct. There is always faith at work in being human. K just shows you that though lots of people live within their contexts unthoughtfully, being authentic requires knowing the groundlessness of all contexts, yet actively choosing a certain one, as if it were intrinsically correct--even though you can never prove any of them are.

I would say start with the Sickness Unto Death. I think it's his best and most important work.

>objectivism
>current year

Start with Kant

Why?

Kant tell you.

kek

A lot of people live under the impression of an objective reality, specially thanks to the advance of sciences.
If anything, this era is defined by this sense of objectivity found in science. The fedora meme is basically people who changed god for the big D.

XD OMG SO TRUE! WE SHOULD ALSO THEN MAKE A SCIENCE OF CULTURE! YAY ALL THINGS HAVE DEFINITE OBJECTIVE ANSWERS!

Come on, no millenial would be that aware of what they're doing to say something like that.
I think they would say something along the lines of.
>OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE THERE'S STILL PEOPLE READING BORING PHILOSOPHY ZZZZZZZ!!!, SCIENCE HAS EXPLAINED MORE THAN THOSE BORING IDIOTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME JUST SEE WHAT STEPHEN HAWKINS SAID ABOUT IT AND YOU WILL HAVE YOUR ANSWER :)

agreed, sickness unto death is better than f&t in my opinion

Kek, you're right. I was being uncharitable. Why "the big D" though?

Because, like it or not, he's quite big.

I'm not on this site enough to know the shorthand: Dawkins?

I will give you a clue. PIC RELATED.

Descartes? You figure he is the history of philosophy's central advocate and ambassador for scientism?

OP, I'll copypasta for you my idea:
1. Check the course by Jon Stewart on Coursera;
2. Take notes on it;
3. Read his thesis, The Concept of Irony;
4. Point of view...;
5. Either/or;
6. Concept of Anxiety and Phisophical Scrumbles, doesn't matter the order;
7. Fear and Trembling and Repetition;
8. Stages;
9. His religious discourses;
10. Post Scriptum;
11. Works of Love or Sickness, doesn't matter the order.

Download Jon Stewart's videos and always remember to watch it eventually.

>Rationality bottoms out at a certain point.
No, it doesn't. You derive value out of your life and whatever will give you happiness. Reason helps you attain that goal. Taking a leap of faith is commitment to an ideal or position, which, obviously, is known as a spook.
Each ideology has semblances of truth and unknown faults, all trying to obtain the perfect ideology that encompass truth and everything.

Rationality only bottoms out when humans collectively can no longer think or when there is nothing new to discover. Until then, rationality will never bottom out.

>Rationale and values
dull blades only cut so deep mein homie. And roughly.

A blade can still pierce the skin with enough force, even if dull.

And the alternative to rationale and values is nihilism.

why is rationalism good though?

oh right, a spook

Maybe nihilism in the sense of a negation of values, but not "nihilism" in the sense of existential despair or surrender to futility. So where's the problem?

Well, if reason is reducible to logical thought, and logic is only a formal structure, that means that reason has no content of its own. If A then B, A, thus B is a logically valid argument, but is meaningless with respect to real life. It only means something once you put real content in for A and B. Reason is our ability to think in accordance with logical rules. The way we get content to actually fill reason out, to give this formally valid but empty faculty something to think about is through experience. Experience of things in the world. And how do we experience the things in the world that we experience? Through interpretive constructs and contexts (what people might call ideologies, understandings of Being, etc.). K says that when you realize reason doesn't actually help you make decisions, because you can apply it indefinitely to existential problems (problems regarding how you are going to interpret themselves, the metaphysics of the world) without ever reaching a definitively rational position:

"What is the truth about the world?" "Either X or Y." "Cool, so is X the truth about the world?" "No, because good reasons." "Cool, so then Y is the truth about the world." "No, because good reasons." "I am a skeptic. I am a nihilist. Human beings cannot ever know any truth, let alone the truth. Reasoning and trying to figure things out just leads down a rabbit hole of mutual contradictions."

"Well," says K, "You can live your life in an existential vacuum and think everything is meaningless because this formal tool doesn't reveal the truth about what you are and how you should live your life to you. Or, you can simply choose either X or Y, and choose whole-heartedly, and once you have done so you will see that there is indeed a truth. ANd you're living in it."

K was a Christian, but this same model can be applied to any ideal. And yeah, maybe you're right about spooks. But it's spooks or nihilism. And one can only be an edgelord for so long before petering out with without having committed to anything (thus, becoming a mindless pleb "in despair without even knowing it"). Or, one can make the leap, believe in SOMETHING, and be constantly energized by living within a truth that you, as a rational person, know, paradoxically, can never be rationally justified.

K says that when you realize reason doesn't actually help you make existential decisions, because you can apply it indefinitely to existential problems (problems regarding how you are going to interpret themselves, the metaphysics of the world) without ever reaching a definitively rational position, you become aware that you are fundamentally in despair--despair meaning a lack of faith in experience as existentially meaningful. ***

(My bad, sloppy and unclear writing.)

Pffttt, please, a spook is a spook in of itself. It's an offhand dismissal of any ideology or idea instead of what it actually represents, which is simply a negation to any duty towards an ideology.

The funny thing about people on Veeky Forums is that they cannot see that Nietzsche sought to destroy Nihilism while Striner embraces nihilism. What people fail to understand is that a spook is simply used as a negation towards any ideology and duty. Nationalism? That's a spook if it holds you down. You don't need to have an admiration of your state to live your life. But when you identify Nationalism to be a spook and decide to not be nationalistic because you deem it to be a spook, then you've let spookism spook you.

Rationalism is good because it helps you survive. If you do not think, you are at the mercy of nature and of anything in civilization that may kill you. To not think is to be anti life; nihilistic. You cannot acquire more property without thinking. You cannot live without thinking. And your life is the basis on which all values are permitted. By thinking, you allow yourself to hold values. Without thinking, you let yourself be engulfed by nihilism.

Ayn Rand argued that because we do not have any innate survival mechanism, rationalism is the only think we can depend on to live. We need to think to build tools that can help us survive, hunt, etc. Though I would argue that we need to think because we live in within a civilization. We live to sustain civilization and thinking is required to live within civilization. If one stops thinking and just does whatever, they will lose money, property and soon their life. You could just say that civilization is a spook, and that it doesn't matter, which is fine, but if you go in the forest, will you survive if you don't think? Will you survive if you also do whatever without thinking?

I doubt it.

Hence, rationalism is important and not a spook.
It's only a spook when rationalism is the only basis for everything and that you deny any other ideology or idea.

>K says that when you realze reason doesn't actually help you make decisons, because you can apply it indefinitely to existential problems problems regardng how you are going to interpret themselves, the metaphysics of the world without ever reaching a definitively rational position:
He's incorrect but that's his position on it. He says that you cannot think because you cannot have a rational position on anything. You can. You can have a rational position but it doesn't mean it has to be a correct position. And having an incorrect position does not mean that all thinking is thereby incorrect. The search for truth is to simply arrive at a rational position that does not have any contradiction. Once a contradiction is found, it is debated until no more contradiction is found. And the process continues until truth is uncovered.

>But it's spooks or nihilism.
I disagree. It's life or death. Spooks are needed but not duty to spooks.

The leap of faith isn't even necessary. Kierkegaard describes the Knight of Faith, but says that he himself isn't one.

The Knight of Infinite Resignation is secular, and provides a great analysis of what happens when you create your own values. After a certain point in Fear and Trembling he even stops referring to God as God and instead calls it the absurd much like (but far deeper than) Camus.

>has absolutely no knowledge in regards to a particular thing
>believes they can make a rational choice as to whether or not it holds any value

wew lad

Last time I checked it wasn't summer, looks like I was wrong.

>inb4 damage control

God is simply nature and reality.
So I guess it's apt that he calls God the absurd. I don't think it's much deeper than Camus in that regards.

The leap of faith is still a leap of accepting an ideology and values of someone else's comprehension of reality and existence. As points out.
When you create your own values, you do not take a leap of faith, since you make your own values based on your own life.
Life is what creates value. Your time alive is what makes life valuable.

>God is simply nature and reality.

According to what? Generally it is taught that God is infinite and unknowable.

I haven't even finished Plato yet, but from what I've heard, you start with Either Or.

>He's incorrect but that's his position on it. He says that you cannot think because you cannot have a rational position on anything. You can. You can have a rational position but it doesn't mean it has to be a correct position.

Which is the most rational position: Platonism, Christianity, Buddhism, Scientism, Marxism, Freudianism, or Hedonism? Trick question: none are objectively more rational than any of the others! Everyone lives guided by one or more Ideals or Ideologies. There is no interpretation-independent Truth about what it means to be human (except Christianity, ;))--all there are are various interpretive options that all seem equally "rational" and "irrational" from outside them. Most live weakly in a bunch of these options. The existential seeker and reasoner realizes the groundlessness and impossibility of choosing a "most rational" option, and falls into despair (existential nihilism). In order to get out of this, he must leap into a system of values despite having no good REASON for doing so, a la faith.

>I disagree. It's life or death.
That's like if I said: "Either you are a white person or you are a non-white person" and you replied "no, either you're living or you're dead." Which is to say, it doesn't address the claim at all, but diverts onto something whose relevance you didn't establish. So tell me, in more detail, why K is wrong, and why it isn't, as he seems to think it is, either spooks or nihilism (or, the third option being complete spiritlessness/lack of self-awareness and concern for any and all existential issues).

And how does one create one's own values? Especially with an inherited logic, history, grammar, ontology, epistemology, and value-laden language? Doesn't our very ability to speak and think imply that we have inherited social forms that have in large part already determined in advance what it is possible for us to do with them?

By rejecting those "inherited" social forms, whether it is rejected from a rational point or irrational point does not matter.

>when you identify Nationalism to be a spook and decide to not be nationalistic because you deem it to be a spook, then you've let spookism spook you.
You seem to have missed the point of the text to which you're referring, internetizen friend. One should not disregard something because they've given the a priori label of 'spook'; one should disregard something because it limits or constrains them, thereby allowing them to label it as a spook. Stirner doesn't decry all associations with ideologies and behaviors, he simply suggests that you use them to your advantage, rather than be used by them to theirs. If you're sacrificing something to promote nationalism, like say go to war, then he would say that's the wrong way to live. But if you genuinely have pride in your country (or for whatever reason) and therefore deem nationalism beneficial to you, such as politicians verily would, then its acceptable to utilize, rather than to adhere.

>Rationalism is good because it helps you survive.

Yup. Nobody is saying otherwise. Some people, such as the user to which you have been conversing, simply think that the most 'helpful' thing to decide to do is enter into faith with respect to something they deem spiritually, mentally, and/or physically profitable. One such person was William James. He has a solid essay titled 'The Will to Believe' that I suggest.

You seem to be confusing this Randian 'survival mechanism' with 'the preservation of an overly sensitive and hermetical ego,' much like Rand herself.

>The search for truth is to simply arrive at a rational position that does not have any contradiction.

What is Godels Incompleteness Theorem.

In what language does the rejection take place? With what logic and epistemology? I'm an English speaker. Can I really be said to reject the values of Western culture using the English language, which is laden with the values of Western culture? And I really be creating radically new and distinct values deploying the same words, grammatical sentence structures, and epistemology of the West and English?

I'm not just being disputatious. I'm genuinely curious. These questions and these problems fascinate me.

Whichever language one knows, it does not actually matter. It is possible that there is no logic involved, like I mentioned it can be from an irrational point, rejection can also take place in feeling, which has no language of its own but speaks all others. Yes, you absolutely can reject whatever you pick and choose to reject regardless of where and how the values came about or what language they are expressed in.

As to your last question, I don't feel comfortable giving any other answer other than I do not know, and that I would not say it is an impossible thing.

According to Spinoza. Though I maintain that God is simply another word for causality.
There are three types of interpretation of God. The unmoved mover, the entity that can manipulate the chain of causality within our reality/universe and God being a synonym for nature, reality and causality.

God is an entity that can manipulate this universe's chain of causality but it can also be seen as simply being a representation of the universe itself and its infinite links. God is unknowable because he exists outside this reality, but in the other sense, causality and truth is unknowable because you must be outside of reality to see it all.

>Which is the most rational position: Platonism, Christianity, Buddhism, Scientism, Marxism, Freudianism, or Hedonism?
None. Though all have grains of truth to the real truth. I wish I could remember the parable, but it's about a group of people who find a vase. Each one can only see a certain aspect of the truth. One man see's a rope, another sees that it's hair, the other sees that it's watery, another sees that it's bumpy. All argue that they are correct. They are all correct but also wrong at the same time. They felt an elephant in the vase. This is how truth is seen.
Platonism is the concept of idealization existing reflecting upon reality within the noumena, Christianity is the slave morality of altruism, Buddhism is the nihilistic principle of being at peace by destroying value and desire. Scientism is the replication of causality so that it may be used in different applications. Marxism is the materialistic examination of capitalism and life. Freudianism is the derministic view that we are slaves to our own nature, ego. Hedonism is the basis that the only thing we can know is pleasure, and thus pleasure is the ultimate good.
All are accurate depictions of reality but do not form a whole that is representative of all of reality.

As said, just because certain aspects are false and have come to incorrect conclusions does not make rationalism incorrect, as all of these have correct conclusions, simply not conclusions that reflect on all aspects of life.

>That's like if I said: "Either you are a white person or you are a non-white person" and you replied "no, either you're living or you're dead."
And you would have noticed that the analogy does answer your question. You're either white or not, and I argue that it doesn't matter, as below that, the answer is simply if you're alive or not.

>So tell me, in more detail, why K is wrong, and why it isn't,
Need more space to answer

>Some people, such as the user to which you have been conversing, simply think that the most 'helpful' thing to decide to do is enter into faith with respect to something they deem spiritually, mentally, and/or physically profitable

Hello user. I am the aforementioned user.

I don't think it has anything to do with "helpfulness" or "profitability". Or, at least, that's not how K thought of it. The deeper idea, perhaps contra Stirner (and I think Heidegger does a good job going a level deeper than K in this regard), is that there is no independent, spook and ideology-free vantage-point from which one can will and interpret and act and live freely. Our very ability to think and talk and value is always and already bound up with certain ways of seeing and valuing inherent in our language and ways of thinking. (see ).

Whether or not you think this is true, think this out with me. Let's pretend it is true. Then what? We're always gunna be bound up in values and ideology. So the person, like Stirner would advocate, doesn't wholeheartedly jump into any ideology, but his forms of thought and ways of valuing are still guided and intensely limited by the intellectual tradition that he has inherited. Is his "using these cultural forms to his advantage" but not buying into any of them, even though they constrain his freedom from the get-go, is that what he's supposed to do (contra Kierkegaard)?

Could you clarify what you mean by rationalism?

But the Universe is not infinite, you would need an infinite amount of matter for a Universe to be infinite. This is impossible. It is incredibly likely that the entire Universe will eventually pass away.

I would say that God is all of the above.

In Kierkegaarden, obviously.

Nice.

no knowledge =/= limited amount of knowledge

Clever.

>one should disregard something because it limits or constrains them
Except you cannot prove that rationalism is something that limits or contains someone. You simply claimed ''oh right, that's a spook''.

>Godels Incompleteness Theorem
That's boring and why logical positivism has failed entirely because it cannot prove the single factoid that existence exist and that consciousness interacts with existence.

By not being able to prove this foundation, no other 'solid' claim can be proven mathematically. That does not mean that we cannot prove correlations without any contradictions over time.

>But the Universe is not infinite
It appears infinite and endless.

You have no knowledge if you have never read it. Thanks.

Irrelevant. We know that it cannot be, it is intrinsically impossible.

It is relevant that you cannot prove axioms. Can you prove that existence exists? This is why you need some metaphysical basis or else you become doomed.

Well I think it might not be a question of whether it's what he's 'supposed' to do rather than what he's able to do. K would say that he's inherently unable to 'use' such cultural forms without buying into them because using is buying in a certain sense. Or at least I think he would (I've only read F&T).

Personally, I don't think K and Stirner are entirely incompatible. Where Stirner suggests total resignation of ties (which we've established is impossible), K suggests a total and infinite resignation, followed by a leap of faith that restores all that was lost in the ontological everything-must-go sale, and more (I think? Idk I could be totally wrong). So while S. proposes the impossible, practically speaking, the way I see it the logical outcome of his philosophy is that the individual rises above all else, which, rising above all else, becoming in absolute relation to the absolute, is why ends up occurring once one becomes a knight of faith. I see no reason why one cannot decide to do so while still aligning themselves with the individualism espoused by Stirner.

Tell me if I missed your point, please señor.

I think you think I'm someone else, which makes sense considering I didn't clarify that I wasn't the user to whom you initially replied. Anyway, it would be entirely irrational to claim that rationalism is limiting or constraining (assuming we're using the proper definition of Rationalism, a far cry from the empiricism you might be thinking of, just a guess).

>...boring..factoid...existence exist...consciousness...

I honestly can't tell if you're being sincere, but I'll pretend you are. Firstly, boring isn't an argument. Secondly, GIT isn't logical positivism—it's pure mathematics. Thirdly, 'factoids' aren't necessary to prove that 'existence exists'—read these words and ask yourself if you can read them, sense them, perceive them, rub your ear lobes on them (this works even if you're a solipsist, trust me), then ask yourself if they exist. If you don't like the answer, reëvaluate your definition of 'existence.'

>That does not mean that we cannot prove correlations without any contradictions over time.

Locally no, but systemically yes, it does.

Exactly. Kierkegaard basically posits that when you create values you pursue a "good" and gradually resign (I.e. Give up) things in your life for it, since you've defined it as good. Kierkegaard gave up his wife for a career in philosophy.

Only one who performs the leap of faith can resign things but still keep them. The Knight of Faith would still determine his own good, but would believe that the things he gives up would be given back to him by virtue of the absurd.

It's not a normal religious position at all; Kierkegaard hated normal Christians.

true

If the information presented through a medium, the medium being our senses, is accepted as not illusion but that which is real, yes. Existence proves itself.

Which part of the post were you replying to? It seems to be a diversion regardless of which one.

I can't remember and I'm too tired to remember.

Fair enough. Good night.

>kierkegaard is bad becuz spook
>rationalist is good becuz arbitrarily not a spook
>surviving is good becuz i sed so
I wish gradeschoolers would leave this board.
>The funny thing about people on Veeky Forums is that they cannot see that Nietzsche sought to destroy Nihilism while Striner embraces nihilism.
No, every undergraduate that has taken realizes this.
>He's incorrect
becuz i sed so
>And the process continues until truth is uncovered.
truth exists cuz i sed so i make things up cuz i cant function without tem
God isn't 'somebody else'
>Life is what creates value. Your time alive is what makes life valuable.
becuz i sed so
i can reject them cuz i sed so

look im rejecting them right now even though im speaking a modern form of english, praise rationality like almost every other westerner, hold various views on science as they were told to me from a young age, et cetera (a latin phrase, also proof that i am no longer bound by racist whitie)
>Nobody is saying otherwise.
Wrong.
Language is inherently logical.
Wow this guy sure is one big ugly quilt of contradicting ideas because. Such a genius for taking a 101 class.
>it appears
wow so fucking profound
Or, you can reject it all.
>Existence proves itself.
Nope, 'hurr durr self evident' is a complete cop-out.

in the cemetery?

Page 1

>Except you cannot prove that rationalism is something that limits or contains someone
Yes you can, any methodology is inherently limiting.

Yet language can be used to express completely illogical ideas.

It does. If existence did not exist nothing can exist and this question would not be able to even be raised. Hur dur fuck off. Bring an argument next time.

Doesn't matter, it's still logical. An illogical language actually cannot exist. I'm certain there is some postmodern drama on the subject.
>if existence did not exist nothing can exist and this question would not be able to even be raised.
Too many presumptions here.

I still don't see how language being logical is relevant.

And to hold the opposite position possesses just as many presumptions, the difference being one is completely absurd and the other is not.

Do words exist? Yes. Therefore existence exists.

Read the following in this order:
1. Seducer's Diary
2. the Sermon (or why GOD does not love us)
3. Fear and Trembling
4. Repetitions
5. Sickness Unto Death

then youll either want to finish Either/Or or never read Kierk again

Start with the greeks and read every prevalent philosopher up until Kierkegaard and necessary secondary lit. Until then GTFO pleb.

>read Aristotle
>get what he is saying

>read Hume
>get what he is saying

>read Plato
>get what he is saying

>read one sentence by Nietzsche
>what the hell did he mean by this?
>think about it for a moment, move on to next sentence
>what did he mean by this?

Why is everything Nietzsche wrote conducted in such an obscure riddled fashion?

Are spook posters mentally ill or just edgy 18 year olds?

>God isn't 'somebody else'
Uh huh. I sure would like to hear your opinion on that.
Those three points are the overall views on God other than the vagueness he's eternal and everything.

>becuz i sed so
No, it simply is. It's the concept of life that make values possible. It's living that gives value and death that makes us realize the importance of those values.

>wow so fucking profound
It appears infinite to people when we did not know that the universe was finite.

>Or, you can reject it all.
>Embrace nihilism
Good idea!

You're fucking stupid.

Methodology is limiting if you stick to one, but methodology requires rationalism, it is not rationalism itself that is limiting.
If you confine yourself to be a skeptic of everything, that methodology is limiting, but your rationalism is not.

They want to accept nihilism but are too afraid to say it. They want to be free and do whatever.
Striner is a good tool to dismiss positions of duty to any ideology but horrible as a foundation since he has none other than the ego.

>The Dying Socrates. I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in all that he did, said - and did not say. This mocking and amorous demon and rat-catcher of Athens, who made the most insolent youths tremble and sob, was not only the wisest babbler that has ever lived, but was just as great in his silence. I would that he had also been silent in the last moment of his life, - perhaps he might then have belonged to a still higher order of intellects. Whether it was death, or the poison, or piety, or wickedness - something or other loosened his tongue at that moment, and he said : "O Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepios." For him who has ears, this ludicrous and terrible "last word" implies: "O Crito, life is a long sickness!" Is it possible! A man like him, who had lived cheerfully and to all appearance as a soldier, - was a pessimist! He had merely put on a good demeanour towards life, and had all along concealed his ultimate judgment, his profoundest sentiment! Socrates, Socrates had suffered from life! And he also took his revenge for it - with that veiled, fearful, pious, and blasphemous phrase! Had even a Socrates to revenge himself? Was there a grain too little of magnanimity in his superabundant virtue? Ah, my friends! We must surpass even the Greeks!

>Incipit Tragoedia. When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the Lake of Urmi, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and his solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed, - and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun and spoke thus to it: "Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest! For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent. But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow, and blessed thee for it. Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches. Therefore must I descend into the deep, as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea and givest light also to the netherworld, thou most rich star! Like thee must I go down, as men say, to whom I shall descend. Bless me then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy! Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss! Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man." - Thus began Zarathustra's down-going

are these not crystalline in their clarity?

>Do words exist? Yes. Therefore existence exists.
Nope, presumption.

The lack of a presumption is not a presumption.
>Those three points are the overall views on God other than the vagueness he's eternal and everything.
Not at all, do not speak on things you do not understand.
>No, it simply is. It's the concept of life that make values possible. It's living that gives value and death that makes us realize the importance of those values.
Presuming value is good; presuming life gives value.
>It appears infinite to people when we did not know that the universe was finite.
We know nothing, only ideologues claim otherwise
>Good idea!
Life-as-doubt isn't nihilism, life-in-doubt is.

Rationality is a methodology that inherently confines things to what are rational.

Saying nope is the equivalent of saying words do not exist, which in a presumption.

Do you mean to say words don't exist? I will wait. If they don't, what is that we are using to communicate? Whatever you say that is, does it exist? Or does it also not exist? If it does not exist, what exactly are you talking about? And how are you talking about it?

Absurdism is fucking retarded.

>absurdism is dumb because its le dumb

Absurdism is the ability to look at a single point and call it absurd rather than look at the whole.

No arguments here. Thank you for participating. It was fun while it lasted.

>the whole
doesn't exist
>arguments are good because rationalism is good because rationalism is good...

>doesn't exist
Hilarious.

Still no arguments here. Guess you better keep on your green texting since you've lost.

So many presumptions.

Seriously, fuck that retard. I'm beginning to think they are just trolling.

dude this stupid woman said so so its true
>arguments are good becus i sed so
You need to justify this.

I can make presumptions because I make no rational assertion.

And you say the whole isn't so so it must be true

No, just because you are exceptionally challenged doesn't mean I need to rationalize anything. Especially to an absurdist faggot, you wouldn't listen. It would be a waste. No, you can't make presumptions because words aren't real.

Now fuck off.

I'm making what is called a negative argument.

Imposing a wholeness onto creation presumes rationality exists and is also applicable to objects.

Kierkegaard basically justifies the life-as-doubt and counters the err of that with the life-in-faith.
>ur stupid because i sed so look how fucking rational i am /b/ro

>negative argument
Also known as pretending to be retarded.

You are stupid because you are, whether or not you were born that way or if you need to practice doesn't matter.

Still waiting on a response to all my questions. But I won't hold my breath because you literally cannot answer them.

>its retarded cuz i sed so look how fukkin reasonable i am /b/ro yeah i read ayn rand, i read nietzsche, i even read stirner because im real hardcore, but im also a feminist