Which philosopher was best at blowing people the fuck out? Was it Nietzsche for this passage...

Nietzsche was good at insults, but I think that this passage is a poor example. The "principle cited" is "neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, juva" — "hurt no one; rather, help all as much as you can". A man who thinks that this principle is "insipidly false" fails, I think, on a very important level to really understand morality.

>it'd be more admirable if he wasn't actually corrupting the youth.
Getting people to think = corrupting them? Nah.

of course getting people to think is not corrupting them, but that's not a complete definition of what he was doing.

But what was he doing that was injurious? And to whom was it injurious?

here's the university of cambridge explanation, better than what i can tell you.

cam.ac.uk/news/socrates-was-guilty-as-charged

essentially he was telling them they didn't need to be pious. and the gods are references to the archetypes and ideal virtues. thus, it was demoralizing.

Just because some people in his community thought that Socrates was injuring that community doesn't mean that he actually was.

>cultural marxism

the consensus and verdict at the time was that he certainly was. i happen to agree. in any case he was in fact guilty of the charges he was indicted on.

the fact that people in the community thought that socrates was damaging the community, after all, certainly doesn't me that he actually wasn't.

>i happen to agree.

but why?

This is by far the most retarded analogy I've ever read

>Ad populum
>when your argument is literally a fallacy

Because theism is popular in certain circles at the moment. Twitter is full of people with anime avatars who want to go back to having Masses in Latin. It's a fashion thing: empty contrarianism.

his was a philosophy of improvement. a sharp contrast from the apollyonic optimism of hereclitus and anaximander. it contained a subversive element. he endorsed a conscious life without instinct. anyways, it's simply my estimation that he was guilty. probably nieztche influenced me in that regards, and my contemplations of ascending and descending evolutions of thought through the history of philosophy.

many people, some of whom were acting in official capacity, thinking a certain thing is so... is more in favor of it being true than it being false.

Pic related

he understood morality fine but argued that this is a terrible basis for morality. i'd disagree with the maxim and not even in an edgy way: helping as many people as you can means that in order to maximize the number of people you can help, you have to spread yourself so thin that the help you give is trivial. you might as well work in a starbucks in times square so you can dispense a thousand coffees a day. nietzsche doesn't argue against all forms of help, but he recognizes that at some point you're going to choose who you're going to help and how for arbitrary reasons.

>sophists say random shit which makes no sense (especially for our standards)
>socrates asks questions about it, revealing that behind those notions ghere is no strong argument

>this apparentky is corrupting the youth

I guess you're very knowledgeable on the nature of youth.

>plato pissed because sophists charge money for teaching
>makes a bunch of retarded strawmen characters in his dialogues that never actually address the real sophists' beliefs
>thousands of years later naive dolts still believe socrates actually BTFO the superior sophists
Sad!

If you are going to misrepresent this simple idea in such a way i don't know if there is hope for you. Obviously if you realise concentrating your efforts on helping a lesser number more is more beneficial you would do so.

I can't say I agree with him but Adorno's hate for jazz produced some of the most spiteful writing I've ever come across.

>The aim of jazz is the mechanical reproduction of a regressive moment, a castration symbolism. 'Give up your masculinity, let yourself be castrated,' the eunuchlike sound of the jazz band both mocks and proclaims, 'and you will be rewarded, accepted into a fraternity which shares the mystery of impotence with you, a mystery revealed at the moment of the initiation rite.

Where did he get the idea that jazz was symbolically emasculating?

Heidegger-approved.

Socrates did the right thing by redirecting philosophy from metaphysics to epistemology in order to undermine the corrupt political elites of his time. But by doing so, he misdirected the field of philosophy, though probably unintentionally due to the historical prioritization of Plato over Parminedes. Socrates's influence obfuscated the original purpose of philosophy to wonder at the way things are and understand how things actually are, since philosophers no longer believe that a grounded epistemology will follow from a comprehensive metaphysics, and instead waste their efforts trying to understand the world without even understanding how epistemology can be said to be grounded in the first place.

Chesterton blew that weakling Nietzsche the fuck out.

OP, like it or not, Nietzsche is here performing the essence of the deconstruction mode of critique. He is reading Schopenhauer "against the grain" by showing via the Lebensphilosophy he espoused (that one's life should reflect/embody one's philosophy) that Schopenhauer's life could be read as a text that is logically inconsistent with the pessimism he advocates in his work. In this sense, he is not BTFOing Schopenhauer at all, but showing his life-affirming side. While the principle discussed is problematic as points out, it still affirms life at large.

You're that guy who believes C.S. Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is proof of God, aren't you?

You have to be 18+ to post here OP.

Nassim Taleb argues that Socrates incessant questioning and methods of philosophy lead to showing that the Athenian people really did lead unexamined lives, but more importantly it lead to tearing down the carefully crafted illusions and traditions that the Athenian people had unknowingly created that bound them together, gave them purpose, gave them (and everything) meaning, and that ultimately was the foundation of Athenian society.

For a more modern example, look at the "It's a social construct ergo it is bad or does not exist". Gender roles may be a social construct, but perhaps they came about via evolution (not biological) and tinkering and are beneficial?

The law is a social construct, but surely anyone can see that getting rid of it would be disastrous.

The American founding myth of heroic patriots fighting the evil king is a construct, but it serves a purpose and getting rid of it (Not acknowledging its mythical and ahistorical nature, but actively working to destroy such a narrative) is deleterious as it leaves us adrift and purposeless.

Socrates wasn't put to death for making people think, he was put to death for tearing down Athenian culture and not putting anything in the vacuum.

That is literally a picture of Ignatius J. Reilly

no that's nietzsche

Oh shit you're actually stupid, I had hope

Adorno BTFO Heidegger.

>The cult of Being lives by the age-old ideology of the idola fori, by
that which thrives in the darkness of the word “being” and of the
forms derived from it. “Is” establishes a context of existential
judgment between the grammatical subject and the predicate, thus
suggesting something ontical. Taken purely by itself, however, as
a copula, it means at the same time the general, categorical fact of
a synthesis, without representing anything ontical. Hence it can
be entered straightways on the ontological side of the ledger. From
the logicity of the copula, Heidegger gets the ontological purity
that suits his allergy to all things factual, and from existential
judgment he gets the memory of things ontical —which will permit
101
BEING AND EXISTENCE
the categorial achievement of the synthesis to be hypostatized,
then, as given.
Even the word “is,” of course, has a “state of facts”
corresponding to it. In every predicative judgment, “is” has its
meaning, as have the subject and the predicate. But the “state of
facts” is a matter of intentionality, not of being. The copula, by
definition, is fulfilled only in the relation between subject and
predicate. It is not independent. Heidegger, in misplacing it beyond
the sole source of its meaning, succumbs to that reified thought to
which he took exception. His definition of that which is meant by
“is” as the absolute, ideal “in itself”—in other words, as Being—
would give the same right to the things represented by the
judgment’s subject and predicate, once detached from the copula.
To both, synthesis by the copula would happen as a mere external
occurrence; this was precisely what the concept of Being was
thought up against. Once again, as in an obsolete logic, subject,
copula, and predicate would be conclusive, completed details after
the model of things.

>muh social binding
fuck off

cont'd

In truth, however, predication is not an adjunct. In coupling
the subject and the predicate it is also that which both would be
in themselves if there were any way to conceive this “would be”
without the synthesis of “is.” Hence the ban on extrapolating
from the copula, either to a preordained “being” or to a
“becoming,” a pure synthesis. This extrapolation rests on a
confusion in the theory of meanings: the general meaning of the
copula “is,” the constant grammatical token for the synthesis of
the judgment, is confused with the specific meaning acquired by
“is” in every judgment. The two coincide by no means. In that
sense, “is” might be likened to occasional expressions. Its generality
is a promissory note on particularization, the general form in which
to carry out particular acts of judgment. Nomenclature takes this
into account by reserving the scientific term “copula” for that
generality—and for the particular job required in each judgment
it reserves the “is.”
Heidegger ignores the difference. As a result, the particular job
of “is” comes to be merely something like a phenomenal mode of
the generality. The difference between the category and the
NEGATIVE DIALECTICS
102
substance of the existential judgment is blurred. The substitution
of the general grammatical form for the apophantic content
transforms the ontical task of “is” into an ontological one, a way
of Being to be. Yet if the task that is postulated, transmitted, and
transmitting in the sense of “is” were neglected in the particular,
that “is” would retain no substrate of any kind; there would be
nothing left but the abstract form of transmission in general. This
“pure Becoming,” in Hegel’s word, is no more a primal principle
than any other, unless one wishes to drive out Parmenides with
Heraclitus.

Proof is a materialistic concept that God transcends. I don't even like CS Lewis. I like some of his non-fiction, but Narnia fucking stinks.

Note: the translation I use is quirky in the sense that the Hegelian concept of mediation is translated as "transmission."

>Adorno believed that the rise of the culture industry has resulted in the standardisation and rationalisation of cultural form, and that this in turn had weakened, atrophied and destroyed the capacity of the individual to think and act in a critical and autonomous way. He argued that standardisation emerges largely as a result of the capacity of those with power to control the production of cultural goods to employ positivistic methods in an attempt to formulate a scientific measurement of people’s precise ‘tastes’ and expectations, and in doing so increase profitability. As the culture industry develops this process has become more specialised, leading to the emergence of a very precisely targeted hierarchical range of goods aimed precisely to align with consumers preconceived expectations of the product itself ‘so none may escape’. Horkheimer and Adorno focused on Hollywood as a particularly glaring example of this phenomenon. In its attempt to produce a profit, Hollywood pumps out an endless stream of movies, all classified according to the exact tastes of particular groups, ensuring the viewer has to exert next to no mental energy in understanding the film. Whilst there are differences in the content of each film, these differences amount to merely pseudo-individualism, that serves to mask the fact that the style and form of the film is identical to all others; all differences, such as variations in plot, character type etc, are simply superficial imitations of individuality that mask the fundamental uniformity of all its products. Thus studios spend enormous amounts promoting ‘bigger better’ films, new bands, a new star, but rather than these differences in fact it is the underlying structural uniformity which is the ‘really meaningful content’ of the film.
Typical neurotic marxist dribble, gabidalism is to blame for everything.
themaxklinger.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/a-summary-of-adorno-and-horkheimers-slightly-interesting-and-staggeringly-pretentious-views-on-art/

could this hack ever write a clear sentence?

>I don't understand therefore it is not clear

Do your homework kid.

Given what most people consume in term of art and entertainment, I'd say that he is the right.
Every frontahelf of every Barnes and Noble, every new blockbuster movie that comes out and every worthless pseudo-musicians that infect every radio of every car in the world, these are all proofs of what Adorno was saying.
There are formulas that are being followed strictly in order to make as much money as possible. These processes could benjustified in other industries, but when it is applied to culture itself the game breaks and everything gets corrupted.

Most of the degeneracies that /pol/tards complain about are actually a result of this mechanism.

The writing may sound excessively prophetic, but it is actually very pragmatic, to the point where the conclusions that Adorno reached are now a second-nature for us. They're evident at this point, you just have to leave your house to experience it.

Sounds like he's BTFOing Schopenhauer to me. He's pointing out that because Schopenhauer was a loser who played the flute, a large portion of his philosophy could be doubted.

kys

All the plebs ITT defending Socrates like they just had their first philosophy class make me want to puke.

Don't you understand ? Plato tried to refute Socrates ... Plato had Socrates figured out ; he knew what Socrates was about : Socrates had no Idea, Socrates was no more than dialectics ... But Plato proved in the Thaetetus that dialectics without Idea is nihilism.

Plato's dialectics are fundamentally a rite of purification ; and his philosophy is fundamentally political. Read his early dialogues ; read /the/ Alcibiades ; here you can easily see that the Paideia is being replaced by philosophy ; because there is /no more/ Paideia ; and thus the Greek world rushes to the abyss ; and thus the Paideia must be replaced by something else. What is the Paideia ? Homer. Why is it wrong ? Because of Socrates ... How much divine hatred was there in Plato when he took Socrates and refuted him, by having him say the exact opposite of everything Socrates would have had thought ; see Xenopho's Socrates ; see how Plato was far from the first to write socratic dialogues : Socrates already was a literary figure when Plato took him for himself. Plato made Socrates noble, and thus refuted Socrates.
Plato made Socrates super-Greek ; he saw, in Socrates, the Greek world coming to an end ; and he tried to formulate an alternative ... his supreme subtlety was to have Socrates present it.

Actually not a bad post. I'm impressed.

A lot of you ITT are speaking against the sophists, yet you do not seem to understand what a sophist was, what a sophist stood for ...

A sophist was democracy in the flesh ; most of you have an understanding of the sophists that is not even contained in Plato's slanders : it is a modern reading, that is to say, a misreading. The moderns have hated the sophists the way one only hates what is most alike himself ... What were the sophists ? Let us take Gorgias for example.

Gorgias wasn't just spouting his opinions and holding brilliant discourses on whatever, trying to convince at all cost ; he was the radical application of Parmenides. Read Gorgias' Fragments ... and read Parmenides. What did Gorgias do ? He applied the simple idea found in Parmenides, that "it is not". You should recognize yourselves in the sophists ... for what did they push forward was relativism, nihilism ; Plato's slanders are nothing, compared to the true systems they actually had ; for they concluded : "All is relative ; nothing good nor bad, but thinking makes it so ; Being is not ; and thus we are free !" --- Socrates was a sophist who couldn't seduce ... or the greatest of them. What did the sophists believe in ? The same as you, my friends : Protagoras was an individualist, a moral relativist ... Socrates spoke better than them. But Plato brought together Heralictus and Parmenides.

>Blowing the fuck out

If you all started with the Greeks you would realise OP was talking about male to male sexuality.

The idea of becoming was fundamentally alien to Greek thought, that is to say the Greek language ; it did not deal with temporality, but rather with aspect ; its future is of late invention (its verb "to be" is regular) and its general behavior is fundamentally static. Heraclitus truly gazed into the night of the worlds ; and of course he couldn't formulate what he saw ; and he was a religious man. Greek rationality kept being stopped at becoming, and didn't have the ability to formulate its mystery ; that is because it is the mystery, and cannot be formulated ; but they desperately tried to figure it out ; and thence came the idea that the senses lie : becoming /cannot/ exist, since it cannot be formulated. Parmenides tried to elaborate a system which could do without becoming, with its opposite, the "being" ; Heraclitus held becoming as the fundamental mystery, and thought all other systems void, because they couldn't explain it. There are no technical terms in Plato. He only used Greek syntax to produce meaning ; and he was able to explain becoming and being... but he had to invent another world for it ; and all this was a political question. Plato was always right, and is still ; but his philosophy, like all things Greek, is poison.

Why is this even a question?

How can all things Greek be poison if it produced things antithetical to Plato, e.g. Homer and Aeschylus?

I call them antithetical because they venerate the gods while seeing in them the glaring contradictions and conflicts, and embracing that as a fountain of strength and wisdom for understanding the cosmos. Without god vs god conflict, Homer would cease to exist. It's the piece that holds his entire whole together. Aeschylus has Prometheus at war with Zeus, while affirming both (see the praises to Zeus in Suppliant Maidens).

But in Plato, this conflict between gods is highlighted as an error, as a reason for the fallibility of Greek culture, which must be cured by something.. be it forms or w demiurge..

Again, how can all be poison when they come from different origins like this?

Pls leave. Your reading comprehension is so shitty that you do this board a disservice by posting. This is my thread now.

Max. He is the father of Nietzsche.

All Greek culture is poison as it is not our culture ; like all culture it is build on a fundamental negation, which produces conflict, which turns into power : remove it from its context, and all you have left is a negation. Homer is a conflict : the world he describes is falling apart and is no longer able to signify its values ; a crisis follows. The problem is that kleos (glory) decides what one is entitled to, what one deserves ; to give to someone according to their kleos (be it esteem, goods or political power) is themis (justice). But kleos is also earned, from accumulating goods and honors ; one can easily see the circular issue here : to earn kleos, one has to steal from someone else, and thus break themis. Such is the tragedy of the Iliad : Achilles' kleos is attacked by Agamemnon who has to do so to protect his own ; the application of the themis violates the themis. Hektor is a worthy, noble man ; but his annihilation and that of his city is necessary to the kleos of the Achaeans. Here lies another issue ; glory, eternal kleos, is acquired by death, but life is all there is ; there is no way to reconcile this fundamental opposition ; and thence springs a source of power and energy, which produces meaning. If you remove the context, the opposition does not produce meaning anymore, and becomes a problem. Spengler accurately pointed out that themis is an affirmation and dikè a problem. He was right. But let us look at this : if we take Homer out of his context, all that is left is an irreconcilable opposition which no longer brings life and death into a single triumphal affirmation, but simply produces angst and nihilism. In Aeschylus, we witness this. Here the bow is stretched out to its acme and we witness a man greater than nature, walking upon his cothurnus into night, blindly, until he his destroyed ; the homeric man is a madman advancing in a world of red, yellow and black where shadows stretch too long, waiting to be struck and brought back into nothingness ; sacred terrors preside to his plays, a chtonian growling runs through them.
His works are the constatation of a failure, that of the homeric ideal, which was built on this conflict between life and death, which had no resolution... whoever wrote the odyssey wished to unbend the bow, and did not understand this conflict ; or perhaps an older Homer understood it all too well...

high post quality for Veeky Forums

This is interesting. Who is the "our" you speak of? If Greek culture isn't ours, what culture is?

t. marxist college student with a prince albert piercing

I get the impression that all these philosophers are trying and ultimately failing at identifying the true path which can only be known by serving the word of the living God and the teachings of his son Jesus Christ. These are Godless men who are so filled to the brim with arrogance that they think they can fill their cups with human thought and reject the wholesome teachings which God gave us through the Bible. Philosopy is a waste of time, and a crutch for the morally weak who are too cowardly to accept the word of God and that there are consequences for how we act and behave in this life.
tl;dr all the answers you philosophy fags are looking for are in the old and new testament. read them and I can say with certainty you'll be cured of your self-doubt

Can you tell me which books of Plato's that you've read that gave you this impression?

Garbage

>In his opus magnum Joël writes: 'The Ego' is the "most rampant heretic book a human hand has ever written", and Stirner laid with it the foundation for a veritable "devil's religion."

>The "destruction of alienation", that Stirner aims for, he says, amounts to "the return to authenticity", and this would be "nothing else than the destruction of culture, the return to animality [...] the return to the pre-human status."

>Even Nietzsche appears, according to Kolakowski, "weak and inconsistent compared to him [Stirner]."

>Calasso too regards Stirner's "Egoist" or rather "Owner" as an "artificial barbarian", an "anthropological monster" etc.. 'The Egoist' is the "writing on the wall", signalling the doom of occidental culture.

>No, the intrinsic reason, which was passed down probably by accident, was that [Husserl] wanted to protect his students (and perhaps himself?) against their "temptational power".

>Theodor Adorno once admitted to his inner circle that it was Stirner alone who had "let the cat out of the bag". However, he took care to avoid arguing such ideas or even mentioning Stirner's name.

>Nevertheless in his study of Nietzsche, [Klages] was prompted to commemorate the author Stirner as a "sheer demoniacal dialectician." He concedes to him that his thinking, in comparison to Nietzsche's, is "often more radical, less circumlocutory, analytically more exact", and that he "gives ultimate conclusions, for the most part, with more conciseness." Klages regards Stirner as that "antipode of Nietzsche, who in any case should be taken seriously." Stirner, he says, is the reason why Nietzsche is of paramount importance, because "the day on which Stirner's program becomes the will-guiding conviction of all, this alone would suffice for it to be the 'doomsday' of mankind."

>which can only be known by serving the word of the living God and the bla bla bla

as soon as posts go in this direction i immediately imagine the poster with a dick in his mouth

Well, you've convinced me. For all the years Stirner has been mentioned on here I've avoided reading his work. It's time for that to finally change. I hope I make it through in one piece.

Stirner can't help you

>I wonder who could be behind this post

Yeah, they made "spook" into another spook.

ironically free choice is a spook relegating stirner to the haunted house he sought to escape.

You'll realise one day
It's not too late

Mencius. The entire eponymous book is just dialogues of him BTFO philosophers and kings.

You don't start playing the flute well. You start playing the flute badly. There is a concept of cultivation and pain for improvement that runs through Nietzsche's thought.

>poison
It's a reference to the duality of poison and cure in Greek language. This is why you START WITH THE GREEKS y'all haven't read Phaedrus, at least not properly.

>y'all haven't read Phaedrus
This kills the thread.

Great post, sir.

Schopenhauer was not a bad critic himself.

nietzsche was so good at btfo'ing philosophers that he btfo'd himself in the end

Then why call the maxim "inspidly false"? That seems like a very petty critique. I would take Nietzsche's criticism much more seriously if he phrased it the way that you did. But instead, he does his typical blowhard bombast.

What's wrong with those dashes?

I really like the passage in Genealogy where he rips into Christians/slave moralists, the one where he yells "Go on!" as some anonymous person reveals to him the depths of their lameness