Thread 24624317

Here are three quotes from Aristotle's Metaphysics, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Anyone who goes around calling other people pseuds should surely be familiar with these classic works and have no trouble understanding and explaining these passages. Let's find out together whether there is a single person here who isn't a fake. 3/3 - Good job, you're an effortposter. 2/3 - Midwit. 1/3 - Septic pseud. 0/3 - You are Jordan Peterson.

Kant: Our apprehension of the manifold of phenomena is always successive. The representations of parts succeed one another. Whether they succeed one another in the object also, is a second point for reflection, which was not contained in the former. Now we may certainly give the name of object to everything, even to every representation, so far as we are conscious thereof; but what this word may mean in the case of phenomena, not merely in so far as they are objects, but only in so far as they indicate an object, is a question requiring deeper consideration. In so far as they, regarded merely as representations, are at the same time objects of consciousness, they are not to be distinguished from apprehension, that is, reception into the synthesis of imagination, and we must therefore say: “The manifold of phenomena is always produced successively in the mind.”

Aristotle: We must inquire whether each thing and its essence are the same or different. This is of some use for the inquiry concerning substance; for each thing is thought to be not different from its substance, and the essence is said to be the substance of each thing. Now in the case of accidental unities the two would be generally thought to be different, e.g. white man would be thought to be different from the essence of white man. For if they are the same, the essence of man and that of white man are also the same; for a man and a white man are the same thing, as people say, so that the essence of white man and that of man would be also the same. But perhaps it does not follow that the essence of accidental unities should be the same as that of the simple terms. For the extreme terms are not in the same way identical with the middle term. But perhaps this might be thought to follow, that the extreme terms, the accidents, should turn out to be the same, e.g. the essence of white and that of musical; but this is not actually thought to be the case.

Hegel: That the true is only actual as a system, or, that substance is essentially subject, is expressed in the representation that expresses the absolute as spirit - the most sublime concept and the one which belongs to modernity and its religion. The spiritual alone is the actual; it is the essence, or, what exists-in-itself. It is what is self-comporting, or, the determinate itself, or, otherness and being-for-itself - and, in this determinateness, to be the self-enduring in its being-external-to-itself - or, it is in and for itself.

DO NOT CHEAT NIGGERS DO NOT READ OTHER RESPONSES TO WRITE YOUR OWN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>24624325
What other responses?

>>24624317 (OP)
I read them, I got 3/3. Good shit OP

>>24624317 (OP)
holy mother of Pseuds .. go talk with your ai you puta parrot .. you are just a language-machine ..

>>24624330
Prove it faggot. How is the essence what is self-comporting? How is white man different from the essence of white man? What's the difference between a phenomenon being an object and representing an object?

>>24624336
>omg this is just understanding difficult sentences wtf is that what u think philosophy is bro not me bro for me philosophy is life I don't need this autism gibberish omg you're such a pseud bro I do my philosophizing on the streets Lao Tzu is my favorite philosopher btw he tells you real life stuff not this autist stuff fuck you bro you're such a pseud I'm definitely for sure smarter than you bro.
We have our first Jordan Peterson ladies and gentlemen.

In the Kant one he is saying that of course things appear to succeed one another in time but the question is whether causality applies to the apparent objects themselves. In the Aristotle one he is talking about whether a thing is the same as the abstract concept that represents it. I don't know what the Hegel one says but fuck you I could throw you some quotes from books that I know and I bet you couldn't read them at sight either.

2/3

>>24624386
Kant didn't use the word "time". And Aristotle didn't use the word "abstract". If it is true that a thing is the same as its substance, and the essence is the substance of each thing, then how can that possibly be something abstract? You have a faulty interpretation.

>>24624386
You didn't understand the Aristotle quote at all actually because he isn't talking about universals (an essence and a universal are two different things), you also ignored most of the thought in the passage presumably because you couldn't understand it. And again these are canonical works so I'm afraid I have to affirm that you are a septic pseud who needs to read more. I went from 'easiest' to 'hardest' so probably as many as four or five people are going to be able to read the first one but I'll be surprised if anyone gets all three, based on my experience of how retarded nu/lit/ is.

>>24624408
>Kant didn't use the word "time".
For Kant succession is essential to time and to nothing else. So there's nothing wrong with assuming the passage is about succession in time because, in fact, it is, and anyone familiar with Kant would be able to see this. Presumably that anon has actually read the CPR more than once but has barely read any Aristotle and no Hegel. He's probably in the top 1% of this board really merely for knowing the CPR.

"Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation à priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession."

>>24624360
i'm cool and a cucumber anon. you however have concocted this entire shambolic thread as an excuse to draw syntax in the sand and then argue over semantic interpretations of said symbols in sand. i literally think you'd have more fun at your word association game if you played it tucked away in bed with a big mug of hot chocolate, tapping your little claws on your dirty android screen.

how do i understand kant and aristotle and hegel

>>24624460
If the succession wasn't "in time" then how would it be?

>>24624317 (OP)
>quotes
Kant & Hegel should be in German, Aristoteles in Greek
I may be a pseud, but I'm not a retard

>>24624317 (OP)
>I can misuse semantics better than my opponent

>>24624471
I think Hegel's advice on this point is about as good as it gets. Granted this is specific to his own theory of propositions but it's easy to generalize. Dieter Henrich said "He who reads Hegel reads alone" and you can say the same for any genuinely speculative thinker.

"The nature of judgment, or of the proposition per se, which includes the difference between subject and predicate within itself, is destroyed by the speculative judgment, and the identical proposition, which the former comes to be, contains the counter-stroke to those relations.... In that way when it is said, 'The actual is the universal', the actual, as subject, vanishes into its predicate. The universal is not supposed to have only the meaning of a predicate such that the proposition would state that, 'The actual is the universal'; rather, the universal ought to express the essence of the actual. Thinking thus loses its objective basis which it had in the subject, when, in the predicate, it was thrown back to the subject, and when, in the predicate, it returns not into itself but into the subject of the content. For the most part, this unfamiliar impediment forms the basis for the complaints about the unintelligibility of philosophical literature even when the individual has otherwise met the conditions of cultural formation for understanding such philosophical writing. In what is said about this, we see the reason behind the specific reproach which is so often leveled against such writings, namely, that so much has to be read over and over again before it can be understood - a reproach which has to do with such definitive unreasonableness that, if it were justified, no rejoinder would be possible."

>>24624482
Philosophical works that are worth reading (technical, not literary) are easy as fuck to translate and you don't actually miss much. The people who say you have to read Aristotle in Greek and Hegel in German are probably not going to be able to understand these quotes. Just like the people who say you have to read all of Bohme and Proclus to understand Hegel probably cannot understand that quote.

>>24624507
>>24624317 (OP)
Hegel feels like a smooth used car salesman trying to pull the wool over my eyes. I have never met a Hegelian who can explain what any of this means, they'll either insist on speaking in technical terms or they'll say something completely banal and then insist that it's actually profound within the context of the system. Fuck you nigger I am not spending six months+ studying a system that appears to be valueless and all of its proponents look like cultish retards.

>>24624500
/thread

>>24624515
Aber Hegel schreibt ein Deutsch das sehr schwer zu übersetzen ist und es reicht nicht um sein Geschriften auf Englisch zu lesen.

Και δε και δει αναγιγνοσκειν τα του Αριστοτελους εργα εν τηι ελληνικηι γλοττηι

>>24624462
You sound kind of upset to me anon. Deep down in your brain, behind all the synapses you've burned by watching youtube videos and F5'ing 4chan for the last 20 years, you know there probably is something in these old complex thinkers, but you'll never be able to experience it for yourself. So you lash out with the standard attacks - this is a word game, this doesn't mean anything, this has nothing to do with 'real life', this is just for people who want to feel smart, etc. If nothing else at least acknowledge that you don't know anything about philosophy and should quit talking about it or pretending to be interested in it.

>>24624528
A lot of great philosophy is banal like that. It's a misunderstanding to think that philosophy will get you some great new idea that will make you say "gee whizz!", the best philosophy is more like a contemplation on life. I won't say what the OP quote is (from the fucking PREFACE of the book, anyone who isn't a pseud should know it) but the one here: >>24624507 he's talking about how all of the moments in these dialectical movements are interconnected and this isn't how we normally speak and think. If you say "the apple is red" you have a subject and a predicate you apply to it and they're indifferent (the apple might be yellow etc.). But when Hegel says "the property is universal" he doesn't mean "the property is a concept", "the property is predicable of many other things" or anything like that, but the property is essentially part of the universal. He constantly writes like that, he warns you of it, and yet pseuds get filtered by it. Then he gives you his advice for dealing with this strange way of thinking and writing which is to read the book over and over again.

>>24624548
Tell us what the quotes mean. But of course you can't, you're just another pseud posturing. Who will be the knight in shining armor who can read all three of them?

>>24624559
I already said I was a pseud you fucking retard
And these are not quotes, they are translations, not the same thing

>>24624317 (OP)
Kant: we think about things one thing at a time, and we don't know if our minds are making things up or are really focused on the real thing.

Aristotle: We need to distinguish between whether or not we're thinking about the things as they really are or the things merely as they seem to be.

Hegel: literal fucking gibberish.

>>24624578
based. OP btfo?

>>24624317 (OP)
I get the first two quite well but had to read the Hegel a bit deeper.

>>24624317 (OP)
Kant is first saying that we understand things one at a time, but questions as to whether or not things really exist successively, which may be to say independently. I.e. we understand a part before we understand a whole but we may understand as well that this doesn't mean the part precedes the whole. Similarly this may apply to the distinction between objects as they appear, or phenomena, and objects as they are, which I think Kant calls noumena, and there may not really be such a distinction at all.

Aristotle asks whether a thing differs from its essence. He has a difficulty which is that the essence of subject and predicate together is either distinct or not from the essence of subject alone, and no way of resolving it. Wrt "white man," he is essentially a man but accidentally white yet is his essence unmixed with the essence of white? I think something like that is Aristotle's question. I confess I have no idea what is meant by extreme, simple and middle terms.

Hegel seems to be trying to answer old Aristotle's question! That "substance is essentially subject" means that things are what they are including in all of their accidents because they are subject to spirit. For example, returning to the white man he is essentially subject to some essence of white man which determines his shape and substance. I do not know what self-comporting means!

Due to my total attempt but partial understanding I rate myself a 2/3, unless in my guesses I happened to be right in which case I am that perfect young philosopher.

>>24624317 (OP)
i get AI to summarize that shit in baby english because i am retarded

>>24624854
it's misleading you and you are preparing to resign yourself to a potential eternity (i.e. you can do this as long as you like) of chasing the tail of a non existent beast. I recommend starting with the Greeks and ignoring all the enlightenment thinkers till you have a firm basis.

>>24624790
>Kant is first saying that we understand things one at a time, but questions as to whether or not things really exist successively, which may be to say independently. I.e. we understand a part before we understand a whole but we may understand as well that this doesn't mean the part precedes the whole. Similarly this may apply to the distinction between objects as they appear, or phenomena, and objects as they are, which I think Kant calls noumena, and there may not really be such a distinction at all.
No. He's talking about how representations indeed follow one another in time but the real question is whether the objects of representation have the law of causality in themselves. Noumena aren't really 'objects' at all, even if Kant sometimes speaks this way. Read Chapter 3 of the Analytic, in fact read the whole book twice over again.
>I confess I have no idea what is meant by extreme, simple and middle terms.
He's saying that maybe it is not true that the essence of white man is man, because you could argue that a white man is different from a man considered on its own. The word 'essence' is homonymous in Aristotle, you could argue that there is an essence of 'white man' it's just not a substantial essence. So his first solution would be committing a fallacy because middle term, the essence, wouldn't really be the essence of 'white man' as such. But what if you had a complex subject like 'white musical man' - by this reasoning there would be no distinct (homonymous) essence of 'white' and 'musical', just one unified 'essence' the 'white musical man'. So the objection is itself a fallacy of another sort because of the equivocation in 'essence' you wouldn't be able to distinguish one thing from another, everything would be a pure whole of the substance and all its accidents, and, as he argues in Meta 4, this would make reasoning impossible.
>Hegel seems to be trying to answer old Aristotle's question! That "substance is essentially subject" means that things are what they are including in all of their accidents because they are subject to spirit.
No. Hegel's making the standard post-Kantian idealist claim that substance (the principle of all reality) and subject (consciousness) are one - there's nothing "outside" consciousness, equating substance and subject is in opposition to dualism; but he handles this in a new way compared to Fichte or Schelling. There's a lot of other stuff going on here too obviously. You seem like a nice enough guy but you need to read more nigger

>>24624578
0/3, does not even engage with what's there or take anything approaching a stab at understanding. Another Jordan Peterson is born.

Pre-2016 /lit/ would have had multiple correct responses.

>>24624317 (OP)
All three are pseudo intellectual escpially hegel.

>>24625001
>saving a thumbnail
I may be a pseud but at least I'm not a fucking retard.

>>24624553
Hegel's theory of the speculative proposition is a rip-off of Aristotle's syllogistic in the Analytics. No I will not play your little game, I can read them all but I am not an effortposter. I only check this site when I'm on the toilet.

>>24625039
Thanks for paying attention to me pal. Now can you read the passages? Is there a single poster here who is not a pseud?

>>24624961
i feed notebooklm a book and it makes a study guide of it
it's awesome

person who reads critique of pure reason
vs
a person who uses AI to learn the concepts from critique of pure reason but he doesn't actually read the book
i am willing to bet he latter would do better on a quiz about it
critique of pure reason is a very complicated books and takes years of study to understand

>>24625519
complicated book*

critique of pure reason is also a very dry book. bored after reading one page

>>24625528
it was one of the first works of philosophy I ever read.

Sequential or successive apprehension or a manifold or phenomena.

Accidents consist or also do not constitute a part or portion or an essence or substance.

Form has or has not a potentiality as an indeterminate nature.

Pseud-thread. No bump, no (You).

>anons argue about the correct reading of Aristotle and Kant all the time here
>no one can understand two passages taken at random from their most famous works

Lol, lmao even. Philosophyfags should be relegated to /his/ with the tradcaths. In fact, the tradcaths probably knew more about Catholicism than these guys do about philosophy.

>>24624982
So it's equivocal both ways you fucking retard?

>>24624317 (OP)
Kant: the phenomena of an object may itself be an object of our consciousness, which succeed one another
Aristotle: the essence of a thing is different from the thing itself
Hegel: the representation of something is the thing itself

>>24626671
No, the objection that claims equivocation is itself equivocal. The hypothetical objector thinks the middle term is narrower than the minor but if this is the case discourse becomes impossible because 'essence' becomes meaningless, i.e. two distinct (but analogous) senses of essence are conflated. 'Essence' IS an equivocal term, but the essence under consideration here is in the original middle.

>>24626724
F I L T E R E D
Bonus points for ESL

>>24624317 (OP)
>words words words
mogged by plato

>>24626954
But Plato's Dialogues are full of autism arguments and he constantly speaks of the value of dialectic/argumentation. If you read the Republic and come away thinking "oh who needs words and thinking... that's merely episteme... I want the real stuff, not this baby food!" you got filtered and are a pseud. You're also a pseud for not being able to read any of the quotes in the OP btw.

>>24624317 (OP)
>Kant
We understand phenomena in terms of successive parts (i.e. a logical chain). Whether it's the same in the actual object remains to be seen, but understanding begins with constructing representations/internal models.

>Aristotle
Generally, people equate substance and essence. But for accidental unities, this may not be the case.

>Hegel
Substance is an absolute which is expressed through representation. The spirit of the thing is its reality because it does not depend on other things, whereas the physical representation depends on external factors to exist.

>>24624317 (OP)
>noumena vs phenomena
>essence vs accidents
>All is spirit, engaging in synthesis thesis antitheses yada yada
Wow so hard op-san ( •̯́ 3 •̯̀) Im going back to gooning, at least that is stimulating tsk tsk

>>24626989
No, it has nothing to do with "internal models". Your language alone indicates that you are too STEM/reddit-brained to understand anything written before 1990 or so.
>Generally, people equate substance and essence. But for accidental unities, this may not be the case.
Your "may not be the case" is something he refutes, so no.
>Substance is an absolute which is expressed through representation. The spirit of the thing is its reality because it does not depend on other things, whereas the physical representation depends on external factors to exist.
Props for trying I guess. I would encourage you to actually read some philosophy books cover to cover rather than shitposting about them and forming a false "internal model" of their ideas based on what you pick up here, on reddit, on youtube, etc.
>>24626992
>noumena vs phenomena
No.
>essence vs accidents
Too shallow.
>All is spirit, engaging in synthesis thesis antitheses yada yada
Correct! 1/3, better than the other anon.

>>24627188
>Your "may not be the case" is something he refutes, so no.
lol, lmao even. He ends the entire paragraph by saying "but this is not actually thought to be the case." Rather then refuting anything, he's simply raising possible points and dismissing them out of hand (as far as your sample is concerned—Aristotle probably does provide an actual rebuttal later in).

Maybe you need to take your own advice and learn to read.

>>24627188
>‘You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.
All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection.
If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying’.

>>24627209
I wouldn't bother with the pseud bitching about pseuds. This is just a "gotcha" thread so he can have his cake and eat by saying otoh that someone who isn't a pseud should be able to interpret excerpts shorn of context and then calling you and everyone else a pseud for not knowing both technical nomenclature or the peculiarities of an author's use (Aristotle’s "substance", "essence", "accident", "middle and extreme terms", Kant's "representation", Hegel's "absolute" and "spirit"). This thread is just porn for someone who only gets off on lording over others, like some geek shitting on you for liking Black Sabbath but not knowing Blue Cheer.

>>24627229
No, anons argue about Kant and Aristotle all the time here. You would think at least one poster would have read his works. This thread is to prove how shit the board is. I had not read either the Metaphysics or CPR in over a year and picked these quotes at random and I can understand them fine. Most people here do not read philosophy, do not study philosophy, but will argue aggressively and call each other pseuds, and this thread proves it. If you don't think it actually matters to have read the Metaphysics and the CPR if you want to argue about western philosophy, well... I'm getting sick of the p-word but you are a pseud. Enjoy your self-help stoic slop or whatever crap you read.

>>24624317 (OP)
I am not an intellectual, so this will be an example of stupidity. Here it is:
First Text (Kant):
Individual images are not acquired solely; many sensory qualities of a single thing are perceived and unified in the same generalised category (object). Therefore, subjects get to experience the image their minds make of objects and not the actual object (phenomena).
Text 2 (Aristotle):
Categorisation emerges from an analysis of physical composition and the creation of groups. Its emergent properties and details are not relevant in generalisation. Even though something might be pure in a non-relevant quality, the main category it belongs in remains the same.
Text 3 (Hegel):
The self (spirit) is the only existent thing for the mind dominates all aspects of reality (how it is percieved, who percieves it, what is percieved).

This might be a shitty and limited explanation of the texts, but it was fun. Please create more similar posts and give me your opinion on fallacies in what I said and how to improve my writing OP. Thank you so much!

>>24627214
> because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others
No I just want to talk about philosophy with someone who has read the books and I'm sick of being called a "pseud" by some zoomer who thinks Aristotle was a realist about universals or what have you. You have to read and think to understand philosophy but people here tend to be hyper-opinionated about it even though they haven't read the foundational works, or the work under discussion even. If you think philosophy has nothing to do with reading, thinking, understanding complex arguments, then you're Jordan Peterson and that's all there is to it.

>>24627241
>I studied philosophy in undergrad

>>24627255
Fascinating. Want to take a stab at understanding the OP? Oh, you can't? Then go read a book and quit shitting up the board with your groundless opinions.
>that's not FAIR how can he expect me to know the heckin' Metaphysics??

>>24627188
>No
>"No you didnt use the exact combination of words I had in my mind"!!
Bro if u get it u get it. No need to add fluff. Thats a 2/3
>Too shallow.
So you agree that I deduced the core element. That means 3/3

3/3 perfect score!! I win again!!! WOOP WOOP
°˖◝(0▿0)◜˖°

>>24627209
>>24627214
stop being salty u lost the game, i mean take the L with some grace (⁀ᗢ⁀)

>>24627241
This betrays no interest in philosophy as after what's true, and vastly greater interest in vulgar status preservation as being "learned" for reading "important" books. You're a book fetishist, not a philosopher, just a dweeby geek masturbating because people somewhere on the internet might be reading or discussing authors middlingly.

>>24627250
Correct readings are mostly here:
>>24624982

>>24627269
That's right, the real philosophers are the ones who don't sit around reading those boring nerd philosophy books. Nice talking Mr. Peterson, your seethe sustains me.

>>24627252
You don't want to talk about philosophy, you don't give a shit if someone's just starting and needs assistance, and you don't want to interrogate anything in these authors. You just want to play with yourself over the Aristotelian equivalent of trolley problems. Did you ever even take Aristotle seriously when he says in the Ethics bk.2 ch.2 that the concern of that work isn't for contemplation but so that we become good? You're far off the mark.

>>24627266
>Not even denying the accusation
People who studied philosophy in undergrad are guaranteed to be the worst pseuds. Even Jordan Peterson can BTFO your kind

>>24627276
Maybe you should go re-read Rhetoric bk.2 chs.12 and 13, and remember what kind of person you are and what kind of people you're talking to instead of flailing like a faggot.

>>24624317 (OP)
>That the true is only actual as a system, or, that substance is essentially subject, is expressed in the representation that expresses the absolute as spirit - the most sublime concept and the one which belongs to modernity and its religion. The spiritual alone is the actual; it is the essence, or, what exists-in-itself. It is what is self-comporting, or, the determinate itself, or, otherness and being-for-itself - and, in this determinateness, to be the self-enduring in its being-external-to-itself - or, it is in and for itself.

He's saying that, because consciousness and reality are one, you can think about philosophy as consciousness coming to understand the world and itself. A philosophy that recognizes this will necessarily be systematic because it's a process of thinking things through, which is what you see in the rest of the book as various contradictions are overcome. To say that the "absolute" is "spirit" is to say that the first principle of reality, what exists in and for itself, is (for lack of a better term) social consciousness. This isn't just about societal development though as this spirit turns out to be the Christian God. "Modernity" is a poor translation choice, the German says iirc something like 'new times', and it's referring to the new age that Hegel takes himself to be inaugurating. Hegel actually criticizes contemporary modernity and the Enlightenment in this book pretty harshly. To say "the spiritual is the actual" means all actuality (real life stuff) can be understood in terms of this Spirit/the Spirit is the true cause of it all. The Spirit is essence and exists-in-itself because it's the "truth" behind all these other happenings. It is self-comporting, "the determinate itself", "otherness", "being-for-itself" because it is the essence of the things that are "for" it (you, me, nature, society and our movements). The rest should be self-explanatory from there. The Kant one is easy and other people have answered it. Filtered somewhat by the Aristotle one because of the logic reference but I get the gist.

>>24627302
>still can't read Kant, Aristotle, or Hegel, foundational works in Western philosophy
>still buttblasted about it and flailing like a retard
>thinks he has a right to an opinion on philosophy even though he hasn't read basic texts in philosophy
You keep trying to insult me as if I care about your opinion at all. I can talk about philosophy in a civilized and courteous way, in fact I would love to do so. The problem is that no one here actually reads philosophy and this thread was meant to prove that.
>>24627295
I did my undergrad in classics, not philosophy. Ofc none of this matters, you just want to talk about anything under the sun besides the fact that you're a pseud who hasn't read the Metaphysics, the Critique of Pure Reason, or the Phenomenology of Spirit, and yet you think you have a good grasp on philosophy and probably shitpost about it here on a daily basis.
>>24627494
Docking you points for excessive use of quotation marks but yes congratulations you appear to have read the PoS.

>>24624317 (OP)
>Hegel
Schizo rambles
>Aristotle
Words vs real life
>Kant
Words vs real life but autistic rambles

Once again, Greeks did it better.

>>24627519
>I can talk about philosophy in a civilized and courteous way, in fact I would love to do so
No you can't, you can't in Aristotle threads, you can't in Kant threads, you can't in Hegel threads, literally every thread you appear in you start a fight like a menstrual women demanding everyone be psychic and know what you're talking about and want to talk about at every second. Some anon started a thread the other week asking about some detail in the Ethics, and all you can do is shit yourself in rage that he dared to make a thread at all to ask instead of reading 40 times, you couldn't even explain the Greek word he was stuck on, which embarrassing for a "classics major."

You're a friendless retard who spends his spare time going to a forum he hates, wasting his time bitching at anons he hates, picking fights because your life is boring and empty and because your imposter syndrome never lets you actually philosophize by, you know, working out the Peripatetic Problems, and instead you settle for repeating what other philosophers said, like an autistic robot who can't tell the difference between Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel working things out for themselves and some slavish fetishist.

>faggot OP instrumentalizes great works of philosophy to stroke his own ego
>faggot anons are too retarded to read them, try to save face by claiming philosophy has nothing to do with reading Kant, Hegel, Aristotle
Everyone in this thread is a pseud.

>>24627859
>Retarded newfag chose to bump the thread instead

>>24624317 (OP)
>"Bro, what if, like, external reality doesn't exist and it's all just perception? Time itself might not exist. How do you know the moment that just passed ever existed at all? What if it's all just concepts?"
This is like baby's first philosophy.

>>24624317 (OP)
lol fuck off you boring cunt