Search Results
6/28/2025, 6:51:02 PM
>>24503533
I already did that you fucking asshole. I TOLD you in our correspondence that the highest synthesis could only be deduced in philosophy of religion but you can already see where I was going with this from the first page of the Grundlage. All multiplicity is identical with the identity of subject and object=0. You just don't like it because God doesn't want you to eat opium.
I already did that you fucking asshole. I TOLD you in our correspondence that the highest synthesis could only be deduced in philosophy of religion but you can already see where I was going with this from the first page of the Grundlage. All multiplicity is identical with the identity of subject and object=0. You just don't like it because God doesn't want you to eat opium.
6/28/2025, 6:36:46 PM
>>508965325
Fichte never gets any love :(
One of my favorite philosophers but his word filters plebs so hard that few have the stamina to figure out what he is actually saying, which is quite profound.
Fichte never gets any love :(
One of my favorite philosophers but his word filters plebs so hard that few have the stamina to figure out what he is actually saying, which is quite profound.
6/15/2025, 7:19:19 PM
>>24467168
>I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.
I didn't claim that you CLAIMED to be an Aristotleanon you retard, you're invoking Aristotle and calling you a pseudo-Aristotleanon was appropriate. I have noticed that zoomers are not able to understand even simple irony, this is a good example. "but.... but... I never actually called myself an Aristotleanon!" Jesus Christ man.
>The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter.
Nope.
>I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't know anything about idealism and you don't even know Aristotle and Plato. It is very sad that philosophy attracts people like you. I can already foresee the pseud arguments you'll raise - you might argue about what the word 'split' means. You could quote passages in the Socratic dialogues where Plato does equate virtue and knowledge, even though he rejects this in others. You might quote something from the CPR about appearances vs. things in themselves and insist it's Cartesian dualism because you don't understand the CPR. You might pick on a typo and call me ESL. You might point out that σοφωτέρους is the comparative of σοφός not the superlative σοφιστής and give me shit for saying 'sophistos' by accident. (Who am I kidding you don't know any Greek).
We could be having a nice civilized discussion about a brilliant philosopher and instead it's nonstop bullshit and pseud posturing. This is nu/lit/. I'm sorry you're so aggressive and nasty, maybe you're a nicer person in real life. Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser. I don't enjoy the eristics, but as Fichte said "I might well have allowed every incompetent bumbler to proceed peacefully along his own path had they not forced me to clear a space for myself by exposing their incompetence."
>I never claimed to be an "Aristotleanon". This is more delusional headcanon on your end.
I didn't claim that you CLAIMED to be an Aristotleanon you retard, you're invoking Aristotle and calling you a pseudo-Aristotleanon was appropriate. I have noticed that zoomers are not able to understand even simple irony, this is a good example. "but.... but... I never actually called myself an Aristotleanon!" Jesus Christ man.
>The point of the transcendental distinction is that some arguments are indemonstrable by the virtue of their subject matter.
Nope.
>I think you have a tenuous grasp on reality. You mix up posts, you mix up people, you mix up arguments, you invent quotes out of thin air, and now you're exhibiting some bizarre power fantasy as part of a desperate attempt to salvage your argument. Is all this really necessary?
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't know anything about idealism and you don't even know Aristotle and Plato. It is very sad that philosophy attracts people like you. I can already foresee the pseud arguments you'll raise - you might argue about what the word 'split' means. You could quote passages in the Socratic dialogues where Plato does equate virtue and knowledge, even though he rejects this in others. You might quote something from the CPR about appearances vs. things in themselves and insist it's Cartesian dualism because you don't understand the CPR. You might pick on a typo and call me ESL. You might point out that σοφωτέρους is the comparative of σοφός not the superlative σοφιστής and give me shit for saying 'sophistos' by accident. (Who am I kidding you don't know any Greek).
We could be having a nice civilized discussion about a brilliant philosopher and instead it's nonstop bullshit and pseud posturing. This is nu/lit/. I'm sorry you're so aggressive and nasty, maybe you're a nicer person in real life. Who am I kidding I'm sure you're an insufferable loser. I don't enjoy the eristics, but as Fichte said "I might well have allowed every incompetent bumbler to proceed peacefully along his own path had they not forced me to clear a space for myself by exposing their incompetence."
Page 1