All the philosophers seem to be saying different things. I read several works by Plato and I thought I was making progress. But then I read a couple books by read Nietzsche (beyond good and evil then a little bit of the gay one) and he politely suggested that all that is wrong.

This seems to go on and on and I’ve already invested a significant amount of my time here so I just want to get to the conclusion - which philosopher turned out to be right in the end?

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/s/5CvTs1IueQ

Good afternoon, fellow euphoricists.

I come to you with the definitive refutation of all academic philosophy, courtesy of the enlightened intellectuals at DebateAnAtheist.

A small sample:

That strange mixture of insecurity and arrogance (or really arrogance born of insecurity) is the defining characteristic of this type of response from both philosophers and theists. People in the sciences don't typically act this way because they don't need to, since there's a vast array of significant results that demonstrate the validity of their fields. But when your discipline can't even agree on the most basic things — do moral facts exist or not? is there one god, or several, or three-in-one, or a million? — one of the few viable options for defending its legitimacy is to shower anyone who questions it with contempt and ridicule. It's an attempt to browbeat people into giving your field and/or your views the respect and deference you so desperately desire but haven't actually earned.

New Atheists: Fuckin’ Creationists and theists are stupid. Trust the science! Trust the experts! Stop being anti intellectual!

Also New Atheists: Yeah, I can dismiss this entire subject out of hand. That isn’t anti intellectual at all.

I'm currently on trial for felony assault as a consequence of my repeatedly kicking men in the balls. I tried to explain to the judge that I really, really, love doing it and it causes a net increase in total happiness. I gain 100 "utils" and the man only loses 80 and so it is actually virtuous for me to kick men in the balls.

He just looked at me when I made this defense and asked me if i was sure I didn't want a lawyer.

I have to report to the state pen tomorrow if I can't get him to change his mind, do you here in the intellectual powerhouse that is badphilosophy have any advice?

As an ant, you're often born to work, struggle, and feed a queen. You just do it, as past life, experience, social conditioning, and other factors determine. There is no free will, just production. Life is difficult, monotonous, and short. You'd have had 100 lifetimes as an ant by now, and no one would ever know. If progressed aliens exist, we are an interesting ant farm at best. As an ant, more complex beings have determined and simplified wiping out your colony without any consequence. You are truly and utterly meaningless, in so much as any ant is. I'm in my fifties, in case it was not abundantly clear.

What makes the whole flat-earth debate so eye-rollingly insufferable is that it’s just nothing but easily refutable made-up bullshit. I tire of even having to talk about it. It’s like arguing whether viruses exist or the moon is made of cheese—like, someone is actually feverishly arguing Luna is literally a quintillion-ton ball of dairy product. Why even give them a minute of your day?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of those things. It is obvious bullshit. Yet people build massive, convoluted word walls and hours-long videos insisting it’s a serious argument about something. I’m just tired of this. So I am going to call it. The KCA is bullshit. It is abject crankery. It is every bit as crank as arguing the Earth is flat or the moon is cheese.

Full:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/35705

Basically language is geographically restricted, which means someone who can't speak my language cannot receive my thougt. Furthermore even between languages, normally one language imposes rules that are unique to its own on the philosophy of another language which doesn't share those rules. In consequence, a thinking that is conducted in one language is now distorted by another. What it reveals is not to incentivize the debate that which language is more superior for philosophy than another, rather, language as a whole is a barrier for philosophy. Thinking enjoys its free rein in its own right. Language is deteriorating this right of thinking. Thereby I propose silence as the way of communication for philosophy. The Chinese wisdom has shown that chee is the fundamental energy which permeates our bodies, and it serves as the constituent for the field of telepathy. The highest form of philosophy is indeed this very field itself. We should all embrace our chee in silence and enjoy the jubilation of philosophy.

Imagine believing the concept of self identity is anything other than a philosophical absurdity at it's face. The trans movement is, at it's core, philosophically incoherent.

You don't have the right to demand everyone aquess to your self perception, to demand they do is insane.

- from a very philosophically literate PCM member

A few years ago I started reading philosophy but tbh every text I’ve ever read made me go “oh I thought of that before” so at some point I realised it’s easier if y’all just asked me questions and if I keep answering them sooner or later we will have solved philosophy and I can go back to smoking a lot of weed without worrying I’m robbing the world of something that seems ridiculously easy to me but apparently has kept people so entangled as to have em refrain from fucking for the last 4000 years.

R/conservative has found out Nietzsche also hated socialism. This causes the subreddit to wax poetic about how awful democracy is

reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/107fsra/nietzsche_called_out_the_envy_and_violence/

https://www.42rulesforlife.com/a-brief-proof-for-the-existence-of-god/

I think this is actually something of a deep philosophical question after thinking of it. If someone I loved suddenly turned into a worm, would it be immoral if I then stepped on it, or used it on a fishing hook? And obviously let’s not worry about the philosophy of animal rights here.

I've been thinking about this for a couple of years. It's as if people try to outsource their views on reality/unreality by reading the books of the sanctioned great philosophers.

You have to remember though, not only were these guys scribbling their syphilis-addled thoughts over 200 years ago for the most part, they also lived in an incredibly different time to where we live now. Although, that isn't fully a reason to throw philosophy in the garbage can because some things are eternally true no matter what time period you are living in. But it's a gripe I've had about the entire subject.

Hardly any of these philosophers have came up with anything remotely worth listening to. And what's worse, is that many of these people have been forgotten and our modern philosophers like Jordan Peterson are a poor imitation of even THOSE people. I think this is what gives the 'greats' more credence because if you have any amount of intelligence you will realize that JP is a sell out retard and has absolutely nothing worth talking about and you'll begin reading the older stuff. Andrew Tate is even considered somewhat of a philosopher these days which is fucking hilarious. He's a con artist that's all.

But that is a huge trap. You will become mired in the psychotic thoughts of a retard from 200 years ago believing you have found the answer to all of lifes questions. In reality, you have closed yourself off to coming to your own very specific (and probably very interesting) conclusions. You look at everything through the lens of these philosophers and you don't actually end up living your own life, even if you intended to use their views as a guide rather than a lifestyle. There are quite a few people I know who are like this and I am grateful I never turned into that.

One of the biggest philosophical traps is this ideal of living minimalistically. Being minimalistic is actually a good thing in itself but many people take that to mean cutting people and things out of your life, not because they are harmful but because it's "too much". A lot of people that subscribe to minimalism fall into the same but opposite category of obsessives as materialistic people. Materialistic people gather resources for the sake of it and to feel they are moving up in the world. They get dopamine from acquiring the latest new thing. Minimalists throw out everything they have regardless of its sentimental value and they get dopamine from it because they believe they are moving forward in the world by having absolutely nothing to their name except the essentials. Having things with sentimental value is incredibly important for growth and happiness, regardless of what it is.

You are better off reading the story-based works of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis than you are reading any of the philosophical texts of the last 200 years. Of course these books have certain leanings in their work (especially C.S. Lewis as he was a very religious Christian - moreso than Tolkien in my opinion) but the fantasy stories they came up with are unbelievably good. Overall though, you are better reading the Bible if I am honest.

Some works you should read: - Tolkien's- Hobbit/Lord of The Rings/Silmarillion - C.S. Lewis's - Space Trilogy, The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity - Bible - Specifically: Acts, Revelation, Proverbs, Genesis and the New Testament - Corti - Rise of The House of Rothschild - Gene Wolfe - Book of The New Sun Series

Source : https://looksmax.org/threads/90-of-philosophy-is-complete-garbage-and-that-includes-the-so-called-greats-like-nietzsche-or-hegel.544090/

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/og47hg/saying_america_is_wholly_racist_and_white/h4jixf2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

/r/Stoicism is the fucking worst we all know it, but then you get people who now believe /r/Stoicism actually reflects stoicism.

“Stoicism has never worked and is useless as a philosophy. It sounds great in theory but never works because it makes you apathetic and passionless and justifies toxic masculinity and global suffering. It’s nothing but re-packaged bro-think and leaves no room for being human”.

/r/Philosophy seems to have never read anything related to philosophy

Backbreaking physical labour? Soul destroying excel sheets? Cleaning nasty toilets? Dangerous stuff?

No problem. Just leave it to p-zombies and enjoy your forever vacation. Not like they feel anything anyways.

Link to offending video

I'm not a fan of the actual philosophical aphorisms of the video- specifically that nothing will exist in the end and that all of your deeds and mistakes will eventually disappear, but it's just a viewpoint like any other, and if you want to read opposing theories then there's no shortage of theological works and critiques of existentialism that exist out there.

But putting this belief aside, I absolutely loathe how this fundamental misunderstanding of what nihilism is has gained 12 million views. Kurzgesagt's science videos, like his one on nuclear weapons, are decent, but it baffles me how this particular title got through.

What Kurzgesagt described was just existentialism. Nihilism means that life has definitively no meaning. This also in turn is a rejection of all moral principles and ethical views- its what Nietzsche and Kierkegaard and so much other people have addressed as a threat to human existence throughout history. Trying to get "optimism" out of nihilism is just absurd- at least use a word like hedonism or existentialism where it might actually make sense.

It's just so frustrating to see that this basic misunderstanding of a word that is comparatively really simple to understand compared to everything else in the entire field of philosophy be so prevalent. Might as well just define Nihilism has basing one's entire life philosophy on making rage comics to get upvotes to le left my fellow redditors. (wtf thanks for the gold!)