Best philosopher to read to be inspired to abstain from degeneracy, e.g. drinking?

Wasn't he actually pro-Christian and God is Dead in it's original context was eespair. It was only interpreted later by edgy atheist

Kierkegaard, not a meme

>being mad someone doesnt agree with you
What dont you like about the information he has provided?

Great book

is that true re: kant's drinking? almost gives an user hope for his miserable wasted life.

Every time
>guy decides to talk about shit he has no clue about
>get asked why
>crickets
Why come here for discussion at all?

If "God is dead" doesn't exclude his belief, then he was in fact an edgy atheist. If it does, then pending evidence, he wasn't. Perhaps a more accurate statement is "Nietzsche was plausibly an edgy atheist." It would be ironic is such a statement offends you because you yourself idolize Nietzsche, as an atheist.

Peterson is your man

/thread

>Perhaps a more accurate statement is "Nietzsche was plausibly an edgy atheist."
Whats the context for the god is dead statement?
>It would be ironic is such a statement offends you because you yourself idolize Nietzsche, as an atheist.
I agree. Fortunately, im irritated at the fact that people say things without having a viable reason aside from assumption or "muh memes". Shitposting shouldnt be defended.

Try Buddha m8

Jordan Peterson

I think Nietzsche was saying something like man no longer believes in God. If this includes him, then "God is dead; we killed Him," is indeed edgy.

Read the works of philosophers that followed Stoicism.

However...Drinking is not degeneracy, as long as its done moderately.

"God is dead we killed him" = We stopped believing in God - thats it.

It's just he wrote poetically and using a lot of metaphor.

Attached: 13132141.jpg (93x114, 6K)

And I think if "we" includes him, then this is evidence enough that he was indeed an edgy atheist.

He was referencing the age of reasoning as the turning point of belief in god.
>edgy
Doesnt that imply as an intended over the top action to get some sort of reaction? Im not seeing it.

It's quite obvious from his works that he was. He wrote a ton about nihilism left from the void of meaning that "God" once filled; his other work was a philosophical attempt at filling that void.

Jesus Christ you're being obtuse
I can't stand the man but if you don't see that he's talking about collective guilt you can't have possibly made it through any of these texts

Believe in God and Jesus or not, I don't care, that's your business. But it's your duty as a man to give the Bible, New Testament and the Quran a full and honest reading. The entirety of world events revolve around them and of the 7 billion people on this planet, nearly 4 billion of them claim to believe in the above mentioned texts.

Attached: 1521756257837.jpg (421x453, 42K)

Have you guys even spent 10 minutes googling Nietzsche? Have you guys read even 1 single document of his?

youtu.be/a2dQ64iVp6I

>implying anyone here comes for the actual study
Lost cause.

>"Have you guys read even 1 single document of his?"
>posts youtube video
What did i say that was inaccurate as far as Nietzsche?

>The entirety of world events revolve around them
Elaborate.

How is that a dichotomy? Guilt from rejection of God implies a belief in Him; else there is no guilt. Either his believe or non-belief in God is implicit. There is no imaginary area of guilt wherein he hasn't implied either.
>you can't have possibly made it through any of these texts
you mean then I can't have possibly have welcomed my indoctrination

>Guilt from rejection of God implies a belief in Him; else there is no guilt. Either his believe or non-belief in God is implicit. There is no imaginary area of guilt wherein he hasn't implied either.
We're on the same page, actually. Just mean to say it's the former and not the latter. The Cultural God is dead, in argument, not the literal concept of the entity.

RIP me

Attached: IMG_5016.jpg (550x366, 43K)

read me at number1magapede.wordpress.com

Nice presumably purposeful convolution, but if that culture in which the "cultural God" is dead includes Nietzsche, he was an edgy atheist. This is a deduction, not being obtuse.

See

What he's referencing is irrelevant to his implications, mr. red herring.

Need inspiration because he's too stupid to find it himself. What's the point retard?

I think the problem is your insistence that everybody who doesn't believe in god is "an edgy atheist", as if they were doing it to be different, like it was trendy

Two properties I think are sufficient to be an edgy atheist:
1) non-belief in God
2) edgy statements pertaining to said non-belief
If Nietzsche was an atheist, then statements like "God is dead; herp we killed him," make him an edgy atheist.

I wanted you to reply to my post, instead of glossing over why you were wrong.

Wishful thinking doesn't create reality. You're in the wrong place.

All the "edgy" pejoratives you throw wont bring back God. Like Babylons killed Sumerians myth, like the Semites after, like the Romans took the Greek pantheon, and Christianity killed paganism, so to did reason kill Christianity. It is done. What comes next - who knows, but your faith is just that: your faith.

I read an article a month or so ago about how Kant was actually kind of a party animal, despite all evidence to the contrary.

You can belong to a culture without supporting it.
Why the fuck does anyone come here?

>past, current and future events in the Middle East
>BC/AD calendar system
>Christianity and Islam being the dominant world religions
>all of the historical world conquest done in the name of God
>Commandment based systems of law
>all of the daily idioms people use that are based in the Bible
>your name is probably Abrahamic, mine is

I don't know dude. Maybe I'm way off the mark. The Bible really hasn't had a singular effect on the world now that I think about it.

But really, the simplest thing of all that Jow Forums already seems to concur on, the Jews and the ZOG.

Attached: 1363023476610.jpg (720x707, 153K)

start with the greeks

That's underplaying Nietzsche's role in Philosophy. Take it from a Philosophy PhD (boy, thats taken me far in life).
He understood more than anyone of his time the uniqueness of Christianity and the message of Christ. He simply tried to return to a spiritual/philosophical paradigm tied to the glorification of the Will to Power. He realised that the Christian message (beginning with Judaism) had overturned this glorification in favour of meekness etc.

While he was clever enough to understand that Christianity stood on its own in relation to every other religion which had previously existed (which is why he signed his essays "Dionysius vs The Crucifed [with Dionyius representing every pagan god]), he didn't recognise the irreversible desacralisation of violence which occured due to the message of the Gospels making such a return impossible.

In this sense, a thinker like Rene Girard is probably the best person to start with if you want a view of the world which is truly ground-breaking

Attached: the man himself.jpg (1260x560, 57K)

After the 1st Critique the Thing in Itself basically became an excuse to hold onto muh angels. No idea if Kant actually believed in God; Descartes was definitely an atheist, despite using an appeal to God to counter epistemic skepticism.

The question is whether "Nietzsche was an edgy atheist," is a justified proposition, not an attempt to "bring back" God, you stupid, butthurt atheist. Leave my thread.
red herring. The question is whether Nietzsche supported it, not whether he "belonged" to it. Idiots like you come here to be raped.

Fpbp

Also a good choice.

Thats why youve now dodged my post twice now. Your inability to recognize you are wrong us only showing everyone your level of dishonesty. I explained the context in which he said god is dead, and why its not edgy to figuratively state his theory.

Nietzsche was definitely edgy, and also an atheist, but he wasn't an "edgy atheist" in the sense that he was trying to convince anyone that God doesn't exist. His point was more that Enlightenment philosophy and modern science (stemming from Christianities' pursuit of Truth) has turned back on itself and made it impossible to still believe in God.

He wasn't writing for a contemporary audience.

Maybe I need a refresher on what edgy means

The notion that anyone is "dodging" your ill-conceived posts implies you hold your words in too high of a regard. Your contention was "He was referencing the enlightenment," my 'countercontention' is "So the fuck what?" Again, and this is pertinent which you apparently fail to recognize, what he was referencing has nothing to do with whether he was implying he's atheist or not. The burden is now on you to think of something actually relevant to say, not continue to accuse citations of irrelevancy as"dodging" anything.

As far as history goes, i agree. I dont know about nowadays, though. It definitely could, im not too sure though.

>atheist
>expecting not to be a miserable drunk
>tripfag
sage

Nietzsche was saying the Judeo-Christian God is false. Time to ''kill him'' by not believing anymore in him and dropping the system of morality that derives from this ideal. Man is strong enough to give his life meaning and say ''Yes'' to life independent from God's existence. The strong enough to create their own system of morality are the Ubermensch. The weak who can't cope with the void left by God's departure and are unable to give their life meaning are the Nihilists.

Diogenes.. never wrote anything.. most famous philosopher ever.

You have yet to recognize you were wrong in what you thought he meant in terms of god is dead, and not being able to understand logically how he got to that point. You are a stubborn dolt, saying "so what" doesnt refute my actual point. Your "edgy" assertion was proven false, so you dodged it and you are still trying now. It has nothing to do with him being an atheist you silly goose, its a figurative statement that talks about the age of reason being a turning point from god. You assert edginess, now prove it by using his actual point.

Would state that quote is relevant to modern society.

Pardon me that message was mean't for you, but would state that quote is relevant to modern society.

What do you think of Jung's contribution to this issue with his view that our values stem from within us through culturally and biologically imprinted archetypes?

le ebin trole philosopher

Definitely in the blood.

except he was right.. everything is just your own unique perception/interpretation so none of it is real, only nature is real

Though it doesn't take consensus into consideration.

democracy is nothing more than mob rules

democracy is fine until your nation gets ever more bloated, your citizen definitions ever more blurry, and your demographics ever more diverse. Then you have to start asking yourself: do i want to be in this political union?

I think Jung is a very dangerous thinker and somewhat overrated, especially with idiots like meme peterson spouting his junk.
His archetypical readings of mythical texts seem to disregard the historic/anthropological events which signified the creation of the myth, everything for him is just a story within a story. It's actually pretty circular and unphilosophical.

Girard, on the other hand, not only recognises the symbolism of myth but understands its importance in a socio-historic context. The fact that Christ isn't just an archetype (the heroes hero) but was a historic event. Someone names Jesus ACTUALLY was scapegoated and crucified.
In an anthropological sense, the Gospels offer us something nothing else has ever given us.

I agree but consensus isn't just about democracy, sometimes it is about shared agreement.

Nietzsche was absolutely an atheist in my estimation. He referred to Christianity as 'Paul's Religion' indicating that he probably didn't even believe in Jesus, and rather that Paul, author of the epistles, was responsible for spreading Christianity and the foundation of the early Church.

Nietzsche was pretty smart, but he was definitely an edgelord too.

I think they are both right really.

However what we call Christianity is based solely on Paul's interpretation.

The two of us have reached the consensus that you need to give us your stuff.
Diogenes never had a problem with individuals creating a shared agreement. He pointed out that allowing your "betters" to have a say in it was retarded (I paraphrase here :))

I'm a miserable drunk Christian, actually

How can one which denies the historic fact of Christ's existence and compares his murder to other mythical origins be "right" in the same way that the other recognises both its mythic origin (and its distinctness therein) and its socio-cultural-historic reality as well?
You realise these are two separate domains of thought right?

autistic neet

Nihilsim: the belief there is no objective meaning. Creation of meaning in an objectively meaningless world is weakness.

A lot of mad theists in this thread.

I don't recognize I was wrong because I recognize that Nietzsche meant a prevalent lack of belief in God by the statement "God is dead," which I've iterated numerous time and you are too stupid to recognize. That he got this belief from observation of implications of the enlightenment is FUCKING IRRELEVANT, not a dodge, idiot.

The meaning of "nature" is contingent on perception, therefore you proposition that only nature is real is self-refuting and you are a bugman.

max striner

Alan Watts
Buddha
Jordan Peterson

epictetus

plotinus as well

None actually deny the history of Christ however. They recognise the memehood and fuction of Christianity regardless of the truth.

What's the function, then?
That's the point of this conversation, yes?

Grow up dude. Jeez.
Alan Watts, Buddha and Peterson.. HOly shit.. the absolute state of pea brains.

nature is nature.. your nonsense sounds like jew double talk.

Nice public trip moron

Hegel. He is the guy everyone else has been plagiarizing for the past 200 years.

Define nature.
>*defines nature*
So you admit, then, nature is contingent on your perception. Unless what you mean by "nature" is actually "objective reality."

Sorry for the terrible spelling mistake there, whoops, I suppose one would have to come to their own conclusion regarding Christ, personally I believe it to have been a supernatural rallying cause against Rome although originally Jesus's intentions seemed to be about spreading a new gospel mainly to the Hebrews, Paul seemed more interested in converting the greater Roman populace from his homeland in Anatolia.

It's public? Sorry, how could I have been so stupid. Fucking kill yourself. Stupid people are the bane of my existence.

Fuck off Sargon