SoyBooruIP 216.73.216.118 has been banned until the end of time because of VPN Detected
If you couldn't possibly be guilty of what you're banned for, the person we banned probably had a dynamic IP address and so do you.
See http://whatismyipaddress.com/dynamic-static for more information.
Image
Commenting
Comment Formatting Options
Want to report a comment? Report the post itself with relevant details.
- Reply
- Reply
"Hegel, installed from above, by the powers that be, as the certified Great Philosopher, was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense. This nonsense has been noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers and readily accepted as such by all fools, who thus joined into as perfect a chorus of admiration as had ever been heard before. The extensive field of spiritual influence with which Hegel was furnished by those in power has enabled him to achieve the intellectual corruption of a whole generation."
-Arthur Schopenhauer
- Reply
Though Kant and Schopenhauer were Continental philosophers and idealists, the analytic philosophers of the 20th century did away with Hegel. They were actually sensible and took back philosophy from Hegel's babble. Contemporary philosophy owes most of its existence to them and everyone who detested Friedrich before them. So kill yourself Hegelian scum
- Reply
And these jewish niggers blame Karl Marx and Communists, those who are concerned with concrete and pragmatic analysis, for being lazy. This is the shit I would feed my goyslaves if I wanted them to keep them emaciated and docile.
- Reply
Why add "irrational"? I agree that suffering is the reason why we do what we do, in every single situation. Suffering is the mover of us, but logic exists itself without our presence or attention. To be frank most of your little brapping here is the reason why contemporary philosophers clown on you guys. You talk about stuff that I didnt even mention, stuff you couldnt logically connect to my last reply.
GEEEEEEEG, of course youre one of those "reductionism le bad!!!" guys. Given your post about science youre a quantum mystic/woocuck pedonigger. But human thought didnt "evolve". It never did. We simply had things we willed to do and we got them done, after that facing another struggle, until we got here. It's not like the laws of logic changed, like Hegel suggests (or maybe he does not, literally no one not even secondary authors of him could decode his leakage), which he uses as an excuse to endorse blatant falsehood. We only become more enlightened with the world and how it appears to us. The ideals we had, be it of perfection or struggle, were stripped when we got 1st hand qualitative experience of what those ideals entailed. Though not related, Realdialektik (of Julius Bahnsen) is not much different in its description. Bahnsen, in his early years, was a Hegelcuck like yourself. He later saw through the lies of poor Georg and his appeal to pure rationalism. Only later did he read Schopenhauer and become one of his greatest students. The way that early pessimists used the term "irrational" is not in the mathematical "p is not p" way. That would be absurd as Schopenhauer himself built his project on logical basis. Though you could argue that yes, they had their fair bit of lunacy, thats nothing compared to Hegelian thought (which gave birth to shitstain thought of Marxism, psychoanalysis and post-modernism, though they could be argued to be in opposition to big H. Nonetheless they still used his shit terminology and had no problem with mystical falsehoods). I dont even subscribe to Schopenhauer's metaphysics. I know that the analytical philosophers critiqued everyone who was an idealist back then, Schop being no exception. But his ethics, and axiology of pessimism are of great value. Luckily we got modern negative utilitarians who are agnostic on the whole substance issue, and antinatalists such as Benatar to carry his torch.
Go back Hegelnigger. That was Gallileo's work, and the empiricism necessary for science existed in Hume or Locke. Later the philo-scientific world flourished with the addition of Popper, Quine, Kuhn, Duhem etc. None of those knew of Hegelbabble. Did I also mention Lysenkoism, the ACTUAL product of Hegel and his logic? Or maybe even the fact that Hegel being the clear writer he is made Marx a materialist, the antithesis of idealism? Seems Hegel is like a shitty anime with no clear meaning, like a jigsaw puzzle where everyone says whatever they want and substitute it with a couple of his quotes.
Lets see. Marx is a "dialectical" materialist, the Soviet Union switched to property dualism, and most commies online are reductive materialist atheists. Can Hegel relate?
- Reply
I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations. It's meaningless staticism where in order to solve the core contradictions of your theory you automatically default to the most primitive confine of reality, being "muh suffering" literally in parallel to pop culture ancient greek theology where everything came from chaos. You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology. This is precisely what I mean about being reductive. Actual reductivism to study the fundamental components of phenomena would force you to engage in dynamic reasoning. I'm not even going to engage with your brabble about the nauseating personal identities and gripes that these philosophers have with eachother including the verbose use of buzzwords to replace actual reasoning on your part.
Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diapertranny. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule.
I refer to reductionism in the naive realist sense, not insinuating you're even capable of actually analyzing and decontrusting the components of phenomenology. For example, Human activity within technical empiricalities are at a direct manifestation of neurochemical brain function and response to stimuli of the external environment, to which that's dynamic in of itself as neurology and the human psyche is a changing field same with the environment and technological development. You can already observe this with how people define the confines of reality of the most advanced technology of the time, whether it be clocks or computers or simulations. It's meaningless staticism where in order to solve the core contradictions of your theory you automatically default to the most primitive confine of reality, being "muh suffering" literally in parallel to pop culture ancient greek theology where everything came from chaos. You are literally fighting fucking air with this sentiment, same with how you assume that nobody understood Hegel while saying Hegel still somehow influenced society. I'm not even saying that Hegelian logic is the only true logic as that's reductive in of itself, including the thinking that any frame of reference that isn't entirely relativistic is bad. Not even close to what I'm saying at all. You beguile yourself via simplistic thinking to never actually think beyond infared, archaic instinctive reason, an echelon of consciousness only evolutionarily fit for subhuman primates and their undeveloped epistomology at the time. Because it's easy. It's easy, no matter how reductive, to apply the same static frame for even basic modern phenomenology. This is precisely what I mean about being reductive. Actual reductivism to study the fundamental components of phenomena would force you to engage in dynamic reasoning. I'm not even going to engage with your brabble about the nauseating personal identities and gripes that these philosophers have with eachother
Hegelian logic literally conflates with Postmodernist thinking you spastic diapertranny. Hegel sought a whole and holistic culmination of logic while Postmodernists are anti-systematic, fragmented and entirely relativistic. Marxist Materialism arose from the empirical observation of human sociological superstructures and concepts and how they derive from logistical capacity of trade, exchange and labor including the social relations under the economic frameworks we live under, something you can test for time and time again. And something genuinely observational unlike your necrotic kant polycule.
- Reply
rip
- Reply
- Reply
The Soviet Vnion's scientific ecosystem officially operated under dialectical and historical Materialism which were expanded by vi1sionaries such as Lvnin or Sta1lin, both of those you'd accuse of being products of Marxism which in turn are products of Hegelian philosophy. Literally just plain false.
Engels literally defended Darwinism and neither did Marx or him oppose genet1cs and the holistic model of hereditary bio1logy. All he did was exploit dialectical materialism as a rhetorical tool for his works on "prvletarian science" (Rivaling Cl1ter's sectarian "Aryan physics") to recieve approval from the Soviet Union. In 'hegelbabble' he ostensibly tied it to being the antithesis to the thesis of Darwinism to which would be the stepping stone to synthesis. He invoked Dialectical terminology with no substance at all kind of like when a soyteen calls his favorite autistic obsession aryan for zero reason. Stalin only supported that schizo1d because it vaguely aligned with his collectivist agricultural policies. Nobody operated under flawless hindsight back then.
One, there was no dominant switch from fucking dialectical materialism within Soviet policymaking and philosophically rejected it. Any actual convergence that may have been percieved via refovrm was superficial and/or rhetorical. Two, you're conflating comm1ies with anvrchists and eg0ists. And three, Hegel can't because hes dead.
- Reply
I revised my text on a notepad because the jannytranny wordfilters constantly omitted me from posting nigga, tell the current namefag that runs this site to remove the word banlist
- Reply
Keep going. Total stirnertroon death