Yarub said: I have read that Schopenhauer was quite the feminist too. Oh,sorry I haven't read that about him... I'm personally very against all that, just so you know! Have a nice day!:) |
Mila91Nov 5, 2018 5:55 PM
 |
| Christopher Columbus as he created the internet |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
stargirl said: Thanakos said: I see, you're still a disappointment. im so sorry liking funny philosophers makes me a disappointment, mr. einstein :( can i make it up to you by pulling that stick out of your ass? p.s. the stranger was average at best. You can make it up to me by no longer looking for fun everywhere you go. There are some things more serious than pulling sticks out of people's anuses only to shove them up your own. I agree, The Stranger is very average, as far as Camus' oeuvre is concerned. The Fall is where it's at. |
Thanakos said: stargirl said: im so sorry liking funny philosophers makes me a disappointment, mr. einstein :( can i make it up to you by pulling that stick out of your ass? p.s. the stranger was average at best. You can make it up to me by no longer looking for fun everywhere you go. There are some things more serious than pulling sticks out of people's anuses only to shove them up your own. I agree, The Stranger is very average, as far as Camus' oeuvre is concerned. The Fall is where it's at. surprisingly, life is more fun if you have fun AimaTsuki said: metadata said: i'm my own favourite philosopher because i am the smartest and wisest person around Share your knowledge o wise one. Sensei metadata this is my wisdom. go forth sheep. spread it into the wide world, and make its people my herd |
deg said: pikachu1660 said: Nietzsche is saying that you should be like batman. Batman seeks justice not revenge therefore he is not betraying his ideals. im not a fan of batman seeing that he reminds me of the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance That's why we have that thing called "rule of law". Clearly defining what is and what isn't allowed is key. |
 |
Grey-Zone said: deg said: im not a fan of batman seeing that he reminds me of the paradox of tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance That's why we have that thing called "rule of law". Clearly defining what is and what isn't allowed is key. well the rule of law in Gatham City fails then seeing that the Joker cannot get a death penalty in order to permanently prevent him from escaping and repeat his criminal ways thats why Vigilante for me are sometimes more needed than the likes of Batman |
deg said: Grey-Zone said: That's why we have that thing called "rule of law". Clearly defining what is and what isn't allowed is key. well the rule of law in Gatham City fails then seeing that the Joker cannot get a death penalty in order to permanently prevent him from escaping and repeat his criminal ways thats why Vigilante for me are sometimes more needed than the likes of Batman Gotham City doesn't have RULE of law, considering how incompetent justice enforcement is there in comparison to criminals. Rule of law also requires that red tape is being compressed to a managable size. It's useless if a trial takes years or if getting any kind of warrant issued takes multiple months. After all it's called rule of law, not rule of bureaucracy. |
|
Grey-Zone said: deg said: well the rule of law in Gatham City fails then seeing that the Joker cannot get a death penalty in order to permanently prevent him from escaping and repeat his criminal ways thats why Vigilante for me are sometimes more needed than the likes of Batman Gotham City doesn't have RULE of law, considering how incompetent justice enforcement is there in comparison to criminals. Rule of law also requires that red tape is being compressed to a managable size. It's useless if a trial takes years or if getting any kind of warrant issued takes multiple months. After all it's called rule of law, not rule of bureaucracy. thats besides the point then, im saying that i do not agree with Batman not permanently ending the Jokers intolerance of society, the Batman is like infinitely tolerant even with hopeless evil like the Joker so the Paradox of Tolerance apply to Batman in this case that he will not defeat the Joker |
deg said: Grey-Zone said: Gotham City doesn't have RULE of law, considering how incompetent justice enforcement is there in comparison to criminals. Rule of law also requires that red tape is being compressed to a managable size. It's useless if a trial takes years or if getting any kind of warrant issued takes multiple months. After all it's called rule of law, not rule of bureaucracy. thats besides the point then, im saying that i do not agree with Batman not permanently ending the Jokers intolerance of society, the Batman is like infinitely tolerant even with hopeless evil like the Joker so the Paradox of Tolerance apply to Batman in this case that he will not defeat the Joker But that franchise also demonstrates that what you propose doesn't make a difference. All that's affected is the symptom not the root cause: Gotham City cannot take care of itself. No matter how many villains Batman stops/hands over to the police, no matter how many villains a hypothetical vigilante would kill, it wouldn't change anything, other than the new popping-up villains becoming more stealthy and harder to discover at what they are doing. In the end Batman/hypothethical Vigilante would be nothing but a life-support machine for Gotham. Not a cure. They seriously need some kind of anti-villain special force. The paradox of intolerance only applies on trivial private matters or in situations where the rule of law already (partially?) collapsed, that's why the rule of law is relevant to the discussion. As long as you can restore the rule of law, the paradox of intolerance stops being an issue. |
|
Grey-Zone said: deg said: thats besides the point then, im saying that i do not agree with Batman not permanently ending the Jokers intolerance of society, the Batman is like infinitely tolerant even with hopeless evil like the Joker so the Paradox of Tolerance apply to Batman in this case that he will not defeat the Joker But that franchise also demonstrates that what you propose doesn't make a difference. All that's affected is the symptom not the root cause: Gotham City cannot take care of itself. No matter how many villains Batman stops/hands over to the police, no matter how many villains a hypothetical vigilante would kill, it wouldn't change anything, other than the new popping-up villains becoming more stealthy and harder to discover at what they are doing. In the end Batman/hypothethical Vigilante would be nothing but a life-support machine for Gotham. Not a cure. They seriously need some kind of anti-villain special force. The paradox of intolerance only applies on trivial private matters or in situations where the rule of law already (partially?) collapsed, that's why the rule of law is relevant to the discussion. As long as you can restore the rule of law, the paradox of intolerance stops being an issue. you said Gotham City have no rule of law so that means the Paradox of Tolerance should apply to it according to your last paragraph and also Gotham City being a lawless mess means that Batman alone cannot restore the rule of law all by himself, he needs more people and less villains and one of the role models of villain there is the Joker he can influence more evil minded people to join the dark side so killing him is more better in this case and that means 1 less villain and a very influential villain too |
deg said: Grey-Zone said: But that franchise also demonstrates that what you propose doesn't make a difference. All that's affected is the symptom not the root cause: Gotham City cannot take care of itself. No matter how many villains Batman stops/hands over to the police, no matter how many villains a hypothetical vigilante would kill, it wouldn't change anything, other than the new popping-up villains becoming more stealthy and harder to discover at what they are doing. In the end Batman/hypothethical Vigilante would be nothing but a life-support machine for Gotham. Not a cure. They seriously need some kind of anti-villain special force. The paradox of intolerance only applies on trivial private matters or in situations where the rule of law already (partially?) collapsed, that's why the rule of law is relevant to the discussion. As long as you can restore the rule of law, the paradox of intolerance stops being an issue. you said Gotham City have no rule of law so that means the Paradox of Tolerance should apply to it according to your last paragraph and also Gotham City being a lawless mess means that Batman alone cannot restore the rule of law all by himself, he needs more people and less villains and one of the role models of villain there is the Joker he can influence more evil minded people to join the dark side so killing him is more better in this case and that means 1 less villain and a very influential villain too But think of the negative consequences. Batman's own limits are what keep him from becoming "evil" himself. Once he begins killing them all off, he becomes an outright "you did it first"-murderer. Those who view him as their hero might start imitating him, but might do so badly, as in not properly checking the guilt of the potential suspect and just march on killing people like the inquisition did to "witches". It's not much better than "only" trying to arrest joker, in the long term. In the end addressing or ignoring the paradox of tolerance will lead to more or less the same result anyway. |
|
Grey-Zone said: deg said: you said Gotham City have no rule of law so that means the Paradox of Tolerance should apply to it according to your last paragraph and also Gotham City being a lawless mess means that Batman alone cannot restore the rule of law all by himself, he needs more people and less villains and one of the role models of villain there is the Joker he can influence more evil minded people to join the dark side so killing him is more better in this case and that means 1 less villain and a very influential villain too But think of the negative consequences. Batman's own limits are what keep him from becoming "evil" himself. Once he begins killing them all off, he becomes an outright "you did it first"-murderer. Those who view him as their hero might start imitating him, but might do so badly, as in not properly checking the guilt of the potential suspect and just march on killing people like the inquisition did to "witches". It's not much better than "only" trying to arrest joker, in the long term. In the end addressing or ignoring the paradox of tolerance will lead to more or less the same result anyway. not really, restoring the rule of law or peace and order usually starts with a bloody violence anyway and with the more evil side losing while the lesser evil side winning |
deg said: Grey-Zone said: But think of the negative consequences. Batman's own limits are what keep him from becoming "evil" himself. Once he begins killing them all off, he becomes an outright "you did it first"-murderer. Those who view him as their hero might start imitating him, but might do so badly, as in not properly checking the guilt of the potential suspect and just march on killing people like the inquisition did to "witches". It's not much better than "only" trying to arrest joker, in the long term. In the end addressing or ignoring the paradox of tolerance will lead to more or less the same result anyway. not really, restoring the rule of law or peace and order usually starts with a bloody violence anyway and with the more evil side losing while the lesser evil side winning And likewise the reliance on someone to "take care of the problem", no matter what method they use, is a hindrance in itself. As long as someone is out there "keeping the bad guys at bay" or "killing the bad guys", the town will keep clinging and relying on that someone. So ironically it might be possible that both solutions are bad in the long term because the people of Gotham and/or the police force of Gotham must really start feeling that there is "skin in the game" first to make them move and that might require the bad guys to get more wins first until a true counterattack from the city itself can start. Of course that has risks, like such a "counterattack" not happening or not working out well, but just keeping things in a facade of a status quo all the time is not a long-term solution. |
|
Grey-Zone said: deg said: not really, restoring the rule of law or peace and order usually starts with a bloody violence anyway and with the more evil side losing while the lesser evil side winning And likewise the reliance on someone to "take care of the problem", no matter what method they use, is a hindrance in itself. As long as someone is out there "keeping the bad guys at bay" or "killing the bad guys", the town will keep clinging and relying on that someone. So ironically it might be possible that both solutions are bad in the long term because the people of Gotham and/or the police force of Gotham must really start feeling that there is "skin in the game" first to make them move and that might require the bad guys to get more wins first until a true counterattack from the city itself can start. Of course that has risks, like such a "counterattack" not happening or not working out well, but just keeping things in a facade of a status quo all the time is not a long-term solution. the status quo is tolerating the Joker though im just saying Batman needs to kill the Joker for the greater good, the end justify the means applies here, heck in the real world terrorist leaders like Bin Laden are assassinated anyway are you against that? |
Thanakos said: ok thanks mister. from now on i will only make very serious replies to threads on myanimelist dot com. You can make it up to me by no longer looking for fun everywhere you go. There are some things more serious than pulling sticks out of people's anuses only to shove them up your own. ooo i think i know these serious things you do! you mean like. bothering teenagers on the internet right?? i will take this into serious consideration. thank u good sir metadata said: surprisingly, life is more fun if you have fun it's most fun with you tho <3 |
 |
I'm satisfied with the amount of fun I'm having. stargirl said: Thanakos said: ok thanks mister. from now on i will only make very serious replies to threads on myanimelist dot com. You can make it up to me by no longer looking for fun everywhere you go. There are some things more serious than pulling sticks out of people's anuses only to shove them up your own. ooo i think i know these serious things you do! you mean like. bothering teenagers on the internet right?? i will take this into serious consideration. thank u good sir Oh yes, why would a supreme being such as yourself deign to take anything seriously, indeed. I'm sorry for having offended you by my unholy misapprehension that there may be something on this site that would elude even you. Still using your age as an excuse to remain intellectually lazy, huh. Guess some people never grow up. |
sounds like something someone who isn't satisfied with the amount of fun they're having would say |
| Nagel. Reticence is everything. Or maybe Kant.. Don't lie. |
metadata said: sounds like something someone who isn't satisfied with the amount of fun they're having would say Then be my Prince Charming and change it, sweet boy. Or just go and have your fun, unless this is your fun. |
| Everybody is their own favorite philosopher. |
| Diogenes, he just didn’t give a single fuck |
Yuan_Kinjiro said: I'm pretty sure Nietzsche created his philosophy in reaction to nihilism because he was very much against it.Nietzsche, and his philosophy of nihilism. Intrigues me very much. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Schopenhauer and Nietzche have always been most interesting and intriguing to me, even one of my favorite anime characters Johan Liebert from Monster seems to follow a philosphy similar of theirs |
katsucats said: Yuan_Kinjiro said: I'm pretty sure Nietzsche created his philosophy in reaction to nihilism because he was very much against it.Nietzsche, and his philosophy of nihilism. Intrigues me very much. Thank god, someone who gets it. N boy's really fun yeah, I quote him a huge lot... ...but I'm even fonder of Epicurus ;) He got the shit right from the very start, in just a few sentences in his letters. Daddy E said: We must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed toward attaining it. There : just look for what makes your happy feelings go brrrr Simple. Short. None of that platonic get-out-of-the-cavern shit... gEnius said: Pleasure is the beginning and the end of happy life. He understood we all lived for pleasure, even the ones who were lying to themselves about it ;) One of the few who truly lived his philosophy, that came from a place of simple desire and love for our nature. |
 |
| Ludwig Wittgenstein definitely Read Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Its logical, mathematical, direct, and enlighting |
 |
| would have to say Nietzsche, mainly because of his talks on nihilism and his talks on Christianity. I find him fascinating |
   💀🖤🥀˜”*°•.˜”*°•𝓘𝓯 𝔂𝓸𝓾 𝔀𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓽𝓸 𝔀𝓻𝓲𝓽𝓮 𝓪 𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓶𝓮 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓭 𝓻𝓸𝓵𝓮, 𝓲𝓽 𝔀𝓸𝓾𝓵𝓭 𝓬𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓵𝔂 𝓫𝓮... 𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓭𝔂.•°*”˜•°*”˜💀🖤🥀 |
philtecturophy said: Ludwig Wittgenstein definitely Read Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Its logical, mathematical, direct, and enlighting The Tractatus is a trivial work though. |
Meusnier said: philtecturophy said: Ludwig Wittgenstein definitely Read Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Its logical, mathematical, direct, and enlighting The Tractatus is a trivial work though. I read Tractatus when I was still ambitious about philosophy, years ago. Wittgenstein was my favorite, above Descartes and Derrida, which also my second and third favorites. Never touch philosophy again then after some years coz I have other priories to do. But still, I would read philosophy again if there are more interesting works to read, just for my leisure time, perhaps you can recommend some of them |
|
| Oh, by the way guys : https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=5159 Just sayin (don't mind the romantic flag, that's just harmless decoration ;p) @philtecturophy What do you mean darling, it's already perfect ;p |
MoonspeakApr 26, 2022 11:10 PM
|
Moonspeak said: Oh, by the way guys : https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=5159 Just sayin (don't mind the romantic flag, that's just harmless decoration ;p) Your club needs decoration, especially for the club layout, just IMHO |
|
| I am a big fan of Lao Tzu and the “just chill out” philosophy of Taoism. The Vinegar Tasters  Zukangor said: Yeah everyone should read Dostoyevsky. I am almost done with the Brothers Karamazov and I find its psychological exploration of its characters absolutely superb and the lessons they carry are haunting and timeless. Definitely a life changing piece of work.Fyodor had an outstanding understanding of human psychology and in-depth analysis of the political, social, spiritual and economic conditions prevailing in Russia at his time. His work entitled Notes from Underground in 1864 predicts the way of thinking of humans in modern times. |
-insert NGE meme here- |
| i don't have a favorite. but i was able to finish lefebvre's a critique of everyday life in about a year. it's the only philosophy book i've read along with aurelius' meditations |
 |
| I don't stick with only one philosopher over others I have favorite theory and out looks but I don't agree with everything one philosopher says. Diogenes for his more down to earth and views on humanities egotism. Xun Zi theory of fundamental evil Foucault theory of subjectivity. For examples. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| Favorite philosopher of all time: Fred Durst Philosopher that grew on me: Fred Durst Most underrated philosopher: Fred Durst The G.O.A.T.: Fred Durst  |
| Die like you did by the lake on Naboo. |
| Alfred North Whitehead, William James, Michel de Montaigne. |
| René Descartes, just because Ergo Proxy told me so. Aristotle is a hedonist above all. |
 |
| @wake_the_beast check out his twitch his live is lit |
 |
| Slavoj Žižek is my favorite for simply being funny. |
 |
| Niccolò Machiavelli, the dude realized how politics really work. |
This dance is the pinnacle of human achievement. |
| George Carlin. Anything more to say? |
| Damascius - "Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles" is, in my opinion, the crown jewel of western philosophy. Utterly perfect treatment of ontology and metaphysics; true perennial wisdom. S/o Plato, Proclus, Duns Scotus, Mipham, Whitehead, Guenon, Heidegger, and Hegel. All amazing thinkers in their own right. They're not on the same level as the aforementioned (though still much better than 99% of anything I've read), but I have a soft spot for Deleuze, Leibniz, Aquinas, Land, Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Spinoza. |
TibetanJazz666Apr 8, 6:00 AM
 |
| Kanye West. His criticisms about [REDACTED] is still very relevant until this very day. |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Let's appreciate MALShizuna - 8 hours ago |
10 |
by rohan121
»»
26 minutes ago |
|
» Is y2k vintage now?coolyfruity - 8 hours ago |
2 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
45 minutes ago |
|
» JokesZettaiken - Today |
5 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
46 minutes ago |
|
» Real Life Shipping: Have you ever done it or had it happen to you?TheBlockernator - Yesterday |
9 |
by Kwanthemaster
»»
49 minutes ago |
|
» Do you go to anime conventions?spaceslut - Mar 11, 2022 |
28 |
by PeripheralVision
»»
1 hour ago |