/lit/ - Literature

>used metaphysics to deconstruct metaphysics
>deconstructs his own argument indirectly

Does no one see the flaw in this?

>>14772560
>>14772587
>>14772676
>>14772743
>>14772754
OP is so spooked he is hopeless. Also has not read a lick of stirner before

>>14664838

>>14618924

>>14026830
Although I'm a stirnerfag I've taken the time to read a bit of Guenon. Reading his first book and just skimming some of his more core books I honestly see a lot of similarities between their opinions on the West. Although Stirner completely bags the idea of the nation I can't help but see it running false when up against Eastern countries. In my opinion, only the West has these pretenses of the "human being" making state and nation completely ridiculous, but in the East, this pretense of the 'human being' doesn't seem to exist. I'm not well-read on Eastern shit anyone care to help me out here?

By 'human being' I mean the optimal humanitarian being that we all presuppose to protect in the West but when we do self-seeking impulses these are known solely as part of our private life, our public life is a purely human one.

>>13144451
>if the author himself has done things which are unethical, immoral and so on.

>>13132682
spooked

>>13118339

Peterstein pls go

>>10718987
We both know where this is going don't we?

>>10669620
Calling something a spook doesn't necessarily mean it's non existent. Anything can be a spook. Logic can be a spook. Love just happens to be one of the most commonly fixed ideas.

Why do you faggot ideologues insist on shitting up a perfectly tolerable thread with your spooky nonsense?

Literally none of the things posited by Nietzsche, Peterson, and the mainline philosophers would be a problem if people understood even a bit of Hegel. This is what happens when you let frogs, their kin and their sympathizers do philosophy instead of making your Geist mature through a healthy diet of cigars, alcohol and Bildungsromane.

>>10296116
>>10296130
>>10296135
>>10296141

>>10267552
>sins

How can creativity even be real? The amount of things that can be achieved are within a set, and creativity can only be in that framework. So how can creativity even exist? Machine learning can emulate creativity just as easily.

>>10171643
>Subdue the I
But seriously, English praticularly sucks at this for not being a pro-drop language.

>>9896107
>muh life

>>9711025
THIS
>it's dangerous
>oh that's chaos
>but violence
>the core of my position is good taste
>it's the rules
>it's a miracle that things work considering all the scary things
>you have to be superduper special to change anything important
>DA LOWGOES
>Neechor was trying to do this same thing I'm doing
>it's the best system we have eh
Peterson constantly dupes himself by the fact that his order/chaos is tragic out of ignorance (oh no I need to get out of my imagined safe space whatwillido) and his advocacy for honest hierarchy breeds the very individuals he thinks are the most dangerous. Every time he talks about life being like a game it's obvious he doesn't believe it and has bought into his own personal narrative.

He's a sucker.

Can someone help me comprehend this response? Asked some question online and this was what I got. (What is the agreed upon central core that intelligence is?)

I have asked a question on Quora and came across an informative but rather intricate response which I could not comprehend. I'm not sure if /r/philosophy is the right place to ask this but I will give it a shot. The copied question and response is pasted below.

>What is the agreed upon central core that intelligence is?

>I love these sort of questions.

>Especially when they give me such a Brobdingnagian stance to elaborate, and or, vociferate, depends on how you perceive it.

>First, we need to define what intelligence truly means. The dictated definition according to societal stance is seen from the deigned definition of the word itself.

>“The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.”

>Doesn’t that sound familliar? Yes, that’s what Immanuel Kant proposed in Critique of Judgment. He believes that being a “genius” is something that cannot be taught or learned, it is a talent much admired like beauty; aesthetics. There is no absolutism that social mobility and nurture can grant it, it is an expanse invisible to those of normal individuals. This provides a detriment towards colloquial or less fortuitous people, their temperament and disposition can be foreseen just by merely depicting one’s “genius”.
>Immanuel Kant then proceeds to claim that being a “genius” is professing and alleging revolutionary ideas that even experts cannot arrive at. It is not a predisposition or presumption that an expert can avow a point less reasonable than a “genius”, but it is said that a “genius” can interpret information effectively and depict abstruse ideas that is ground-breaking.

>>9219035
Fascinating

>>9213688
Mmmmmmmm he wanted to wait for them little fuckers to grow, nigga? Motherfuckin' guy gonna eat them all tho, just give em time n shit.

AMIRITE?!

>>9196776
>mean

>>9191066