/lit/ - Literature

>everyone who is saying hume is bad clearly hasn't read him
you're all dilettantes with ideology's cock down your throat. No interest in the pursuit of knowledge, you treat philosophers like they're your marvel superheroes
Fuck you faggots.

>>17209357
Why are you in this thread if you can't into philosophy?
I'm not "twisting" anything, you're using vague, meaningless words that you yourself are unable to define. You haven't been able to tell me why suffering is bad; your answer is "suffering is bad because it's bad to suffer".
Don't be mad because you're a brainlet. You know you don't understand the words you're saying, you believe your argument because it's what you've believed your whole life and now you're coping with the knowledge that you might be wrong and might have spent your whole life believing nonsense because you didn't care to actually try to understand it.
> This is all I'm saying: There are cases where a human would be better off not existing or ever having existed than existing.
kek look through the thread and see the amount of times you've summarized "all that you're saying" and how its changed. I never argued against that, I even said that people should be able to die if they want. I argued first against your dumb whataboutism, then your supposition that suffering is bad, then your assertion that suffering people ought to die.
> Everything else you're trying to discuss is pointless and masturbatory, as it has absolutely no bearing on human life.
Absolutely rich. Nietzsche's philosophy is as practically applicable to human life as they come, and will completely change your life if you try to understand it. But you're stubborn and dull, as evidenced by the fact that you actually tried to argue that suffering people ought to die instead of just admitting that it should be their choice and there may be suffering people who don't want to die, which any sensible person would agree with.
You don't want to have your mind changed, you only want to prove that your defeatist, pessimistic worldview is the correct one because there's comfort in a lack of agency. You didn't come into this thread to argue about ideas, you came here to cope.

>>16665007
>I'm not talking about the doctrines of Buddhism
pic
>I don't know why we're focusing on Buddhism my point was that all world religions have same metaphysical core but you're only attacking Christianity.
Because Buddhism doesn't have the same metaphysical core at all? And just one major religion not having the same moral framework disproves your ludicrous claim? But we can discuss Taoism too, as I brought up.
Rejecting the idea of good and evil is in and of itself a negation of Christian morality.
And I am critical of Buddhism too, but Christianity is shit-tier.
>So you're talking nonsense and don't want to get exposed? Got it.
No, this thread is full of morons and pseuds who misunderstand both Christianity and Nietzsche but they at least have knowledge of the fundamentals. You don't. If you're interested in learning you can do the legwork but there's no point in engaging in a discussion about these things otherwise.

>>16627417
>>16627450

>>15348544
thats really deep man