She asked him why did he not write out his thoughts. For what, he asked her, with careful scorn. To compete with phrasemongers, incapable of thinking consecutively for sixty seconds? To submit himself to the criticisms of an obtuse middle class which entrusted its morality to policemen and its fine arts to impresarios?
----
Four years passed. Mr. Duffy returned to his even way of life. His room still bore witness of the orderliness of his mind. Some new pieces of music encumbered the music-stand in the lower room and on his shelves stood two volumes by Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra and The Gay Science. He wrote seldom in the sheaf of papers which lay in his desk. One of his sentences, written two months after his last interview with Mrs. Sinico, read: Love between man and man is impossible because there must not be sexual intercourse and friendship between man and woman is impossible because there must be sexual intercourse. He kept away from concerts lest he should meet her. His father died; the junior partner of the bank retired. And still every morning he went into the city by tram and every evening walked home from the city after having dined moderately in George’s Street and read the evening paper for dessert. — Joyce
What do you consider the most humane? - To spare someone shame. What is the seal of liberation? - To no longer be ashamed in front of oneself. — Nietzsche
My vote goes to Kant — The Great Whatever
Who? I agree /w regards to Berekely, but not with regards to Locke or Hume.subtler and more exciting British empiricsts — The Great Whatever
Albert Camus is interesting, but not a great philosopher. He isn't considered that great either, so... not very overrated.Albert suave-as-fuck Camus — darthbarracuda
Nietzsche — csalisbury
Probably adequately rated actually. Nietzsche is a very deep and profound philosopher even though I think he's wrong in many regards.There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya about the raising of the wrist, but reading him makes me permanently pissed. — Thorongil
Underrated.Schopenhauer — darthbarracuda
Probably I disagree.My vote goes to Kant — The Great Whatever
Maybe - though even Heidegger offers good insight, but probably overrated compared to the value of his insights.H E I D E G G E R — Ciceronianus the White
Quite possibly, though folks would accuse me of not having studied him enough... :PHegel — Heister Eggcart
Definitely Descartes >:O Infinitely worth skipping, by any student of philosophy. — Agustino
Probably adequately rated actually. Nietzsche is a very deep and profound philosopher even though I think he's wrong in many regards. — Agustino
The same is true of Descartes, but Descartes seems to have been a genius of some sort, which I wouldn't say of Kant, who wasn't bold enough, and was too bookkeepery, for genius. — The Great Whatever
The Critique of Pure Reason is often said to be the key philosophical text of the modern age, and I firmly believe that to be true. — Wayfarer
Because Kant turned the focus squarely onto the 'conditions of knowledge', what it requires to say that we know something, what the conditions are for us to know anything whatever. I think hardly any scientific materialists understand the Critique - because if they did, I don't see how they could remain materialists. — Wayfarer
I think it's a reactionary text that systematizes the thoughts of more innovative thinkers, — The Great Whatever
Descartes was an idiot - probably the vast majority of his ideas are worthless (dualism, homonuculus etc.). I don't know of anyone else in the history of philosophy who has had no virtually good ideas, and so many terrible ones >:ONone of these accusations can be leveled at Descartes. He was a madman! — The Great Whatever
I agree - a lot of Kant is prefigured in the combination of Berkeley and Hume to a large degree. But Kant was original in the way he thought about space, time etc. Berkeley et al. didn't conceive of space as synthetic a prioris.I think it's a reactionary text that systematizes the thoughts of more innovative thinkers — The Great Whatever
>:OBut I tend to think, no, those early reviewers saw it for what it was, and of course once something becomes influential it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and its own influence spirals out of control, until all kinds of attributions of innovation are ahistorically attached to it in retrospect, because people read the Critique and don't read much of anything else. — The Great Whatever
WWR is probably deeper than CPR, in that it contains the same insights that CPR does, and more. CPR is more original and revolutionary but not the deepest. TLP is probably also superior, as is Spinoza's Ethics.The Critique of Pure Reason is often said to be the key philosophical text of the modern age, and I firmly believe that to be true — Wayfarer
So? Why is this so significant?Because Kant turned the focus squarely onto the 'conditions of knowledge', what it requires to say that we know something, what the conditions are for us to know anything whatever — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.