The lily and the lily of the filed refutes you

This is spot on, kierkegaard was the first western non-dualist.

Both shit and never went far enough.

[removed]

He is no fraud, you just haven't read him!

You say this like unmolested is a common or coherent term in moral philosophy. What is the difference in the consequences between ending the potential before vs after fertilization? If you prefer to articulate it in terms of virtue ethics or deontological reasoning, that’s fine, but don’t just tell me the obvious empirical difference between two objects and pretend you’ve made a point about their value.

Also this has nothing to do with politics. In English “potential” has nothing to do with the level of molestation required to achieve said potential. You wouldn’t say a person can only have potential in something if they could achieve it without having to practice. Nor would you say that a business venture lacks potential because it requires adaptability.

I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding Kierkegaard’s philosophy if that was your takeaway. He was reacting to record social mobility at the time in his home of Denmark; and wanted to try and convince people in his community to not be impressionable and beholden to other people’s systems of morals and ethics. Instead, he wanted people to pursue understanding of their innermost desires and ambitions, regardless of whether they were popular or considered morally or ethically right (hence: the “teleological suspension of the ethical”).

They're a lot less different than you'd think. Nietzsche wants you to become God, Kierkegaard wants you to look within and find God already there

Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche would suggest that one "paddles with the current", both suggest a revolt against modern man to become something neither modern nor past

the translations did not exist in German in Nietzsche's active lifetime, although there is speculation that he may have heard of Kierkegaard's ideas second hand through friends who were known to be well acquainted with him

Because a sperm left unmolested will not become a person. A fetus left unmolested will. Should be pretty straightforward. I don’t see the logical basis for your objection. A fetus is a complete potential person. A sperm is not.

And I’m staunchly pro-choice. But this is a philosophical conversation and our politics have no place in it.

What is the salient ethical difference between preventing pregnancy and aborting pregnancy?

Either way pro life activists should stop using the phrase “potential person” (or “potential life”) to mean specifically a fetus. Because sperm and eggs would be potential persons by definition. He’s not a moron for knowing the correct definition of “potential”.

thank you :)

No doubt and you know what reading Nietzche does to you and can imagine what knowing him intimately would be such an eyeopening; thus her not speaking of any of this to Freud is naive. And so is thinking Freud didnt read Nietzche.

>The values, norms, taboos, etc. of a society can and will dictate many outcomes to a single question, and those answers can be perfectly “logical” in those contexts.

Even if "value" is itself illogical?

>As in, “Who am I if I’m suspended in a vacuum free of the bounds of history, evolution, time and space?”

That would be a trick question. I am who I am unlike my "parallell universe twin" that had coffee this morning instead of cereal but looks identical in every other way, he is who he is, he has his identity and I have mine. He exists in a universe that had a slightly different beginning (Big Bang or whatever) and will have a different end (Butterfly Effect) and I exist in this one. This universe is this universe (past, present, future) and that universe is that universe (past, present, future) and if you took me and my twin out of those universes before we had breakfast this morning we would still be who we were, we just would be unable to tell the difference as we were not born with birthmarks, mine saying "Made by Big Bang A"´, his "Made by Big Bang B".

Whaaat?

No, I disagree

Kierkegaard looked as the existential emptiness of modern life and wanted to turn back...which is silly.

You can't stop progress, that's like trying to paddle against the current

Nietzche said fuck God, God is dead, paddle WITH the current! Become God.

Nietzche's work has actual impact, and is a good framework for the modern man.

I don't think Kierkegaard's answers are real answers to modern people.

Worth noting it wasn't until Bernays utilized some of Freud's concepts to revolutionize advertising on a social conscious level. He's slimy.

No, nothing at all. There’s no right or wrong, just choices and consequences.

Nietsche literally psychoanalyzed himself to death and, strangely, his father seemed to have also. Freud brought similar ideas to clinical psychology (as far as I know), I also don’t believe for a second Freud wasn’t fully aware of Nietzche’s teachings.

The question was legitimate, your edit sounds actually way more worrisome if any...

Anyhow, the problem is both that he was an absolutely poor scholar, if not even a liar, and that the crap he was pushing was contrivedly bigot (for as much as, I guess it wasn't particularly more than the average guy of the time).

https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/liu10/files/2010/08/KPopper_Falsification.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Freud_Was_Wrong

Perhaps you can credit him for being enough of a successful snakeoil salesman (with all its flashy sexualized everything) to break certain taboos of the day around mental health. Which is.. mhh, kinda positive I guess?

But everything else was just psychobabble. His fame basically halved the psychological knowledge production for 70% of a century, and especially in a philosophical sub his name should be proscribed except to underline how science doesn't work and shouldn't happen.

Lots of Freud's students ripped Psychology apart, not even knowing where his ideas actually came from. We've been spending decades trying to heal whatever happened between Kant, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Cognitive Therapy regarding human behaviour. In all honestly, hot take, but Psychology is today, what those 3 exposed 150sh years ago. We havent added a single thing.

There's this weird thing in Psychology where the students of great theorist tend to be extremely ignorant of whatever made the "teacher" wise. Freud actually quoted a lot of thinkers in his early works, Jung was incredibely smart too, their theories got extremely deluted with time tho. Their theories got watered down over time, as if his students understood no more than the superficial components of their rhetoric. The words they used are currently interpreted as the word itself, without the relevant epistemological considerations.

As a matter of fact, in psychology we don't read Schopenhauer, Kant, or Nietzsche, we don't even read Plato. We do not revise philosophy of mind and do very little to understand philosophy of science. We are a self sabotaging practice.

I like that, it is ironic he spent an inordinate amount of time alone away from the collective in his life. His personal struggle seemed to be reconciling the collective and the individual I never thought of him as focused particularly on either, it’s a good perspective to consider.

Other person: You should watch this movie, I think you'd enjoy it.

My thoughts: ("Should" is a myth, the universe does not revolve around us organisms, we humans are just egomaniacs, even if the Judeo-Christian God existed He could not logically make Himself "should" say "Let there be light!" or make the light "should" exist at any point in time)

My words: Okay, I'll check it out, thanks for the suggestion!

​

Also, I did say "you might change your mind". 😁

Can I ask what is the problem with him? Is his work not at least as worth study as that of other thinkers who did or believed terrible things, but who have nonetheless been widely influential to our world and intellectual history?

EDIT: Genuine question, I am not trying to bait anyone or debate cancel culture, I am just curious about your take.

Fairish enough.

(and now that I think to it, even in my department they actually have a dedicated track for "diehard admirers" tbhh)