By far the greatest thinker of all time. It's not even close

That's even more retarded

I guess, Perhaps. But I don't really care?
How about you, why does it give you an emotional response?
Why is it "retarded"?
( I do not agree nor disagree with you claim ).

The emotional response is amusement. That someone would claim to be on the level of Kierkegaard yet have a poor grasp of language i.e. bait.

Tell me sir, are the laws of language absolute?

THIS. who gives a fuck about some literal who's who died like 300 years ago

yes. just like a chair should be something you can sit on.

I mean, officially it would be a three-way tie between Kant, Plato, and Aristotle. And give the world 200 more years or so to realize it's actually pic related.

Attached: nietzsche.jpg (700x1035, 177K)

Out of all the major philosopjers, he's probably the one that I habe the least interest in.

Nietzsche will definitely only become more and more important (even though today he's already the shit, having brought thinkers such as Agamben or Sloterdijk in the discussion table of how to reach the superman within a community). He's like the first glimpse on the end of superstition, and that will always have its historical importance, he'll be revered as a new Christ, just because he managed to be his vision in the flesh (something that, I think, cannot be repeated once the message of the "prophet" has been posited). Anyways, I think he's extremely and deeply related to Kierkegaard, I'd like to talk about it with someone, but I'm not sure how to start. I'll just throw a statement and see where it goes: the "I want what I have atm" of the nietzschean eternal recurrence it's analogous to the "I choose myself absolutely" of Kierkegaard's ethical stage. They differ in their concept of the serious, for Kierkegaard it's the concrete notion of onself as the relation's relating to itself (as spirit mediating soul and body), thus bringing repetition as the non-ethics of tomorrow, and Nietzsche's is the hammer: to end with all morals in order to find eternal recurring art (as creation). Which of the two will be taken by futurity will probably decide wether we lean towards a comunity based on the eternal or a non-communal comunity.
I hope someone answers so we can exchange some autism.

I don't have anything to add but I must say that Nietzsche never read Kierkegaard. He wrote in a letter to a friend (I can't remember which one) about their plans to read Kierkegaard "soon", but in all probability he went insane before he could get to it. It took quite a while for Kierkegaard to be translated in non-Danish languages.

kek

Yep, I didn't know that but it makes sense. Anyways that al least for me only makes it a stronger case, as two different points of view of the same phenomenon (death of abstract thought to its core), even though Nietzsche came out way more "I see nihilism, and the future of humanity at the other end of the abyss, I'll tell you (not wanting u to follow me) where we are going, and its a terrible process!!" sort of thing, and Kierkegaard was more "let's not forget our inmortality, please, people, we could become what we need to become with a mere jump". So their "solutions" are really different, but i guess that's what u'd expect from one that chose God and the other that chose extreme-non-God. Anyways, it's also worth noting that they both play a sort of messianic role behind masks, Kierke for "poetry" and idealism's sake and Nietzsche in a sort of narcisistic gnosis. I do think they'll be the referents of tomorrow, with a bit of linguistic deconstruction here and there (and maybe a reversal towards pure subjective meaning through myths and mistic stuff?)

You mean graphomaniac

Kierkegaard is a very mindful philosopher but he's so limited and antiquated. I loved Sickness Unto Death, it was an amazing read but again very limited in its scope. I don't know why you think you can compare Kierkegaard to a Nietzsche, a Hegel or a Kant.

He has written much more than his couple well-known books

AFAIK it's all practical and very little metaphysics. Again why do you think Kierkegaard can be compared to German idealists for example? I realize he was a critic of Hegel but probably didn't deliver a metaphysical refutation of Hegel's systems, or did he?

Plato, Aristotle, and Kant. Anyone saying anything other than those three is wrong.

>AFAIK
which is apparently very little so why even type anything

>literally says he just uses christianity to cope

This. If you don't accept free market orthodoxy you are an IDIOT.

This, especially when you realize that nearly all of the relevant philosophy that came after him was predicated on his work, or at least a response to it.

>all of the relevant philosophy that came after him was predicated on his work
You mean postmodernism and existentialism? aka bullshit

Based