Why have Americans (or other non-Europeans for that matter...

All British thought should be considered as "debunked".

Also, you have to keep in mind that American settlers were the idiots and degenerates of Britain/Ireland/Germany. There aren't any real accomplishments from Americans proper, usually they're due to foreigners. Once you've been born there any capacity for producing literature, music, etc. is simply gone.

It makes me sad that no one in Australia will ever do good.

>Thinks Religions is bad and constricts people
>Thinks Capitalism is bad and constricts people
Are you an edgy 14 year old boy?

pragmatism is taking over most of the developed nations are ya blind kid

For one, America is young as fuck. When Hegel was writing Phenomenology of Spirit, America was a minor, very volatile political entity. It really does take hundreds of years for discourse to coalesce into some kind of identifiable "progress."

And the other obvious point is that you're measuring America by European standards, so obviously Europe will come out on top. Might as well ask why Europe has produced fewer griots, gurus, and kabuki actors than West Africa, India, and Japan? And I'm not even some kind of cultural relativist, I think it's obvious that people from all over the world can contribute to philosophy, it's just that the history of *continental philosophy* discourse is obviously defined by its European tradition.

Kripke being an autist doesn't prove anything. Look at all philosophers kek

>he sneered from his straitjacket
Grow up

Attached: 74BF37EB-9FD4-40AD-95C9-AAF8100CCBD4.jpg (788x460, 78K)

He does "analytic philosophy", I know there's nothing worthwhile in there without needing to read him, not that it wasn't obvious by virtue of his being American

I mean... I understand you're trying to bait people, but I'm afraid that you may unironically be intimidated by analytic philosophy.

I think a healthy level of fear of the Anglo-American ability to destroy the world with their "thought" is reasonable, don't you?

>he looked at you
Lady you'r like 47 you should of had a child by now. Just because you had a bad unloving relationship with your Mum doesn't mean you had to become a Lesbian. And now after you have rejected them you reject whatever degenerate branch of Christianity you were raised with, you then had seen the worst possible perversion of a good thing. Tell me if you had grown up in a loving normal white Christian family would you still hate Christianity?

One thing I know is that emotion and preference whether based on some long hidden unconscious complex or just simply personal liking's has more sway over judgement then cold hard rationality itself.

As Hume said "rationality has always been the slave to passion."

Fair point.

isnt it reverse for the lower the level of culture and values in europe to take from american capitalist culture ?

We kinda got caught up in the whole muh logic game (jokes on you, this tendency revolutionized more materially inclined fields and one a world war) and had to bull a hard right turn (i.e., reductivist Rorty bullshit) to get anywhere interesting. We got Saul Kripke tho and that’s enough for me.

It's not about the age of the country. Canada and Australia have no philosophers, writers, composers and so on either and they didn't really break from their existing tradition (the British one) and America didn't either. The British tradition is just an anti-tradition that produces anticulture - no philosophy, music, art etc. of any worth will come out of America, ever.

As if some smelly euro can hold a candle to the pragmatists, you're just upset that Americans are right about everything

Interesting thought, considering how much American and British media is consumed around the world. How does this detail fit into your worldview?

The bad guys won, it's the equivalent of ISIS celebrating a victory by destroying a Buddhist statue or something.

I don't think that's really a great analogy, but what specifically do you mean by "won?"

How do you not know to ignore that attention whoring trip who only says inflammatory retarded shit for (You)s?

>but gets ignored
Rightfully so. It's not even close to Derrida and I fucking hate that guy.

Attached: Philosophy (1).jpg (1122x540, 61K)

As in, the group with the most degenerate anticulture achieved global hegemony through technological ability and luck, and now everyone is paying the price all because it HAD to be the British that settled North America. A world where British or American media is consumed is a fallen one indeed.

>And the other obvious point is that you're measuring America by European standards
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH EUROCENTRISM IS BAAAAAAAAAAAAD WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

>And I'm not even some kind of cultural relativist
Sure not, tsk tsk tsk.

I don't see why having cell phones and whatnot would force people to consume American and British media.
I would think a digression into the degenerate media itself would be merited in this sort of discussion, rather than attributing it to the rapid proliferation of VHS tapes and CRT televisions.

cope and have sex

No, it's American power that causes people to consume America media by virtue of said power. Anglo/American culture was an anticulture before TV existed and will be for the forseeable future. Technology just makes the situation worse.

>I don't see why having cell phones and whatnot would force people to consume American and British media.
Not him, but I don't think he's saying it FORCES you to consume.

It's just that American and British media is the "default" media. Minus India and Japan, basically all Hollywood and Netflix and whatever else produces shoes, whatever paper writes narratives, whatever book or author ges promoted, it has global relevance. They definitely have a monopoly on media.

Think of it as them being Youtube. Sure, Dailymotion and Vimeo exist, but they'll never reach the viewership that American and consequently Bong media does.

I have children enough in you.
It was a rather humdrum normal upbringing, and though not as traumatizing a Christian upbringing as the one Winterson tells in Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, it was still sad and stressful to learn that I was born to be something my own mother thought so bitterly about. I was just discovering it about myself when I heard probably the only time she ever brought it up what she thought.
You’ve got it all wrong. I even tried to rationalize myself straight.

Well back to your thread, please.

Because she's an old spinster.

>13240817
cringe

>blocks your path

Attached: D002A431-86AB-4773-A862-F9C0BFE62438.jpg (200x238, 10K)

Only Aristotle and Leibniz come are on par with Peirce. GOAT in my opinion.

>I have children enough in you.
This is horribly said but please explain, adoption? You fuck chad for one night?

>It was a rather humdrum normal upbringing, and though not as traumatizing a Christian upbringing as the one Winterson tells in Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, it was still sad and stressful to learn that I was born to be something my own mother thought so bitterly about. I was just discovering it about myself when I heard probably the only time she ever brought it up what she thought.
You’ve got it all wrong. I even tried to rationalize myself straight.

Look Butters, again from what you say it doesn't seem like it was that bad as you have only said essentially "it wasn't that bad". It seems to me your parental displacement comes from the quality of the parents and upbringing not the Religion in which they believed. Your mother may of talked to you but did she really ever love you? Were you ever very close to her? Was she often mentally absent? Were you left to do chores around the house, ect. How close were you to your father?

I am only going by what I know butters and am simply genuinely curious. Rationalising yourself straight ay? Well I do feel for you but I'm not entirely convinced homosexuality is a genetic defection (I used to think so) as so many tests seem to conclude it is based on inborn susceptibility as well as the certain experience to bring out said susceptibility.

/thread

>Peirce is a good writer
You are now my friend.

It means you are children.

Don’t know what “parental displacement” means, but I see you still don’t understand and are fishing around for some clues to go “a-ha!” at.
Religion just made them all despise what it is that I was growing into and forced me to hide it from them all, and for a few years I even despised myself.
I saw naked statues in an art book. Didn’t even understand why I thought them pretty and the beardo males ugly. Other girls see these sorts of things and nothing happens. Still other girls see this sort of thing, nothin happens till they’re 23 or something and they think it over. They still like guys, but they could also go for a girl.
I donno what ratio of nature and nurture there to any of this, I don’t need to. Like waiting to see what your babies sex will be, is all a part of the fun of life.

Back to the thread

Attached: 597F57AD-2522-453F-9C28-600E14B771BF.jpg (150x387, 15K)

Let the eurocucks play with their word magic

because analytical philosophy is quite, I imagine, stifling and mundane due to its favour to empiricism and positivism.

Religion incentivizes answering unknowns with "it's just the work of god".

Capitalism incentivizes productivity and wealth accumulation over intellectual or creative pursuits.

It's really no wonder that art and philosophy are tertiary pursuits in american society.

>It means you are children.
Fuck man, one of those obvious things you don't notice.

>Don’t know what “parental displacement” means, but I see you still don’t understand and are fishing around for some clues to go “a-ha!” at.
Religion just made them all despise what it is that I was growing into and forced me to hide it from them all, and for a few years I even despised myself.
I saw naked statues in an art book. Didn’t even understand why I thought them pretty and the beardo males ugly. Other girls see these sorts of things and nothing happens. Still other girls see this sort of thing, nothin happens till they’re 23 or something and they think it over. They still like guys, but they could also go for a girl.
I donno what ratio of nature and nurture there to any of this, I don’t need to. Like waiting to see what your babies sex will be, is all a part of the fun of life.
No Butters this isn't a debate I'm just trying to make a sound judgement. Parental displacement is that you no longer have much social relation to your parents which I could be wrong about but I gather to of occurred.

I disagree butterfly, it is the same as saying that accepting a curable cancer is just simply the fun of life. If homosexuality is a result of nurture bringing out a disposition of sex hormones then we could say that it is a psychological neurosis and will only cause harm. You identify with a curable disease and so it becomes part of yourself, of your entire persona you have spent so long to build. However if it is indeed a genetic defection then nothing can be done about it just as with a stage 4 cancer you must accept it and so life.

This is why it would be in your favour to understand the nature/nurture ratio of homosexuality.

>Religion incentivizes answering unknowns with "it's just the work of god".
user history has predominantly most certainly not shown that. Look at St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas ect. And if you are referring to the small people then they don't ask these philosophical questions anyhow. Man seeks truth under the pretence that it is a beneficial thing, now tell me what benefit does the belief God does not exist grant?

Anglos in general can claim NEETzsche.

I don’t think you want to understand. Bye.

Disingenuous post. That user was absolutely right. And for fuck sake the abbreviation of etcetera is etc. not “ect.”

Attached: 2E8EF20E-A2BB-486E-A0D1-F00D8E366675.jpg (460x276, 21K)

>I don’t think you want to understand. Bye.
Alright then go fuck yourself, just because you'r an emotional wreck and can't put two damn words together to explain something without saying vague shit like "yea it wasn't quite like that but yea".

>Disingenuous post. That user was absolutely right. And for fuck sake the abbreviation of etcetera is etc. not “ect.”
Well how is it disingenuous? If you do not explain you are no better than the feminist imbeciles screaming insults. How was he right? Funny you don't even make an attempt to explain because as I said earlier people prefer to stay within whatever preconceived narrow and comfortable world views they believe within because to believe something else would threaten their identity.

Look woman I don't give a shit if I misspell "etc" okay it's fucking Yea Forums.

Also who the fuck is that ugly whore you have posted, why would you post that?

Europe's philosophers after Kant suck

All good modern philosophers are American or English

Nick Land is not one of them

>user history has predominantly most certainly not shown that.

What is Galileo and the heliocentric model of the solar system?

The Catholic Church stymied scientific inquiry for the vast majority of history because it viewed answering life's mysteries as a threat to the dominion of god. If human reason can explain away the mysteries of life then god is not needed to provide meaning.

>St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas

Both impressive thinkers who devoted the majority of their thought to either proving god exists, or that it is like waaaay better to assume he exists because if you're wrong hell would like really blow.

>now tell me what benefit does the belief God does not exist grant?

It grants the thinker freedom to ask "why". Why is the sky blue? Why do the planets move the way they do? Why has life appeared on this planet?

If the answer is "because god wills it so" then the thinker has lost their curiosity and thus their tenacity when searching for a satisfying answer.

>Man seeks truth under the pretence that it is a beneficial thing

I could not disagree more. Man seeks truth due to their inherent curiosity. There is little pragmatic value to scientific or philosophical inquiry. The creations of scientific inquiry (ie, technology) were an unintended side effect of asking "why".

I am not an emotional wreck. I was miserable in my teens and twenties for various social and personal reasons, but because I do adapt, challenge preconceived notions, out of habit it seems, I now live simply and happily (whole at the same time dreaming big). And that user was defending what I had posted. Religion ALWAYS sides with their god, DUH. “Look ata Aquila’s” wha the hell? What a dodge.

She’s an actress who played Jeanette in the BBCs adaptation of Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit

Props to reasonable poster

Attached: 3EB7CD30-BBCE-4364-A924-A626BF7BC493.jpg (225x300, 14K)

>What is Galileo and the heliocentric model of the solar system?
Well you see that isn't telling people it's just the work of God that's telling people that an old system is being replaced by a new one not a new system filling the void of nothing.

Besides one example, we can see what occurs to a state with no Religion. It was simply a bad decision of what must be censored and what mustn't.

>The Catholic Church stymied scientific inquiry for the vast majority of history because it viewed answering life's mysteries as a threat to the dominion of god. If human reason can explain away the mysteries of life then god is not needed to provide meaning.
You are so foolish, the fact is human reason cannot, we know not a fraction of what there is to know. You think of Religion as just primitive mans attempt at explanation. Religion has so many purposes that you choose to ignore. Without a God there can be no morality, without morality there can be no state. Without the threat of hell and the knowing that sexual degeneracy is wrong man will only sink back into his own desires. Without a God there is no objective meaning to life and whether sooner or later it will only create total egoism. We can see what the rejection of Christ has done by looking to modern society.

>Both impressive thinkers who devoted the majority of their thought to either proving god exists, or that it is like waaaay better to assume he exists because if you're wrong hell would like really blow.

This isn't Pascals wager. Have you not read them? Because if you had you would know that especially in the case of Augustine that they spoke of many, many more things.

>It grants the thinker freedom to ask "why". Why is the sky blue? Why do the planets move the way they do? Why has life appeared on this planet?
Lets say we believe in a a God, we are a Gnostic civilisation. Nothing else, no other religious ties. How then does it stop one from asking why is the sky blue? Why has life appeared on this planet?

>If the answer is "because god wills it so" then the thinker has lost their curiosity and thus their tenacity when searching for a satisfying answer.
That is entirely subjective because the fact that we know why the sky is blue today is testament it did not stop interest. Men persisted to find these answers not knowing or believing it would contradict their religion.

>I could not disagree more. Man seeks truth due to their inherent curiosity. There is little pragmatic value to scientific or philosophical inquiry. The creations of scientific inquiry (ie, technology) were an unintended side effect of asking "why".

You are entirely wrong, how could you say philosophical enquiry bears no fruit? It answers how we must condone our actions, it answers why we must condone our answers, it establishes our place within this universe. To walk one must know where he is standing. And the purpose of scientific interest is even more obvious.

>I am not an emotional wreck. I was miserable in my teens and twenties for various social and personal reasons, but because I do adapt, challenge preconceived notions, out of habit it seems, I now live simply and happily (whole at the same time dreaming big). And that user was defending what I had posted. Religion ALWAYS sides with their god, DUH. “Look ata Aquila’s” wha the hell? What a dodge.

Why tell me you were miserable in your teens? I am not criticising you but I think it would be good for you to look at yourself in the mirror. Butters no, you challenged preconceived opinions because these new opinions made you feel better, you didn't feel like an inferior life form (which you shouldn't). You "challenged" them because others told you to challenge them which you did but it was simply a swap without looking to what these new principles were and what the good of the old was. Also how is that a dodge, someone states Christianity has suppressed scientific and philosophical enquiry and I state 2 massive examples in which it has not.

>She’s an actress who played Jeanette in the BBCs adaptation of Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit
So how exactly does the family treat the girl in this fictitious scenario?

Nietzsche aped Emerson

>Why have Americans (or other non-Europeans for that matter, but let's focus on the US) never been able to produce a single Philosophical equivalent to as much as 1 single prominent European Philosopher?
The American Constitution is probably the most important work of political philosophy in modern history.

Europeans are creatures of sentiments informed by a literary tradition, whereas Americans are men of rational principles. America is a regime that was founded by philosophers, however, the lack of American equivalents is not a question of quality, but of whether there are any writers who are necessary for the building of the spiritual edifice. One can think of American writers and writings that should be read and frequently are read; but, to the extent that Americans are readers, the whole world is their bookshelf. Goethe is theirs, and not just Germany's. Virgil is theirs, and not just Italy's. Shakespeare is theirs, and not just England's. American writers digest it all and feel no great urge to respond or retort or comment because their cultural message is always consistent, distinct and unequivocal. Freedom and equality are to be had and it is not up for discussion.

But really, there has been no deep need for Americans to absorb their own country's writings that citizens of other nations experience: the Frenchman with his Montaigne, Descartes, Pascal, Rabelais, and Racine, as is proper. For the Frenchman, books and culture are an essential part of what it is to be "French" and is a complex harmony not easily adopted by an outsider, which is likely another reason for America's absence in the conversation of civilization. America was a new project and a simple one.

The spirit of America is unlike anything else, unanimous and simply stated. A man can become an American in a day without knowing his Melville. All that is needed is a cooperation of natural passion and natural reason that defies the ancient maxims.

Anglo tradition. In spite of the mutt meme, American 'high' culture has been dominated by Anglo tradition and only in the last 50 years has it changed in shifting to anglified jews, which doesn't improve things.

It's better than the atrocities we yurocucks have and it has been influential but that doesn't make it a work of philosophy. It's a legal document.

>Well you see that isn't telling people it's just the work of God that's telling people that an old system is being replaced by a new one not a new system filling the void of nothing.

An old system that arbitrarily placed earth and humanity at the center. Why? Because god willed it so. God loved humanity so much that it made humanity and it's home the center of the universe.

>the fact is human reason cannot, we know not a fraction of what there is to know.

In no way shape or form did I say that we know all there is to know. Rather I said that using the god of the gaps will inherently limit our ability to ask why. The god of the gaps provides answers to questions that other people will continue to chase.

>Without a God there can be no morality

With the Christian god, the only morality that exists is insular and exclusionary. It is morality derived from tribal warfare. It's bad for me to kill a fellow Christian, rape his wife, and steal his belongings but completely justified to do to any filthy heathens.

It takes some serious selective editing of scripture to arrive at any decent morality which applies to all humans.

>Besides one example, we can see what occurs to a state with no Religion.

We have never actually observed a state that is totally devoid of religion and based solely in reason. I assume the states you are referring to are Nazi Germany and Communist Russia/China, but these did not destroy the religious impulse, they merely changed god from the Christian god to god of the state.

>they spoke of many, many more things.

Okay, this is fair. I oversimplified a huge body of work.

>How then does it stop one from asking why is the sky blue?

When asking "why", there will inevitably come a point where human reason currently lacks the tools to answer a question. The religious impulse would be to say "human reason is flawed and cannot answer this question therefore god is the reason this is the way it is" as you so eloquently demonstrate in this post. However, the irreligious response is to say, "human reason is flawed and cannot answer this question, but if we re-evaluate how we are approaching this problem we might be able to find a solution."

>how could you say philosophical enquiry bears no fruit?

That is not what I said. I said that the fruits of the labor were a side effect, not the goal.

>And the purpose of scientific interest is even more obvious.

What pragmatic reason is there to investigate string theory?

None that even the experts can suggest. It is so abstract that we have no conceivable way to bear any useful technology from it. Yet, humans are still deeply interested in this line of scientific reason. Why? Because they are curious, because they keep asking why, because they don't accept the god of the gaps.

Henry James.

Eric Hoffer said that in america, philosophers became capitalists.

>An old system that arbitrarily placed earth and humanity at the center. Why? Because god willed it so. God loved humanity so much that it made humanity and it's home the center of the universe.

It was not arbitrary as it had a very clear conceivable purpose. It coincided with the belief that man had purpose and meaning within life and was not just simply a mistake. Besides nothing changed, we are still at the centre of the universe within our own minds.

>In no way shape or form did I say that we know all there is to know. Rather I said that using the god of the gaps will inherently limit our ability to ask why. The god of the gaps provides answers to questions that other people will continue to chase.

Yes but you see even if human reason can explain away of life it has not yet. And so judging by the effectual to say "we can't currently explain away the mysteries of the life and so find meaning independent of God but we can later" is the same to say that we cannot as it has the same effect for the current situation, you have pretty much stated that we should retain a God until we do find such truths. Also there is no guarantee actually quite the opposite that to uncover life's mystery's would provide an objective meaning and purpose to reality.

>With the Christian god, the only morality that exists is insular and exclusionary. It is morality derived from tribal warfare. It's bad for me to kill a fellow Christian, rape his wife, and steal his belongings but completely justified to do to any filthy heathens.

Also user no that is a complete lie. Christianity is founded upon a compassion for all life. Founded upon eternal and not limited laws of Good vs Evil, not beneficial vs non-beneficial which would be exclusionary. Rape and theft are always wrong under Christian law, murder however is justified if the person is Evil. Christianity has had a wide variety of interpretations and contradicts itself many times however with that said I believe it still to be of the highest category a religion may be placed and knowing the necessity of religion. No religion is perfect.

>It takes some serious selective editing of scripture to arrive at any decent morality which applies to all humans.

Have you even read the Bible? It has an eternal law of Good and Evil. Besides let us pretend it is exclusionary as you say what moral code is greater than this?

>We have never actually observed a state that is totally devoid of religion and based solely in reason. I assume the states you are referring to are Nazi Germany and Communist Russia/China, but these did not destroy the religious impulse, they merely changed god from the Christian god to god of the state.

user National Socialism for as long as it lasted was predominantly a Christian movement. But Communism no user that was total atheism, please explain this one to me.

>Okay, this is fair. I oversimplified a huge body of work.

I respect you for accepting fault.

Cont

>When asking "why", there will inevitably come a point where human reason currently lacks the tools to answer a question. The religious impulse would be to say "human reason is flawed and cannot answer this question therefore god is the reason this is the way it is" as you so eloquently demonstrate in this post. However, the irreligious response is to say, "human reason is flawed and cannot answer this question, but if we re-evaluate how we are approaching this problem we might be able to find a solution."

Yes we may be able to find a solution and what if that solution is religion? not to answer ontological questions but as a solution for what the material does not provide?

>That is not what I said. I said that the fruits of the labor were a side effect, not the goal.

My mistake user. Point still remains however that this general curiosity existed within man in order to seek out the beneficial, and man so happened to seek out the beneficial within science and philosophy as he made stone tools and asked why he was there. I would consider this to be the goal not a side effect.

>What pragmatic reason is there to investigate string theory?

Understand our relation to existence? To find possible future technology's that could take advantage of new found knowledge on the universe. To understand the nature of the universe relating possibly to god?

I agree this example is of lesser beneficial importance immediately however to say science as a whole is silly. Was the spear not a primitive use of technology? Is technology not a science?

>None that even the experts can suggest. It is so abstract that we have no conceivable way to bear any useful technology from it. Yet, humans are still deeply interested in this line of scientific reason. Why? Because they are curious, because they keep asking why, because they don't accept the god of the gaps.

They keep asking because there may be a beneficial response. Just as you try new foods in hope you may like it and so of found something good.

bros you gotta stop replying to each individual sentence. who tf taught yall to have a discussion.

When irl you don't but online you have the ability to do so.

religion is a cancer, i can understand that maybe there is God, but most religions goes against human nature and instincts

every time you do you basically open up a whole other conversation. i can't even tell what the heck is the matter at hand here. i mean you do you, but it's a community thread and nobody can respond to what is basically a private chat in the public lobby. it's bad manners.

So? You surely can't expect everyone to have a chance to dance with the pretty girl can you?

Also the original point was defending religion.

kys mutt

>*Blocks path and does a shoey*

Attached: Chalmers.jpg (220x373, 19K)

reminder that all of phenomenology and existentialism is a rip off of American transcendentalism

Attached: stan.jpg (150x197, 8K)

Adress the essence of what the other says.
Nitpicking on the errors of details, if they're irrelevant to whether the fundamental point is true or not—is counterproductive.

because nobility is the fountain of philosophical thought and only plebs went to america.

But user how would you advise me to of answered? I don't see how I am particularly nitpicking any more so than addressing the main issue. Besides those nitpicks are not of neutral judgement.

I really can't see how I could of responded better to him user. These are my two most recent posts.

Wow atheists really are pseuds aren’t they

The USA has produced great philosophers though.

When you recognize that philosophy is merely the handmaiden of Theology, then America is number one, we had the best theologians during the revivals.

Wrong

The religious revivals pretty much led to American degeneracy as we see it today.

William James, brother of Henry, is even better as a writer.

cringe

>Thread is derailed by mentally ill liberal tripfag

Why do you retards give this creature (You)s at all?

See THIS post. This is a fantastic shitpost that deserves like 10 (You)s of anger because of genuine this b8 is. And you waste your time with other garbage.
Even retarded shitposts like are better.

Wrong? I disagree.

>B.F. Skinner
>Charles Peirce
>John Dewey
>Noam Chomsky
>Thomas Kuhn
>Thomas Paine
>Willard Van Orman Quine
>William James

Just proving my point

How?

Pragmatists and the transcendentalists are pretty neat

"Israel is our Cultural Brother."

There is no fundamental difference between the American and the Israeli, they are tied together like a political-genetic map. A post-nationalist alliance fitting the trajectory of Last Men. Any claim that Israel controls America is meaningless from this perspective, and only reveals the inner trait of the American: the eternal victim. From his opposition to both Protestantism and Catholicism to his laments before a New World where nature was simply too plentiful, the American cries out in pain as he drone strikes you. The combined psychology of the cowardly and vicious, the trinity of Bush, Obama, Trump rightfully brings an end to their empire.

The American is a Jew within his innermost soul, if only more pompous and full of bluster. He could never admit this, because he is fundamentally opposed to both philosophy and religion. Governed by law alone, he follows a Talmudic essence, but with neither book nor oral traditions. Yes, he is occupied by a foreign force, but only insofar as this was in his nature from the very beginning. He desired this, because he has no understanding of how a country is ruled, and what better proxy to efficiently mobilise those infinite resources? The transcendent pragmatism of the blind stumbling upon a New Jerusalem.

Following two cutting insights into the American spirit we can say that he thinks, yet he is not. He is the head, a simple and idiotic one, while the Jew and every other occupied territory is his body. He has no home, which is why he buries the most sublime and powerful nature beneath sprawling ugliness, a conglomerate of corporate signage, and the black pooling blood of oil and all its derivatives. He, like his father, enjoys the mutilation and he packages it into mortgage-backed securities - a plasterboard geopolitics of rebuilding amidst inevitable tornadoes and flooding. The same person who is quite willing to leave the government of the entire nation in the hands of a blundering simpleton balks at the idea of not having a voice in the economics of this stupidity - such is the residual weight of the hollowest of races.

Yes, the Jew hides in shadows waiting to scrape powder off the sides of gold coins. But the American, THE AMERICAN, he waits in the shadows to siphon off the plunder of other nations' victories; poison their wells and the very future of all humanity with depleted uranium; occupies nations only to reduce their economy and culture to something worse than war-built ruins. The Pyrrhic victory of the private security contractor, the soul of the enhanced interrogation collateralised debtor, obligated to build a Strip Mall of Babel beneath the shadows of a towering sodomy. This is the American in his perfection and completion.

Do not cry for the American in his fall, this is what he always wanted.

Attached: sandniggers.jpg (2550x1722, 1.73M)

fpbp

>American opposition to Protestantism

American philosophy is severely underrated if anything.
Good post.

never thought of it that way
americans really never produced any literature of worth, let alone philosophy
what an intellectual shithole

No, you.

>doesn't know what puritanism is

How is it not also a Protestant doctrine?

>All these replies and only one (1) mention of Quine.

The absolute state of Yea Forums

Attached: 204CCBBC-EA3C-4B86-9513-CB83E45337E6.jpg (320x396, 24K)

It is what it is. American philosophy has been top tier since the very beginning and only an absolute boor would believe otherwise.

Attached: Portrait-of-Samuel-Johnson[1].jpg (615x781, 105K)

>taking shitposting this seriously
Get good.

>13243570
Why haven't you killed yourself yet? What keeps you?

Right ? Also Kripke, Putnam, and Jameson just to name a few off the top of my head. I suspect that for /lit philosphy stops at Nietzche and a dim understanding of Wittgenstein without any notion of what came after him.

>How can we talk about Pegasus? To what does the word 'Pegasus' refer? If our answer is, 'Something,' then we seem to believe in mystical entities; if our answer is, 'nothing', then we seem to talk about nothing and what sense can be made of this? Certainly when we said that Pegasus was a mythological winged horse we make sense, and moreover we speak the truth! If we speak the truth, this must be truth about something. So we cannot be speaking of nothing.
So this, maybe nothing or at least something very close to it, is the power of the Americans.

Jesus Christ, you people cannot be seriously this delusional to equate those to what Europeans have produced.

It's like comparing different species.

Why are we still being raided by STEMfags? Go build another ugly ass modern shithole.

Attached: keeping memory alive.png (986x725, 779K)

Goodness you sound vapid. You realize Americans like Church are among those directly responsible for aiding the transition of the computer as a philosophical thought experiment to a physically realized object. Something tells me you struggled in Calculus.

That has to be the worst looking building ever made.

13243576
Clearly you don’t understand me in the least.
I love life

MEIN GOTT! IS THERE A MORE PURE IDEOLOGY THAN SCIENTISM?

Attached: TheDead.png (500x579, 459K)

I study Computer Engineering at the ETH, dumb fuck. Maybe you should actually STICK to 8th grade calculus instead of pretending you're Philosophically sound on Yea Forums.

*ahem*

Attached: 51kMwW9M+kL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (328x499, 33K)

lol then let's hear it, what's your breakdown on Quine or Kripke

Not that user, but it's stupid to shit on Kripke. His take on the discussion on sense, denotation and the Russell critiques on all of Frege's work is top notch philosophy. I don't get why people believes that there is a choice to be made between continental and analytic philosophy.

I'm down to talk about Kripke for a second. His breakdown of Witt is one of my favorites (even if it is usually referred to in that horrible portmanteau). What interests me a lot as of late is how much contemporary philosophy (all these meta-ethics normative persons winning the nobel) can find a lot of their origins in stuff like Kripkenstein. I always go back to it to get a kind of grounding when my head starts spinning halfway through a Gluer argument

I don't get why there's a disconnection between fields. Coming from historiography it's different, there are cross-fields arguments between a narratological and rhetorical kind of philosophy of history (lets say H. White) and a more analytic perspective (lets say Arthur Danto).
I mean, I get that the "languages" are different but most of their arguments are similar.
Sorry for the bad English

>Kripke is an observant Jew.

Does Artho Danto bang ? I've been meaning to pick up a good modern treatment on aesthetics that isn't too focused on propaganda and marxy stuff (not that Adorno and Jameson aren't absolutely killing it when they get into their groove).

I fear at times the distinction is a lot of leftover animosity towards logical positivism and structuralism as being somehow 'failed' or btfo'd philisophical movements that were too far up their own ass. This argument never really rung true for me though just because I felt a lot of their work was a much needed demystification of science, which feels ironic considering what people like Popper and Kuhn are accused of (usually by people who haven't read too much into them).

What's your native lang, english was my second too

Danto is cool. He is not hard-core analytic but he pays a lot of attention to analytic tradition. I've read mostly about his approach to history and referenciality, but I'm sure all of his work it's at least good.
I'm native to Spanish and Portuguese.

This is why the United States became the biggest powerhouse in the world. Though pragmatism and transcendentalism are both declines in intellectualism from the philosophical traditions that were maintained in various European countries up to the present day, where they became better was in their ability to be practical and implementable in daily life. American-founded doctrines are simple, and that's why they're effective, and why more of the world is adopting them every day.

>Europeans
This is cope to steal the prestige of France and Germany. There isn't a single British, Russian, Swiss, Scandi, philosopher worth reading. Meanwhile, we in the States at least have Hamilton, Peirce, James, Kripke, and Quine.

Actually, come to think of it, there hasn't been a single European writer above the level of a precocious university kid for nearly a century now. Maybe Robbe-Grillet.

>No, it's American power that causes people to consume America media
That's absolutely false, its peoples propensitities. Remember when Orson Welles won an award and the Europoors were so upset they listed his film as a moroccan one so they wouldn't have to give the award to America.

>Swiss
Rousseau should count for this.

>Rousseau
kek, let me guess, you also think Jung, Burckhardy, and Piaget should count

>implying Rousseau was not an influential writer on Kant, Hegel, Robespierre, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Marx, and Derrida
Also, what about Hume? He was also pretty influential. So that's at least 1 for the Swiss and 1 for the Scottish.

>, what about Hume?
kek'd eve harder

What about Locke?

Fuck the English

Americans busy doing gender studies.

Attached: 15596015602390.png (450x450, 793K)

Not 'prominent', but I like this lad.

Attached: PVI.jpg (474x710, 28K)

AHAHAHAHA FUCKING MUTTS BTFO

Because Americans are a practical people. They just go out and conquer shit without thinking too much before hand.

Mutt cope

Look at American equities vs literally any other country

Look at the American cope vs literally any other country

I’m a leaf you dunce

Ah, discount American, gotcha.

How’s it feel to have a heritage you can’t live up to anymore

Sorry, didn't realise you were still talking.

Attached: Rake when.png (1400x1096, 1.76M)

There are many religious philosophers in history, you're simply retarded.

She's an out of shape self loathing dyke in her 40s who doesn't have kids and is desperate for approval on a Jap imageboard.

Take yourself through that, how many bad decisions and how much abuse have led that poor sould here?

Damn looks like there’s a lot of interesting work to be done. Feels good to be at the forefront of history instead of circle jerking over your lost heritage. Cope harder.

>"C-COPE!!!"
Yikes, the state of this copecel.

>I w-wanted to get fucked in the ass by Abdullah a-anyway, s-so....
Have sex.

Theologians don’t really count to my way of thinking.

>13244753
>grasping
90% wrong. I am childless in my 40s

This. See you on the moon.

Cope

What am I coping over? Who cares about having "internationally renowned philosophers", Indians are allegedly above all Western philosophers if Yea Forums is to be believed and they can't grasp the metaphysics of the toilet in spite of all that.

>Who cares about having "internationally renowned philosophers"
Not only internationally renowned, but internationally accepted as masters of their craft.

>Indians are allegedly above all Western philosophers if Yea Forums is to be believed
You realise this is the equivalent of Tao Lin posting but in 2018-19, right?
Jesus, lad. You're kinda slow.

>13244785
Neck yourself, crazy cat lady

Jonathan Edwards
Ralph Waldo Emerson
William James
John Dewey
Robert Nozick
John Rawls
Henry David Thoreau
Thomas Jefferson
Charles Sanders Peirce

iep.utm.edu/american/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_philosophy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_philosophers

Attached: Peter Singer.png (500x458, 105K)