Dude you can't criticise a philosopher for not following their own ideas, seperate the idea from the man bro

Ideas are worthless garbage if the average person can't use them in real life

Fuck the average person. But aside from that, you're right. Fuck LARPing loners whose seclusion prevents their delusions from collapsing by interacting with the real world

Yeah but whether or not they were used by the person who invented them does not affect their practicality

>Yeah but whether or not they were used by the person who invented them does not affect their practicality
For all intents and purposes it does because if the idea was so good and actually of practical use, why wouldn't that person use it?

The only legitimate reason would be losing your mind shortly after making your discovery.

based

based

>why wouldn't that person use it?
A hundred possible reasons, all of which have no bearing on the actual validity of the idea
If I say that breathing is good, but don't breathe myself, is breathing suddenly a bad idea? Of course not, because the validity of an idea does not depend on that

>A hundred possible reasons
None good

And none relevant

And you expect people to be rational all the time? Of course people make bad decisions in their life, knowingly so. You think the only reason someone would fail to live up to their own professed views is that those views are actually false? Why is this your criterion of truth? The apple is red whether you even exist.

>You think the only reason someone would fail to live up to their own professed views is that those views are actually false?
Yes

Yet another reason Kierkegaard (and his mentor Hamann) is on a level above all popular philosophers. He freely admitted not knowing, not being able to understand Abraham and to make the leap by virtue of the absurd, and in other cases made his own life and his attempts to understand and justify it the object of his work. Constantine Constantius tries to guide the young poet escaping from his lover through his theory of repetition, only to find out that he himself was mistaken about it.

>Schopenhauer is so far from being a real pessimist that at the most he represents 'the interesting': in a certain sense he makes asceticism interesting--the most dangerous thing possible for a pleasure-seeking age which will be harmed more than ever by distilling pleasure even out of asceticism… is by studying asceticism in a completely impersonal way, by assigning it a place in the system.

>After reading through Schopenhauer's Ethic one learns - naturally he is to that extent honest - that he himself is not an ascetic. And consequently he himself has not reached contemplation through asceticism, but only a contemplation which contemplates asceticism. This is extremely suspicious, and may even conceal the most terrible and corrupting voluptuous melancholy: a profound misanthropy. In this too it is suspicious, for it is always suspicious to propound an ethic which does not exert so much power over the teacher that he himself expresses. Schopenhauer makes ethics into genius, but that is of course an unethical conception of ethics. He makes ethics into genius and although he prides himself quite enough on being a genius, it has not pleased him, or nature has not allowed him, to become a genius where asceticism and mortification are concerned.

>truth is dependent on the character of someone who quite contingently expresses the idea
If in a food store someone went up to you and said "X is disgusting bro don't touch it get this Y instead it's the most delicious thing ever" while engorging himself on X, would you trust him and get Y or assume he's swindling or playing a prank on you?

>truth is wrong because of who said it
Nice double dubs btw

What if there was independent reasoning that showed X was in fact disgusting? Yes, obviously you will distrust him and assume he's playing a prank because in that circumstance you're bound to use a heuristic, but a heuristic won't always turn out right.

The average person isn’t moral. It’s why people must beg for forgiveness from the Lord. If it was attainable by the average person it wouldn’t be a great ideal to look up to. We have a word for people that live their lives like Christianity is real following it in all life. Saints

>The average person isn’t moral.
That's a lie. The average person doesn't rape, kill or steal. That alone proves you wrong.
>It’s why people must beg for forgiveness from the Lord.
God has nothing to do with anything.
>If it was attainable by the average person it wouldn’t be a great ideal to look up to.
If you're aiming for an ideal that only applies to a select few, who magically never seem to appear in reality only in the authors text, then it's a pretty shit ideal to aim for.
>We have a word for people that live their lives like Christianity is real following it in all life. Saints
Yes, they made Mother Theresa a saint. Why don't you go read up on some of the fucked up shit she did?

An ideal is an ideal because it’s unattain to the masses, if these virtues were so easy to achieve we wouldn’t look up to people that did.
On Mother Theresa she lived for years in poverty and subjecting herself to disease and suffering to help others before the world knew of her. In The beginning she didn’t have the funds to ease people suffering, would you have her drug one person and let another suffer in the gutter? You can judge her once she had those funds but had already performed Saint like duty. Even when she had the funds, her helping people the way she did was better than them starving in the gutter. We’re she a monster like faggots like you try to make her out to be she wouldn’t have spent her life helping people and living in poverty for most of it

>An ideal is an ideal because it’s unattain to the masses
No idiot, that's pure vanity. You are not special, you are not pure of heart, you are not holier.
>if these virtues were so easy to achieve we wouldn’t look up to people that did
If only a handful of men, and I'm being generous here, can achieve these "virtues" then they're worthless egotistical fantasy waffle for narcissists.
>We’re she a monster like faggots like you try to make her out to be she wouldn’t have spent her life helping people and living in poverty for most of it
“Workers washed needles under tap water and then reused them. Medicine and other vital items were stored for months on end, expiring and still applied sporadically to patients,” “Volunteers with little or no training carried out dangerous work on patients with highly contagious cases of tuberculosis and other life-threatening illnesses. The individuals who operated the charity refused to accept and implement medical equipment and machinery that would have safely automated processes and saved lives.” Mother Teresa’s Calcutta home for the sick had a mortality rate of more than 40 percent. But in her view, this wasn’t a bad thing, as she believed that the suffering of the poor and sick was more of a glory than a burden. “There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s Passion,” Mother Teresa said. “The world gains much from their suffering.”

She had a close relationship with the Haitian dictator and tyrant Jean-Claude Duvalier, who was charged with crimes against humanity for his abuse of fellow Haitians. She also received $1.25 million from her friend Charles Keating. Keating’s $1.25 million donation alone would seem large enough to lift all of those in her care out of poverty, but one volunteer said that “even when bread was over at the soup kitchens, none was bought unless donated.” In one incident, after running up an $800 tab at a grocery store to feed people at her charity, Mother Teresa refused to get out of line until someone else paid.

The German magazine Stern estimated that only seven percent of the millions of dollars Teresa received was used for charity. But seven percent of what total figure, exactly? The world will never know, since the new leader of Missionaries of Charity, Nirmala Joshi, said that the donations were “countless,” and there was only one person with the actual numbers: God. “God knows,” Joshi said. “He is our banker.”

She was a sick fuck.

wow she was utterly based

yes

Attached: jesus_laughing21.jpg (429x547, 31K)

>You think the only reason someone would fail to live up to their own professed views is that those views are actually false?

Very much so. In fact, I think this is the meaning of "if thy right eye offend thee...", if they truly disagreed with Subjective Monism, and instead thought themselves Mereological, the ease with which they ascribed their thoughts and deeds to allegedly functionally independent parts of themselves would allow them to very easily and, indeed, very profitably remove said parts if needed. Jesus is calling their bluff, letting them know that he knows that they know better.

>*slow exhale*
>Wow....Dude, I'm gonna be thinking about that for months

Attached: e72fbc6d-978a-4732-80c3-eade6b298629.jpg (2200x1144, 645K)

I think this is a question of if someone is a hypocrite, does what they say matter. I think it does, because I can claim all day and believe it wholeheartedly that we should read more, but not do it myself. I think that not being able to accept the counterintuitiveness of the situation is difficult, but it makes sense. The determinacy of the situation stays true, regardless of if the thinker is a hypocrite or not. Like when a parent says do as I say not as I do. It's a common fault to be hypocritical, but it doesn't invalidate the things said. It invalidates the person, sure, I think so. Cause as you wrote, Kierkegaard and co. and stoics seem more righteous or worth something because they had skin in the game, or walked their walk.

this is also the tu quoque fallacy, its well-documented. I think you might be demonstrably wrong on this one.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-07-07 at 11.36.55 PM.png (2814x276, 137K)

>muh appeal to authority
>muh excuses for getting the benefits of saying one thing but doing the opposite because it's hard and I don't wanna

>Never trust an alcoholic who warns you off alcohol
Duly noted, and double checked.

>Never trust an alcoholic who warns you off alcohol
Yes actually.

I did note it.

But Nietzsche tried to live his own philosophy as hard as he could. You're thinking of Seneca or many academic German philosophers perhaps.

Seneca did live his philosophy to be fair. Just that philosophy included letting the state tell you when to commit suicide.

>that quote
Extremely based.

What are some legit philosophies, if we followed this logic than? I see stoicism. Probably most religious philosophies.

He lived lavishly in the shadow of Nero.

>But Nietzsche tried to live his own philosophy as hard as he could
And failed miserably, meaning his philosophy was trash.

He asked to commit suicide a lot and Nero refused until he sprung it on him the last time.