Mfw someone gets memed into reading hard to comprehend (read: useless) philosophy like Phenomenology of Spirit

>I'm supposed to be intimidated by drawings and photos of other people
Probably the only way Reddit is superior to Yea Forums.

>What have the Enlightenment philosophers led to?
Ugly, global architectural style, global Uniform (the suit), artificial taboos (as nothing is sacred / no natural hierarchy is admitted so they can't be derivatives), destruction of the core family as a functional and reliable institution, humans becoming prey once again, rise of mutants and mental prisons.

Surprise, degenerate anime poster doesn't realize that Kierkegaard BTFO'd Hegel in like 20 pages. And also restored my faith in God while doing it. Repent, heathen.

Literally everything you said is wrong

I'm not him, it is not.
Enlightenment philosophy eventually led to all of that.

Let me guess, you blame your virginity on feminism? Go back to /pol/

You can't attribute all of it to any single philosopher, not even Rousseau, nor can you state that Kierkegaard or Hobbs led to it, but the movement itself did in its vitriol to 'be better than the old system', despite having no stable grounding for anything it classifies as 'better'.

>everyone who disagrees with me is an involuntary virgin (as they have to blame something for it)
>male virginity isn't due to social change, rise of artificial social control, and subsequent errors in adaptation
The view that virginity itself is bad is due to social control, bondage and slavery of the mind. Take control over the ape you're in and see a different world.

But we live objectively better than pre-enlightenment

>The view that virginity itself is bad is due to social control, bondage and slavery of the mind.
Cope, not having sex is objectively bad because it's a sign that you are low in the dominance hierarchy

Attached: 1565803819946.jpg (1080x1350, 238K)

WTF.
Are you mentally retarded? Do you really think this is some kind of smart argument?

>Muh GDP

If you use the correct reading method it's not hard, but it takes time.

>Summarize what the author wrote
>Deconstruct it
>Find what he meant and was thinking writing this
>Make it your own or dismiss the information if it's bullcrap
>Do this with the entire book

Attached: 456789.gif (300x300, 1.74M)

I mean, I respect Kierkegaard, but pretty much everybody knows by now that his critique of Hegel is based on a vulgar and simplistic misreading of him. There are much better criticisms of Hegel than “ooh, he fails to fully take the singularity of individual human experience into account, blah blah blah”

>Cope, not having sex is objectively bad
People have less sex today than 100 years ago, have less children and have less stable relationships, have more sexual insecurities and more sexual addictions.

Wrong. High child mortality was a good thing as it weeded out the mutant population. Now we have to waste our limited perception spheres to include their cries about how ugliness is beautiful.

>objectively bad because it's a sign that you are low in the dominance hierarchy
Dominance hierarchies are fickle and can be sabotaged by even the lowest members, as proven by school shooters.

I only know that I know nothing, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

t. tested 160 IQ

Take risks, apply game theory.

>not Fanged Noumena

Attached: 1561588668401.jpg (237x269, 8K)

>civilization destroying
catchall term for antisocial edgelords to describe everything that even slightly annoys them