I write "condemned" because I feel that we're still there. Even though we progress in some fields, we seem to never get over their core ideas.
All of the 20th century were dominated by these three saints. (Add Darwin for science of evolution and that's it.)
Every thinker and philosopher were absolutely engulfed by their world views, and social sciences were absolutely riddled with their ideas. No one thought to themselves if these ideas were true or not, if they were valid ones for humanity and the West to pursue in the first place.
Our elites just went there, without looking back, without "thinking" in retrospect. They assumed these people had meaning, spoke truthfully, in short, that they were right and that we had to keep following their footsteps in order to find a new reality.
But what if the only thing we were watching and reading from these three guys, were merely the shadows in plato's cave? What if they were wrong and were a product of the nihilism that has habited the West going back to the French Revolution? What if they only struggled with reality? With their own selves? What was the point of it all? Sure, that got us many many brilliant essays, theoritical and abstract thinkings, and many good stuff on social interaction, human brain etc. but where does it all go from now? Are we condemned to pursue their "human liberation" objective?
Are we condemned in the West in worshiping them forever?
Freud and Marx were obliterated
>I write "condemned" because I feel that we're still there. Even though we progress in some fields, we seem to never get over their core ideas.
Lmao what? Marx is a joke in economics and Freud is a joke in psychology. They're only taken seriously womewhat in philosophy because there they can float in the aether of pure theory without having to actually apply their theories.
Who would you consider the real deal in both economics and psychology? It's difficult for me, since I'm not in university or anything, to find more contemporary people to look into. I'm most familiar with Freud out of those 3; only surface knowledge on the other two, but I know I should read them, just from their influence alone.
Isn't Freud's structural model still influential today? My impression of Freud is he's someone academia begrudgingly acknowledges because they really don't like the oedipus thing but have to use his other ideas.
>Isn't Freud's structural model still influential today?
No. In France there are still bonafide freudian psychoanalysts, but outside that other models of personality (like the more empirical CBT ones or the more humanistic Rogerian ones) have completely replaced it. The id-ego-superego is used by literature and philosophy majors, not by psychology majors.
What he did change, was advance the notion that human motivations are not rational (the biological impetus put there by evolution), that the reasons people tell themselves to explain their actions are not necessarily the real reasons (people try to avoid unpleasant perceptions of themselves or people dear to them), and that sexuality is a major factor in all sorts of human relationships including those we don't usually want to associate with sex (like how our parental figures condition which types of people we are attracted to). A lot of these ideas were in their embrionic forms already in biology (Darwin) and philosophy (Hume).
There aren't that many strong philophers today with an complete worldview like Nietzsche had. He's contagious and influential.
>Marx is a joke in economics
That's absolutely not true my man, especially if you're doing something like IR or Political Economy stuff. He will appear in some form in almost any normative economic class, and he is (if anything) overrepresented in most higher level normative economic ideas/theories.
Nobody who isn’t a pseud or a retard takes Marx or Freud seriously anymore
They’ve been demonstrated to be wrong too many times
Marx is a meme, his ideas are mostly borrowed and his own contribution is quite subtle.
Nietzsche is ok, not because he was so good, but because other modern philosophers are awful.
Freud was destructive. Rather an astrologian than a scientist, but a bad astrologian. Guy was talking about some unprovable metaphysical shit, but instead of filling it with something worthwhile like Jung did, he brought up all these penises, vaginas and fucking your mom things. How typical for a jew.
Try reading some Freud my man.
Read his lectures when I was seventeen or something. What a waste of time, should have better spent it on girls and booze.
We are already beyond them but most are still afraid even now to reach their century old level...
how are we beyond Nietzsche?
Freud and Neech***
neech isn't taken seriously by 95% of people in Anglo-American philosophy departments. And for good reason.
>No one thought to themselves if these ideas were true or not, if they were valid ones for humanity and the West to pursue in the first place.
Are you kidding me? Do you know how much critical literature has been written on these fucks?
Neetch didn't write for eggheads.
What comes next in philosophy, bros?
Because Anglo-Americans are worthless at philosophy?
It´s gonna be Man vs. Machine, until man is no more.
a freudian communist ubermensch.
Doesnt take one to look at fags like Kaufmann that tried their best to adapt Nietzsche in a way that "doesnt affect our moral institutions"
Also Nietzsche was the hopening gate for postmodern philosophy.
came to post this
There were critical literature of christianity when christianity was powerful throughout Europe. It still doesn't change the fact that the three saints are still dominant in most of academia, and have been for the past century. Sure now you have evolutionary psychology... great. And philosophy kind of died in the West because of too much dick riding Nietzsche.
What I meant with the thread was, how do we advance? We're in the 21st century now, things just accelerate so damn fast, and I feel like we're still stuck with intellectuals that doesn't represent our current world, and our present struggles. We live in a time that is totally interesting worldwide, in every aspect, and yet we have on one side, the post-modernists who want to continue the work of these guys, you have the insane crazies who simply want to end our civilization, you have the lost people, the nostalgic etc. etc. But we're always, in truth, looking at the past for answers.
Is the 21st century the culmination of both the people who believe in a decline and the people who still believe in the myth of progress?
I think were at a point in history where there has never been so many people who lack a purpose or direction in the west. The argument used to be that humanity was exploited, now humanity is useless.
Why dont you just put up pictures of plato and aristotle and complain about them starting everything?
We've never had so many capable of purpose before. And like in every previsous era, most people's circumstances restrain them from meaning or independent purpose. You are just more aware of discontent because you are plugged into one of the hearts of it right now.
Until both are one.
They're all mega pseuds. Where do you get this bullshit from?
In terms of real world influence, Frood Dude's nephew Edward Bernays has such a complete and utter dominance over each one of us that no one else could ever come close. He wasnt a philosopher, his writing wasn't particularly interesting, but theres a good chance that the reason why you're here, spending your free time circle jerking about philosophy online in between reading all the "right" books that you believe will get people perceive you more like you perceive your ideal self, is because a disciple of Bernays programmed you to want to attain the self-image of the well read intellectual.
Read Propaganda or watch the documentary Century of the Self, take the final red pill.
/adamcurtiscore/ Bernays rules our lives. Everything Freud warned was bad Bernays used to help US government and corporations to manipulate people. Century of the Self is a scary documentary.
Because they're mostly analytic autists.
>falling for the economics meme
Is there anything else to read after propaganda and the engineering of consent?
No, Guenon set us free
>IR or Political Economy
Neither of which are economics
Wait, did he really try to do that? Affecting moral institutions was one of Nietzsche's prime goals.
Yes, Kaufmann tried his best to make him as a appealing as possible to the masses and everytime Nietzsche attacks morality he simply puts foward a more "secondary" interpretation about "le self overcoming of the individual" which is not far away from Nietzche's ideas but in many cases he puts it foward so your average pleb thinks Nietzsche is just some super self-help philosopher.
If you also read any of his Nietzsche books he is always trying his best to milk people to buy his stuff, saying "you read more about this in my Nietzche Biography"
But then what are you left with? That's like amputating all limbs from a body, you're left with almost nothing of Nietzsche.
>implying
the future is here OP
I dont know senpai, he doesnt really try to deny most of the time that he wanted to attack morality, but he always pushes for those secondary interpretations like i've said.
If would be right to think that cripples Nietzsche's philosophy, and thats part of the reason why people shit on Kaufmann
>Marx tldr: Rich exploit the poor.
>Nietzsche tldr: You better be strong.
>Freud tldr: Have sex.
So what exactly is so surprising and intellectual about this to westerners?
>he doesnt really try to deny most of the time that he wanted to attack morality, but he always pushes for those secondary interpretations like i've said.
so he lies out of his ass constantly. Let me guess this guy is Jewish
>Kaufmann was raised a Lutheran. At age 11, finding that he believed neither in the Trinity nor in the divinity of Jesus, he converted to Judaism.[2] Kaufmann subsequently discovered that his grandparents were all Jewish.
Would you fucking look at that.
Marx has mutated today into intersectionality which is nothing more than a parody of marxism used in a racial and gender sense. The results are absolutely devastative for society.
But this is what Foucault wanted. The criminals are free, they are not punished, the Western man is guilty, he's sexuall confused, he's demographically dying and replaced, therefore let us rejoice for the upcoming Utopia.
Nietzsche has been used to advance and further push the idea that religion and morality are useless and that basically we should go back to a more naive animalistic view of the self. It's a complete regression in every regard. And of course, the super-man is even more of an impossibility than any religion or mythos because that's not how humans interact with each other and strive for in this world. Still, he had some good insights but you can't construct anything with his ideas.
Freud is a meme. He was a jewish kabbalistic man that projected his own paranoias and perversions into his jewish science called "psychoanalysis". The reason many people bought into it was simply because it was intellectually brilliant and stimulant. Aside from a few concepts, we can't simply take anything granted, and certainly not his Oedipus complex.
This thread is stupid. These 3 people are nothing alike.
Two are pretty based, the other one is some kind of a fraud. And it's pretty obvious who is what.
Yet we all know the kind of message the author try to promote:
"Modern philosophy is degenerate. Read the Bible." (OP).
yeah that fucking nietzche incel is a fraud.
wrong
their ideology was yielded predictive power that yielded unprecedented material power
they were just retooled as things fell into place
>condemned
you are starting to see a little clearly.
you are stuck in a system of government that is based on Freud and Marx in opposition of Neitchze
>Freud and Marx
totally irrelevant that they're jewish, even in op's view i suppose
state enforced mental retardation is cute, but not so much when the victims try to be intellectual.
let their heads roll together in an avalanche
>when I was seventeen or something.
now you are llike.. 18. or sumting