I tried reading "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant and I didn't understand a fucking thing

Calm down Oedipus.

She got older and got a reduction after they got even bigger from kids, sadly. She used to date older black men including her tennis coach which makes me upset.

haha

decietful scumbag and a faggot

seems redundant.

maybe you were distracted by tig ol' bitties
what translation?

You're way too preoccupied with your moms body and sexual history anon.

Did you jacked off to them at least?

I don't remember if it was Kant or someone else I read some of, but it may be that he uses a bunch of bullshit made up words to make it way more difficult than it really is.

Constantly

French one

Philosophy is merely the love of wisdom. If you can distinguish between the faculties of pure reason and mere sophistry then surely you must admit that "philosophy" itself is not a fraud. Rather, it is an umbrella term for eliciting theoretical wisdom ("sophia") and "anti-philosophy" is just a disguised form of sophistry in and of itself. Contemplative thinking is the highest function of human beings and, as such, represents the best of us as creatures of intellect.

You have Plato to thank for his criticism of demokratia. You are probably drawing upon the Republic without fully knowing it. I cannot blame you, for these concepts are so integral to our understanding of the physical world ("physika") and the structures of men ("nomos") but they are nevertheless the product of the search for true Nature. Indeed, Nature likes to hide. "Man is by nature a political animal," and the spirit of the "demos" can only facilitate virtue using theoretical wisdom. That is the elementary difference between a philosopher-king and a 'tyrant,' in the non-pejorative sense ("tyrannos").

And, finally, religion. I am willing to posit that you have some religion. What's worse is that you are unwilling to acknowledge your religion. It is fantastical to believe that humans can subscribe only to each other without falling into the problem of perception as an intelligent form of cognition; i.e. "Man is the measure of all things." If you truly believe this, then what I perceive in you to be religious is no less such than your own perception of yourself, and who is to say otherwise?

So, in summa: wrong on all counts. The only fradulent aspect of these disciplines is the people who use them in order to conduct fraud, rather than in the pursuit of true 'happiness' (eudaimonia). And, the very nature of perception solicits religion. Religion is an inevitable consequence of the tension between nomos and physika, or a mere extension of the contemplative habits of men.

read Spinoza instead . it will change your life. Giambattista Vico is also good

read Spinoza instead . Giambattista Vico is also good

read Spinoza instead . it will change your life. Giambattista Vico is also good

I think what he may be referring to is the conceited philosophy people who do nothing but idolize and quote old philosophers and use their jargon to seem highbrow while having no unique thoughts or understanding themselves.

It can absolutely be understood, you just haven't had it explained to you sufficiently. Kant's relationship to Hume, in particular, and the interpretive matters which surround the problem of a priori knowledge, are difficult to accurately relay in English. Otherwise, the transcendantal nature of perception directly refutes the determinist outlook which postulates that perception is mere reception (the "taking in" of natura) rather than a form of cognition (see previous reply). Kant also delineates between practical and theoretical knowledge. He does not argue that there is no such thing as reason, but that true or "pure" reason is limited by human perception, and thus, its metaphysical applications are inseprable from the cognitive aspect of perception. Reason provides unity to this form of understanding. It would be misleading to say that Kant disavows pure reason—as many have done—but instead he limits its scope in terms of its relationship with theoretical knowledge.
The German language allows for this, as does Greek. It's why Greek and German are the traditional "philosophical languages."

The description of philosophical language and terminology as jargon simply rests upon an ignorance of the terminology. It should not suggest that the language is truly devoid of meaning.

Philosophers are often quoted as ipse dixit (autos epha - he said it) without ample regard for the meaning and/or implications of what is being postulated, but stupid people have been taken aback by quotes for a long time. This is by no means unique to philosophy and should not make it any more fradulent than, per se, economics. If anything, philosophical terminology is better grounded than that of economics. We simply perceive certain schools of thought as pertaining to "science," and others through the lens of plasticity. There are very few instances in which philosophical terminology is evaluated to such an extent.

Once again, "Philosophy is a fraud because it can be used fraduently" is not a logical proposition.

would I be able to read Nietzche properly if it were in German?

If your philosophy presupposes a master "language of philosophy," it's likely that it's all jargon without merit.
I could say what you're saying without using the jargon, and it would suddenly feel less meaningful.
Kant believed that people couldn't have "pure" reason, because all of their reasons were created by their experiences.
Holy moly, didn't even once have to use jargon beyond 1 thing someone engaging in this stupid debate could easily surmise.
"Reason (is) limited by human perception, and thus, it's Metaphysical applications are inseprable(sic) from the cognitive aspect of perception"
Dude.
That is literally, without jargon, saying: "We use reason to figure out the reality we see."
Holy shit you're a moron, anyone can trick you by coloring the language they use.

It's jargon.
You literally could remove the use of jargon from the first sentence of your OWN second paragraph, as a fantastic example.
"Philosophers are often quoted . . . without ample regard for the meaning and/or implications of what is being postulated."

Take your meds.

I can read Nietzsche in German . and I can tell you , es ist eine Zeitverschwendung.

Would you be able to read Shakespeare properly if it were in German? "To be or not to be" becomes "Sein oder Nichtsein; das ist hier die Frage." That sounds more like Heideger than Shakespeare.

Nietzsche in his native tongue is a different animal. There are Nietzschean concepts which simply do not transplant over into their English language equivalents. People still argue over "übermensch," let alone Götzen-Dämmerung.

What I am saying is that these texts, when read in English, are thick and non-intuitively written because they are a translation; not necessarily a bad one, but a translation nevertheless.

An English speaker can most closely approximate the sentiment of the text by a) paying close attention to the translator's remarks, in footnotes, and; b) having mental preference for the native German terminologies over their English abstractions in order to better evaluate the work in a manner that is understandable to others.

You can't speak properly. You're clearly a prime example of what said.

rests upon an ignorance

This isn't correct English for example.
You seem to be under the impression that jargon means something negative in itself. Philosophical jargon is jargon. It's that simple. Stating that fact doesn't "rest upon an ignorance" lmao.

ipse dixit autos epha

Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about. And I guess that's what you want. You disgust me.

What part of it was a problem for you? It's boring and technical, but it's not all that complex.

So does potato and patatoe...

That doesn't mean French fries

The use of language presupposes a language. In order to communicate philosophical concepts in a manner that is not unique to your own perception (lol...) there must be, and is, a "language of philosophy."

That is literally, without jargon, saying: "We use reason to figure out the reality we see."

This is the inverse of my statement. You are conflating "reality" with meta-physika (after physika) which inherently refers to something that cannot be witnessed. "We reason from the physical world to bring order to what comes after the physical," would be a closer approximation, but: at this point, you are juggling with words to (pointlessly) rephrase what I already said.

I also don't care what you personally regard as "jargon," unless of course, you believe that you are the measure of all things. If you don't understand a word, you have the faintest excuse not to look it up by using your overpriced, electronic encyclopedia of words. There is, however, a distinction to be made between practical unknowing (real unknowing prohibits knowing) and willful ignorance.

interesting take.

You seem to be under the impression that jargon means something in itself.

The term "jargon" pertains to specialized language that is obfuscatory or otherwise difficult to understand. It is a pejorative term, not a descriptive one. A pejorative term is inherently negative. Please research the etymology of the word "jargon" and then you may come back to spill more sweet nothings. (Hint: "etymology" means, "the origin of words," wink wink.)

Nobody knows what the fuck you're talking about.

For example, the term "philosophical jargon" is jargon because we are discussing philosophy and I don't understand what that term means. It's not as if I have unfettered access to the world's largest information bank or something like that. /s

It has become clear from this interaction that you are a pudding-brained midwit whose genitals shrivel up at the sight of any word you do not know, or presume to know, in the case of "jargon." I suggest that you dispose of your feelings of inadequacy or whatever else lends to this inferiority complex of yours. If, by mere chance, you come across a word that you do not know - or, God forbid - from a language other than English, I further suggest you hide under your table and wait until everything is okay again.

Because my endowment does not lend to such insecurities, upon reading something with which I am not immediately comfortable, I do something that can only be described as unprecedented for those of us who think: I try to find what it means. And so, if you are so unfortunate as to come across more Greek/Latin words, I suggest you do the same!

rest upon an ignorance

"Rest upon ignorance." I am touch-typing and so I am willing to admit my potential towards making mistakes. In spite of this, I should rather abuse words in order to express my sentiment than cower before the ones I do not know; that is nothing short of pathetic! Language is fluid, and unless you are critiquing my language of philosophy, begone you.

"Patata" also means "spud," but does not carry the same meaning as "small potatoes." I agree, though. The problem arises with influential authors such as Nietzsche who formulate their own words in terminology. The task is thus placed on the translator to make a foreign language equivalent of such terms, which, in many cases, draw from the range of implications of said words. More often than not, the root meaning of the term is lost, and this serves to obfuscate many of Nietzsche's concepts.

Yes, indeed. It's a take I only began to consider in a genuine light after reading philosophical texts in their native language as opposed to the translation. Translating a text becomes more problematic the more a wordsmith the author tends to be.

Kant writes in long, run-on sentences (which aren't run-ons in German) and putting them in the right order for English without destroying the flow of the sentence is practically impossible without inventing a bunch of new words. This gives us the much-bemoaned philosophical language that makes anon hate philosophy.

And so, the best way to express these concepts is through use of their native terms. Any serious philosophical debate is rife with this simply because everyone, regardless of linguistic persuasion, who is familiar with the subject matter will know what those terms mean. If you don't then you are thus motivated to learn them.

Regardless, if you think it is feasible to fully explain Kant, a German author, using plain English words, you are naïve, and probably an American. Americans seem to have a natural fear of foreign words because they operate under the impression that the English language is the paragon of communication. Don't mind the fact that most of them can't even name the parts and/or word order of their own sentences... don't need naw big words.

Jargon is a pejorative term

Wrong. Check a dictionary, dumbfuck.

I am touch-typing

Bravo, you're touch typing. I'm typing using stenography. Owned, little bitch.

genitals shrivel up at the sight of any word you do not know

I'm learning languages so I see many words I don't know regularly and acquire them. And now you're just being unserious. But I'm glad I rattled you.

Because my endowment

You have nothing. You're a fraud and a conceited laughingstock.

Spinoza is an easier read, especially because of the similarities between Dutch and English.

Kant justifies his transcendental realism in light of Spinoza's Deus sive Natura (God is nature).

In this sense, Spinozism takes on the delineation between true and perceptional nature made by Heraclitus when he said "Fysis kryptesthai filei," or, "Physis likes to hide" (Frag B123). To this, Kant writes, "...space and time are essential determinations of the original being itself, while the things dependent upon it [ourselves] are merely accidents inhering in it."

So, if you want to understand Kant, you should definitely become acquainted with this ancient portrayal of Nature (capital N) as the non-perceptible form of Creation.

One of Kant's strains is his inadequate address on the matter of Principle of Sufficient Reason by restricting the metaphysical applications of reason.

In this sense, is just wrong. Kant does not reject perceptible reason in terms of its applications towards reasoning about nature, because experiences are no less integral to that reasoning.

Kant's argument isn't the enigma that some make it out to be. It does, however, require an active delineation between 'true' and perceptible nature. This difference is far more obvious to Kant than to us moderns.

unhelpful response
there are multiple translations of the book into French

Spinoza is an easier read, especially because of the similarities between Dutch and English.

irrelevant, since all of Spinoza's major works were written in Latin

I'm from Spain, actually but I'm really getting a kick out of your replies. buddy of mine has been living in germany for a while so I'm archiving this thread and send it out to him. but yeah my English is not that trash since I was mistaken for an ameriturd.

Maybe because you're a fuckin idiot that never learnt anything

Kant is hard to read, yes, he doesn't explain his terms and he often uses the same term to mean multiple things. Transcendent vs. transcendental is an obvious point of confusion throughout. Basically the Critique is a compatibilist epistemology that supersedes empiricist and rationalist debate on the foundation of knowledge.

Jargon is borrowed from the French jargoun which would immediately stand out to any non-American as meaning "chatting," or, more accurately, "gibberish" - or, to appeal to the younglings: "yapping."

You are assuming (for no reason) that the word has the same meaning without regard for its article. Since your language has a dumbed-down form of articles, let me explain:

"Jargon" (singular) - e.g. "this is jargon," is defined as unintelligible speech.

"Jargon" (plural, with indefinite) - e.g. "the special jargons of the sciences," pertains to terminology. Used in the singular form: "it is a jargon."

Just because your language can't discern between the forms of nouns doesn't mean that I have to pretend you aren't utterly and shamelessly false about this. Even this here use case of the singular form, "fraught with technical jargon," inherits from the indefinite form.

So, even in the strict, definitional sense: this is a stupid hill for you to die on. In French, "a jargon" is often translated as "patois," which ALSO refers to the regional dialect once held by the descendants of serfs (the uneducated).

And, need I say it: the context in which you are using the word is a perogative one, as evidenced by your (failed) attempts to wrong me about something so simple.

Learn another language and it will do you some good. Am I some kind of genius for knowing another language? No, LOL! This is the kind of etymological reference that any European would immediately pick up upon.

Definite/indefinite is "the jargon" of language. Your replies are jargon, in the true sense.

Spinoza's texts were being translated into Dutch as early as the seventeenth century, much to his disdain. There is little reason to disregard the translations other than for the fact that Spinoza himself was opposed to them.

Spinoza's Latin is not especially difficult, anyway. It should be at least partially legible to an English speaker. Take this, for example:

"Quae nihil commune cum fe invicem habent, etiam per fe invicem intelligi non poffunt, five conceptus unius alterius conceptum non involvit."

If you squint real hard then you should be able to read most of that sentence. My underlying point is that the language barrier is much less of a problem with these Enlightenment "pig Latin" authors.

Always happy to entertain.

My English is not that trash since I was mistaken for an Ameriturd.

Most English speakers who scoff at foreign vocabulary are Americans. Your English is better than that of the average Ameriturd.

Also, my condolences for your friend who is subject to living in Germany. Hope it isn't Berlin or München unless he is of Turkish descent, in which case he should feel right at home.

"Transcendent" and "transcendental" don't have the same difference in meaning as they do in German, so that confusion is warranted.

For the record: you are not the American being referenced in that reply. You never said that Kant can be feasibly explained in plain English so I have no reason to think you such. I actually like you.

Jargon is borrowed from the French jargoun

I don't fucking care. xD

your language

What do you think "my language" is? I'm a polyglot. And no, my native language isn't English.

Learn another language

I already said I am learning languages. Can you even comprehend English?

"ipse dixit" is a phrase in english. used very commonly in the court of law to rebuke character witnesses. youre just showing ignorance here

I don't fucking care.

What do you think "my language" is?

Wise men speak because they have something to say; fools because they have to say something.

I already said I am learning languages.

Then learn another one, and another, until you can rid of the nasty habit of taking from your ass until proven wrong. It makes you seem to be either disingenuous or hopefully ignorant of things.

When you pointed out a typo I made, I did not haste to defend it as being somehow correct, but instead realized my fallibility in much the same way that you should realize your own.

I tried reading "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant and I didn't understand a fucking thing.

did you try reading ummah forums?

i can only agree with these degenerated sand monkeys about the pervasiveness of judaism. otherwise they supplant reason for dogma and use it to justify their barbarian nature

youre proving his point by making an appeal to definitions while disregarding reality of the subject

a polite btard? thats new

look at the crazy shit on ummah forums!

No one said it wasn't used at all in English. Not knowing all words in English doesn't mean you're ignorant. Then literally everyone would be. What you typed actually makes you ignorant though.

taking from your ass

Learn English. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Wise men speak because...

Irrelevant drivel from a fool.

that's a whole lotta words to cope when you could just say "i forgot/didn't know that Spinoza wrote mostly in Latin, whoops, i still think he's easier to read than Kant"

lol you seem like a jackass. yeah nobody expects you to know all the words but thats no excuse to bitch about it instead of learning it

Irrelevant drivel from a fool

you said that spinoza in dutch was irrelevant; it is not.

no need to deflect

the only good reason to namefag btw

Can you even comprehend English?

It's pretty clear that he doesn't understand it well. That may be why he's compensating.

nobody expects you to know all the words but thats no excuse to bitch about it instead of learning it

Not how it works. It is fundamentally implausible to attain comprehensive mastery over the entirety of lexicon within a given linguistic framework, particularly those lexical items that reside in the realm of obscurity, thereby eluding the cognizance of the general populace. This phenomenon can be attributed to the inherent constraints imposed by the neurobiological architecture of the human cerebral cortex, coupled with the finite temporal duration allocated to individual existence within the parameters of this terrestrial sphere. Consequently, the endeavor to assimilate such esoteric verbiage is rendered an exercise in futility, as the cognitive load surpasses the threshold of manageable information processing, ultimately leading to an insurmountable cognitive dissonance.

This thread has more samefagging than the log threads.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

This will make for a good exercise in imagination. I postulate that it's somewhere between "taking out of your ass" and "taking it up the ass." Or, maybe, this argument was birthed in your ass and you're removing it from there.

Irrelevant drivel from a fool.

Οἱ σοφοὶ ἄρα μανθάνουσιν ἀλλ’ οὐχ οἱ ἀμαθεῖς. (Euth 276c)

Neo-Latin, sure. (I don't think Spinoza can be equated with the likes of Virgil.). His Latin is riddled with ambiguous phrases such as "quantum in se est." Spinoza was writing in Latin to obfuscate his works in the view of non-scholars who would have him a heretic.

He probably wrote more in Dutch, his native language, if we are to include personal correspondence and the likes, though this is not central to the point.

Not me, but say it is so. Say that people would rather whine about their ignorance than pursue wisdom. Is it not to their own detriment before all else?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Democracy isn't fraud, it's a bad idea; because popular not skilled leaders get selected.

Religion isn't a fraud because their expectation is that you do not believe in it and to choose to believe anyway means having faith in something inherently unprovable.

Philosophy isn't fraud because it isn't deceiving you, it's just unfiltered opinions that either do or do not agree with your personal world view.

For something to be fraud it needs to be outright lying to you (i.e. a ponzi scheme, bait and switch)

If you found out that the church was actually being run by adherents of satan, that would be fraud. If your vote was discarded when they told you it mattered, fraud. If the philosophical view was intentionally misrepresented to decieve you from its true views, fraud.

Must have struck a nerve, aw schucks.

It is implausible to attain mastery over the entirety of lexicon within a given linguistic framework

You are falsely equivocating "mastery" with the basic inclination towards knowledge. Reacting with hostility towards unknown language, for example, points towards an inferiority complex.

lexical items that reside in the realm of obscurity

There are no such lexical items, and there is no such "realm of obscurity" in which they reside. (A false assertion.) The obscurity arises when certain terms are used improperly, hence the central nature of the philosophical language.

thereby eluding the cognizance of the general populace

Non-sequitur. This is not a conversation held between the general populace, but instead by anonymous persons who have the ability to learn the meaning of the word.

This phenomenon can be attributed to the inherent constraints imposed by the neurobiological architecture of the human cerebral cortex

Lexical items residing in obscurity elude an individual's cognizance because of the human cerebral cortex? Another false assertion. If you are referring to Wernicke's area, then the inverse of this argument would be correct. Without the cortex, there would be no lexical cognizance whatsoever. (Are you trying to tell us something?)

2:

coupled with the finite temporal duration allocated to individual existence

Also false. The "finite temporal duration" is integral for cognizance because a (presumably) infinite and permanent individual existence would supersede any given linguistic framework and thus prevent lexical cognizance.

within the parameters of this terrestrial sphere

No.

the cognitive load surpasses the threshold of manageable information processing, ultimately leading to an insurmountable cognitive dissonance.

This could only be true under the assumption that the whole of the potential lexical cognizance is processed by the brain at once, and that is simply not how it works.

Cognitive dissonance is not the consequence of "the cognitive load surpassing the threshold of manageable information processing."

This is a (very sloppy, might I say) last-minute attempt to bombard me with nonsense. Fortunately, it's very easy to read your sentence and determine that not a single truth about the human brain comes from it.

Low-effort troll and a logically deficient series of propositions. If not a troll, then you are severely misguided about how the brain works. If you were a student, I would give this a low C - notable effort towards composition; devoid of substance.

This kind of effort only comes off as "cognitively overwhelming" to people with a vocabulary lesser than or equal to Junior High.

I could say what you're saying without using the jargon, and it would suddenly feel less meaningful.

proceeds to resort to AI-generated word salad nonsense

you evaluate meaning based on how many big words there are? what are you like 15?
Anon Babbleack to reddit

I'm not reading your posts. Lol. Eat shit and die. People like you are why people hate philosophy.
That's the only reason I ever responded to your trash. To make you see that you should kill yourself. Because I care about what's good in this world.

These things are only "fraud" to those who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

you should kill yourself

No thanks, this is far too entertaining. People like you brighten my day! Just when I was beginning to feel inadequate, I am callously reminded that actual incompetents such as yourself are roaming this world, waiting with baited breath to be used to the advantage of another.

So, please, continue -- and always remember: your purpose is here. You belong. :)

you evaluate meaning based on how many big words there are

Completely missing the point of the post

It's a mirror.

no u

Yeah, mirrors deflect. makes cents

Completely missing the point of my post

Except the language doesn't make your reasoning more substantial, it just makes you look dumb. What's funny is that you can't even tell the difference.

Now I just think these posts are AI generated because what you're saying makes no sense and isn't connected to anything. But you still act emotional so it's probably a third worlder who can't speak English well and who uses bots.

Except the language doesn't make your reasoning more substantial, it just makes you look dumb. What's funny is that you can't even tell the difference.

THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT YOU RETARD

incompetents

Just empty words like all your posts. It's just child level insults.

You tried to make fun of philosophers by using lots of syllables and instead just demonstrated to the world that you're too stupid to understand philosophy and that's why you hate it.

I don't appreciate the false dichotomy that "artificial intelligence" (misnomer btw) can't portray emotions over text. Language models are the best at doing exactly that kind of stuff. Noble effort on your part, though.

it's probably a third worlder who can't speak English well

I'm more surprised by how you didn't pick up on this as a way of casually insulting yourself.

Russian bot

AI generated post

YOU MISSED THE POINT RETARD

angrily fingers keyboard

kek

saved. what a gem of a thread

Wrong. I am far more intelligent than you and have no problems understanding philosophy or that being verbose is nothing but a conceited act of trying to obfuscate what you're saying to be perceived as intelligent etc. In fact I have myself come up with several of the big ideas of old philosophers independently without knowing about them first.

Nobody cares. Have your head cut off and used as a toilet.

being verbose is nothing but a conceited act of trying to obfuscate what you're saying to be perceived as intelligent etc

you're just incapable of arguing on merits alone. this is a classic technique and kids do it all the time when they dont understand a question
skibidi toilet xd

A toilet to be used by whom, Andy Sixx? You must know Graham and friends.

you're just incapable of arguing on merits alone

empty words based on nothing

die

In fact I have myself come up with several of the big ideas of old philosophers independently without knowing about them first.

Could not help but LMAO at this one. What a magnificent way to end the thread. I too can distinguish between concepts without knowing how to describe them.

You know, as a toddler, I once came up with the idea of colors without even knowing what a color was, so, like, color theory is stupid.

I came up with the Pythagorean theorem on my own without even knowing what mathematics is, but maths is stupid anyway.

Go ahead and unlearn everything you have learned (all two things) and then come back to tell me about your ideas and how independent they are. It's not like you'll ever know what those ideas mean in practice because you can't understand basic philosophy so I guess you'll be forever be in a state of flux with that one.

He's a genius, folks.

meds eustace. whats next are you gonna say that its all just one guy??? meds NOW

It's like trying to tell an ant it's an ant. People like him are ants. Even though they seem capable of learning at first glance, they aren't.

Why are you talking to yourself?

You can laugh, you can touch type, make strawmen and ad hominems (saying that I came up with the idea of colors is a strawman). But you can't make any coherent argument. ;)

Holy shit, you've been raging for hours now at what is probably just one guy trolling. What is wrong with you?

you can't understand basic philosophy

lmao. source on that claim. fucking retard kek. it's just an endless stream of empty claims and insults from you. kill yourself. :)

strawman

I came up with colors and you're using all of these big fancy words to obfuscate that fact. I did it completely independent of anyone else, too. You could go so far as to call me an idiot of my own making.

inb4 he misses the point

you said that spinoza in dutch was irrelevant

i did not
i said that the similarity of Dutch to English is irrelevant because Spinoza wrote primarily in Latin

no need to deflect

take your own advice
you made an embarrassing mistake, and instead of just admitting it, or even ignoring it, you're going through all kinds of unnecessary contortions and making yourself look even more foolish in the process

source:
nigga cant distinguish between practical and theoretical knowledge

Thanks for once again proving you're a complete moron by quoting someone who isn't even me. lmao

another infantile post not worth responding to the contents of

yeah it's probably just a third worlder with an ai trolling I see now. but people like this are real and i despise them and haven't engaged with them before, that's what's wrong with me.

This argument is such a retarded shit flinging contest and there isn't even anything being argued anymore.
This guy is such an obvious LARP and you queers are still doing this
based logposting
sage
It's only relevant if it's being translated from Dutch. Am I missing something or what? The fuck is even being argued in this thread? please enlighten me

You have literally been arguing with yourself this whole time.

This argument is such a retarded shit flinging contest and there isn't even anything being argued anymore

Of course there isn't. He isn't capable of that. He never was. The entire time the point was just to make him see himself for what he is. But is probably right.

Anon Babble is just one person talking to himself, newfag.

you're both retarded. /thread

And yet here you are, responding to the contents thereof. Funny how that works.

The entire time the point was just to make him see himself for what he is.

Your God?

So are you though.

This whole exchange has only gone to show that you're emotionally fragile about something as pedantic as philosophy, which you claim to not care about, and yet have so much invested in. This thread has been hijacked for quite some time now, but hopefully you'll be able to realize that I'm the person you were originally conversing with.

responding to the contents thereof.

I specifically wrote that so you couldn't misunderstand what I didn't reply to. Yet you managed to do so.

You responded to the contents of the post by calling it infantile. Contents thereof just means "contents of that." Learn to read, please.

which you claim to not care about

Wrong again. You're talking to ghosts, shitbrain.
I specifically said the reason I am here is BECAUSE I care.

Immanuel Skat: The Critique of Pure Feces

That is not responding to the contents. That is labeling the contents. Learn to use your brain.

Sounds like an unhealthy amount of caring for an anonymous image board with poop logs on it. You should've cared more about not posting contradictory garbage.

That only exists in your mind, shitbrain.

Labels are verbal observations of things. You made the observation, so you responded. It ain't that hard.

Yes, obviously I responded, you fucking retard. But not to the content.

Meds, Eustace, meds. Literally every other anon on this board is logposting right now and you're so out of the loop it's truly sad.

Yeah you did, you said that the content was infantile. An infantile post must contain something infantile. Basic reasoning. You need to read up on your phiLOGsophy.

eustace gonna be real mad after this one

meds uhhhhh durr medch

shit tier sharty level post

you never know with this site, sometimes you can discuss something with half intelligent people. other times it's "tireass"

kill yourself tiredass, for all of us.

btw thats my last post, and i wont see your replies ha. eat shit and die you sub 70 iq subhuman

Hey guys, it's Andy Sixx here. I just wanted to express my opinion on all this drama in here. Basically, this guy Eustace got off his meds and he's going into an insane schizo episode right now. He just needs a helping of my shit logs. Hope you guys can get him the medication he needs.

-Andy B

Something lends me to doubt the veracity of these claims. Is it possible that he will, in fact, see our replies?

ok this is actually my last post i wont see your replies now i hope

Because Kant isn't a philosopher, he's a mathematician

Basically, Immanuel Kant wants you to suck a log of shit out of Andy Sixx's asshole.

its mainly about andy and his logs i think