|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Signed up: |
5 years ago (6/11/07)
|
|
|
Last signed in:
|
3 months ago
|
| |
|
|
|
Block |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophy ConversationHere's a conversation between philosophers, summarizing what each has brought to the table of human thought. Feel free to pitch in.
Descartes:
I think this sucks.
Buddha:
This sucks.
Socrates:
Why must this suck?
Aristotle:
We can figure out why this sucks.
Hobbes:
People suck.
Plato:
People must be molded not to suck.
Jesus:
Let's just try to make things suck less.
Tertullian:
What he said.
Augustine:
But it's okay to suck in the meantime.
Aquinas:
And we should still try to learn why we suck so much.
Luther:
You people have forgotten what it means to try and suck less. By the way, let's kill Jews.
Rousseau:
I don't think things have always sucked this much ...
Hobbes:
Yes, they have. In fact, things sucked even more.
Rousseau:
Hey, how come you get to go twice?
Hobbes:
Because you're horribly wrong.
Machiavelli:
Things will suck less for you if you get me a job.
Hume:
To suck is the power of altering realms of thought in another's conscious, and allows for enhancement in the positive direction by the concoction of needlessly abstract definitions delivered with flamboyant vigor.
Locke:
If I work at it, I can suck a little less than that guy.
Marx:
If we all suck together in just the right way, we will magically stop sucking.
Mill:
People should be allowed to suck however they want.
Nietzsche:
This really sucks, mostly because of you people.
Kant:
Things will suck less later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Watch
Invite to Group
Humans don't suck together; we all suck alone at the same time.
Me
Humans is stupid.
You suck because of what you have done causes you to suck!
You deserve to suck!!
I think it's generally on point, though clearly non-comprehensive, only chronological in spurts, and it has a strong western bias. Many entries, such as for Descartes, Socrates, ect., are not so much expressing a belief of the philosopher as they are highlighting what that author is known for. For example, Descartes' determination that thinking is the proof of existence is the foundation which had to be articulated before any other philosophies could be reasonably established, which I felt earned in him the opening line. But he didn't really have much to say about "this," or whether or not it "sucks." The Rousseau-Hobbes dialogue is in regard to their well-known contradictory beliefs about the state of nature.
I think Plato's is pretty dead-on. A lot of his writings focused on how society should be structured to try and perfect humanity. I really like Machiavelli's statement because, besides being known for encouraging self-serving and deceitful behavior, The Prince was only circulated to various leaders at the time in the hopes that one of them would hire him. It's essentially the most well-known job application ever. I think I botched Nietzsche, though. He's a hard man to understand, let alone paraphrase.
The section on Christian theologians is mostly about war and it's heavily based on my opinions. I think Jesus was quite obviously a pacifist, thus early Christian philosophers like Tertullian believed (correctly) that you couldn't be a "good" Christian and a soldier simultaneously. Augustine and subsequent Christian theologians believed people could legitimately use force to defend their faith without disobeying Christian beliefs (in other words, it's "okay to suck"). I think it's pretty clear that the Christian tradition, in its purest form, allows no room for making war. I'm not saying people who hold a Christian faith cannot be soldiers; I'm an agnostic, after all, so Christian soldiers out there will have to come to their own conclusions. I'm just saying that I find the arguments of Augustine and others on the subject to be extremely unpersuasive when matched against a common-sense reading of the Gospels and the straightforward and logical arguments made by Tertullian and other early Christian thinkers. It's pretty clear to me that later Christian theologians were grasping at straws, theologically speaking, in an attempt to twist Christianity until it was suitable as a dominant religion in a sinful society.
Aquinas' statement bears a relationship with Aristotle's because Aquinas' major contribution to Christian/western thought was to demonstrate how the teachings of Aristotle, who exalted the use of reason and the advancement of the sciences, were in harmony with Christian principles.
I don't have any respect for Luther for a variety of reasons, so I merely wanted his statement to convey that he thought everyone else was wrong even though his belief system was also deeply flawed.
So, let's go with funny.
Post edited 2/21/11 9:09PM