World's greatest Philosopher?

Hah, and guffah. If Nietzche had never been around, it would've been much harder for Fascism to gain the momentum it did.

Not to mention all of the isolated incidents in the world that had nothing to do with Communism.

Fucking Red Columbian Cartels. >=/

Commies everywhere.
 
Fascsim needed Communism in the same way that Satanism needs Christanity. Mousillini and the like fed on the fear of the irrational, violent Communist hordes.
 
John Uskglass said:
To be fair, Adam Smith is not responsible for almost everything negative in the 20th Century, unlike Marx.
Click to expand...

You could blame Smiths views on economy for the worldwide economic depression in the inter World War period and the resulting rise of nazism in Germany and the subsequent second World War resulting in tens of millions of deaths and thereby promoting Smith to one hell of a massmurderer. But then again I always found it silly to blaim some persons actions on another persons theories. Especially if those theories are wrapped in beehive metaphors. Quite silly.
 
Honestly, I would have expected you to have come with something better as in Smith wouldn't have supported the absurd debts caused by the Versailles treaty thereby causing governments to adopt massive inflation and thus flattening the middle class. But blaming a worldwide economic depression on a single tariff. Bold.

The point was obviously missed though, and I won't reiterate. Soviet economy came through the depression quite alright you see.
 
You could blame Smiths views on economy for the worldwide economic depression in the inter World War period
Click to expand...

However, if Smith's view on economics hadn't been so widely implemented, the Global Economy wouldn't have even been in the position to suffer the crash it did. It'd simply be in Depression conditions.

The Depression was also caused directly by the First World War, and the schism it caused in the major industrial powers and their financial institutions.

Also:

Fascsim needed Communism in the same way that Satanism needs Christanity.
Click to expand...

Scapegoat is as scapegoat does. Keep in mind that Hitler was able to wrest control by convincing his followers that Democracy was an inherently weak institution, and that people needed to follow him if they wanted Germany to become a great nation again. Using Communists as a scapegoat was mostly lip service, as the Nazis had all of the power. If you have absolute power, you don't have to justify anything.
 
John Uskglass said:
Fascsim needed Communism in the same way that Satanism needs Christanity. Mousillini and the like fed on the fear of the irrational, violent Communist hordes.
Click to expand...
Like they fed on the fear of the Jewish world-conspiracy. See, the Italian fasci di combattimento were as well anti-democratic as anti-socialistic, anti-communistic , capitalism-critical, anti-liberalistic, racist, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic. All they needed was enemy to present to the masses. They did chose Judaism and Communism, but they could have chosen anything "threatening" and "evil" else.
The national socialists got their strength an acceptance from the so called "Dolchstoßlegende" (stab-in-the-back legend) which says that Germany could have won WWI without any problem if democrats, Jews and communists haven't m to attack the glorious German troops from behind, "THOSE RED TRAITORS!".
They just needed an enemy and a scapegoat, it could have been someone else, not necessarily communism.
Fascism does not need communism. It is just another stupid "those traitors cause all the trouble"-theory.
 
Alternative History is fun but pointless. Nazism was beleived to be an alternative to Communism, thus the common German fell for it.
 
This discussion is fun, but pointless. Nazism was beleived [sic!] to be an alternative to the not working Weimar Republic, thus the common German fell for it.
:roll:
 
Nietzche is my favorite. Kant is good but ridiculously hard to read.

Nietzche makes all these points that are so devastatingly logical that you find yourself agreeing with the most outrageous statements.
 
I couldn't honestly say I'd read any philosophy. Perhaps it's the limited British education system or perhaps it because we get all our philosophy amateur-style from strange old men in the pub (or on park benches after closing time).
 
"All of philosophy is but a footnote to Plato"

Retarded? The guy, while being a bit confusing, touches upon almost every conceivable subject of philosophy that we debate today. Some of his ideas are still around in the neo-Platonic form. Not to mention of course that every philosopher there has probably read of him, if not his works themselves in order to get their ideas off the ground.


Also, where are the Eastern philosophers, hmm?
 
I'm pretty serious about Plato. That he was early and influential cannot be denied, but that doesn't mean he was much good in his own right (i.e. as a philosopher rather than a teacher). His social/political views were pretty dire, and as far as intellectual effort is concerned he's dwarfed by Aristotle (although maybe he stole Plato's lecture notes, what do I know).
 
If Sun Tzu can be counted as a philospher (which he probably can) I'd consider him to be my favorite. His ideas are fundamental and powerful.
 
I always thought Sun Tzu was more a series of maxims than a philosophy, and short of strategy for war (ok maybe business) not very useful.

The Western bias perhaps. But the time when Asian societies had been more advanced then Western counterparts had llong since apsed by the time of the Opium Wars.
 
Sun Tzu's teachings can be applied in so many ways in your life. Often I remind myself of certain maxims that are almost always true:

"Never move
except for gain

Never deploy
except for victory

Never fight
Except in a crisis."
 
Sun Tzu probably ranks as the most overrated people of all time. Half a dozen Grecco-Romans where smarter when it came to war. Just play R:TW for the loading screens to read a better philosopher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top