Or better yet, respond to my initial OP 🙂

> Eh, over 24 hours ago we covered this. *Everything in the goddamned Universe* sheds energy. Including humans, rocks, assorted marsupials, Hymenoptera, dying stars, the hopes and dreams of teenage girls, and the eventual heat death of the universe.
@Jym Yep, and that means everything is subject to entropy. See, it's not that hard of a concept... Glad I could help you understand.

In the same way that everything is made of atoms. That does not mean that applying Boyel's Law to the behavior of naked mole rats is somehow legitimate.

By the way, I think my take is the same one you'll find in a lot of physical science focused people. The ability to explain something simply is a great indicator of understanding and the Philosopher's inability to do so with their works is a mark against their galaxy brains. I think it was Einstein who said "if you can't explain it to a child of 6, then you don't understand it." or something of that manner.

> @ETBrooD
>
> Why bother? I mean I'm not a biologist at best I can read graduate texts *slowly* but it's not like it is worth arguing with someone who cannot recognize the difference between physics and biology.


> Eh, over 24 hours ago we covered this. *Everything in the goddamned Universe* sheds energy. Including humans, rocks, assorted marsupials, Hymenoptera, dying stars, the hopes and dreams of teenage girls, and the eventual heat death of the universe.

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

Fucking boomers LMAO

I have no clue what's going on

@ETBrooD He doesn't understand how entropy applies to humans and societies and thinks it only applies to stars or some dumb crap.

I don't experience any entropy, that's just my glow

OH I can understand *not at fucking all* rather easilly.

> By the way, I think my take is the same one you'll find in a lot of physical science focused people. The ability to explain something simply is a great indicator of understanding and the Philosopher's inability to do so with their works is a mark against their galaxy brains. I think it was Einstein who said "if you can't explain it to a child of 6, then you don't understand it." or something of that manner.

@Alex Fahey Philosophers, the good philosophers, nietzsche actually being a great example, typically try to ***pack in additional information*** by writing in a very complicated but concise way. I suggest you try slowing down amd really absorbing the information. Maybe try starting with a science based philosopher like freud or etc.

> I think it was Einstein who said "if you can't explain it to a child of 6, then you don't understand it." or something of that manner.

See this is exactly what I mean, Einstein had an IQ of roughly 160 where Nietzsche is thought to have been between 180-200. Despite what you think of nietzsche's mastery of language and ability to explain extremely complex topics in very concise and ways; millions of people have read his books and he has influenced society to extreme measures from the grave.

> I don't experience any entropy, that's just my glow
@ETBrooD lol

What people don't understand about philosophers is that they write in concepts where most people write in sentences. It is necessary to the job to convey as much information in as full a scope as possible and as concisely as they possibly can. That's how it works. If you don't like it or cannot understand it then perhaps it simply isn't for you rather than being "verbal diarrhea".

I watched a video series deconstructing Nietzsche's and thusly spaketh zarathrustra-chan
My take is his eloquence hides the holes in his ideas.

@ETBrooD Yeah, that often happens

One of the problems with intelligent people in general, really

It may not even, necessarily, have been intentional.

I see no reason to give philosophers any more credit for being honest about their views than any other person tbh

And it wouldn't surprise me if Nietzsche was just trolling all along

Kant is a perfect example 😂

It is most certainly not for me. That's why I often consider their works verbal diarrhea, lol. Regardless of how intelligent I may or may not be, questions of an existential nature draw very little of my attention.

> And it wouldn't surprise me if Nietzsche was just trolling all along
@ETBrooD this tbh, I get a feeling that he liked to fuck with people

I'd like to say that I base my opinion of nietzsche on 2 main factors rather than specific details of his work. These two things being:

1. The insane amount of influence his work has had since his death. If we are judging who the "greatest" is on influence upon modern society then he's up there

2. The fact that his thoughts were extremely novel and that he was basically an enigma of time. If you look into it this will be the main praise of Nietzsche, as well as being the major factor for why people attribute to him 180-200 IQ. He was, essentially, as original and groundbreaking as a person can possibly be.

I'd also like to point out that most people have a hard time looking at things through historical context and that we stand on the backs of giants; nietzsche being one of such giants. Nietzsche had less giants to stand upon. @ETBrooD

We look at him knowing a billion things he couldn't even imagine.

And yet people still read his books

Looking for meaning

Almost nobody reads Kant's books looking for meaning, doing so would mostly be pointless anyway.. Considering Kant basically only made systems of thought that weren't as useful as they seemed and then projected them as existent, *a priori.* Most of his writing is about such things and it's really just him floundering. Like a beached fish with delusions of walking.

In a way Kant was sorta a precursor to post modernism and Nietzsche was a precursor to people who fight postmodernism. Hot take, probably one that will get me flack.

But whatever

"Maybe try starting with a science based philosopher like freud or etc."
My sides

<:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>

Every time I read something Hex says I feel dumber for having done so. This video really is a perfect description of him

It's like your only means of communication rests on binary of uncut autistic junk text and tantrums

<:thinking_clown:590855640268668928>

> "Maybe try starting with a science based philosopher like freud or etc."
> My sides
@Hexidecimark Can you please explain what about this comment you find to be amusing? Just curious.

Every other thing Freud thought was the most fantastical flavor of worthless, which is why almost his whole body of work has basically been discarded

Not saying he wasn't important or very influential, but scientific is a bit of a stretch

You've obviously never read him and obviously don't know what you're talking about. He's still widely taught and respected in and by modern psychology.

You don't even have the slightest inkling of psychology, let alone in a modern sense

Well, psychology isn't a pure science by any metric. However freud was far more scientific minded than most modern psychologists, vast majority of whom do not actually use psychoanalysis. The field is sorta dead tbh.