>MOGS Democritus. >MOGS Plato. >MOGS Aristotle. >MOGS Anselm. >MOGS Descartes. >MOGS Hobbes

>MOGS Democritus
>MOGS Plato
>MOGS Aristotle
>MOGS Anselm
>MOGS Descartes
>MOGS Hobbes
>MOGS Spinoza
>MOGS Newton
>Filters Kant
>Filters LULZ
>Filters all midwits
>Filters analytics
>Filters continentals
how did he do it?

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    How can one man be so based?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Voltaire clowned him without even trying

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Reddit.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Voltaire
        Who?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        He clowned him sam harris style and the french and anglos ate it up

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is that Robert Plant?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    he would be ashamed of you, you put his name to shame

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who?

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    i still dont understand the fucking monads. i mean i kinda get it, but its abstract as shit??

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      do you understand the entire debate on substance that was going on? monads are just substances and Leibniz had a pluralistic philosophy so he believed there were many different individual substances, whereas Descartes for example believed there were two constituting the mental world and the physical world, and Spinoza believed there was only one. Try thinking of the Monads as substances and thinking of Substances in terms of Spinoza's and Aristotle's definition of "Substance": "Substance is that which is conceived through itself" and "Substance is that which is neither predicated of or in anything else."

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        huh, i guess i wasnt far off. thanks anon for the effort

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          here are some quotes on the idea you said that it is highly abstract. Leibniz's monadology in no way presupposes that physicals bodies are monadic

          >Interestingly, Leibniz uses the principle of plentitude not only to argue against the atomists’ postulation of empty space, but also against the possibility of simple indivisible atoms themselves. For, Leibniz argues, no matter how small one imagines atoms to be, as long as they are reckoned internally simple and homogenous, the world could still contain more variety, richness, and being if they were more finely divided. He thus draws the characteristic conclusion that “The least corpuscle is actually subdivided in infinitum and contains a world of other creatures which would be wanting in the universe if that corpuscle were an atom, that is, a body of one entire piece without subdivision”
          from stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
          >Finally, the extensive continuity of the physical universe has usually been construed to mean that there is a continuity of becoming. But if we admit that 'something becomes,' it is easy, by employing Zeno's method, to prove that there can be no continuity of becoming.2 There is a becoming of continuity, but no continuity of becoming. The actual occasions are the creatures which become, and they constitute a continuously extensive world. In other words, extensiveness becomes, but 'becoming' is not itself extensive. Thus the ultimate metaphysical truth is atomism. The creatures are atomic. In the present cosmic epoch there is a creation of continuity. Per- haps such creation is an ultimate metaphysical truth holding of all cosmic epochs; but this does not* seem to be a necessary conclusion. The more likely opinion is that extensive continuity is a special condition arising from the society of creatures which constitute our immediate epoch. But atomism does not exclude complexityt and universal relativity. Each atom is a system of all things.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            whoops, second quote is from process and reality by whitehead

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        So basically a noumenon or a form?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >monads are just substances and Leibniz had a pluralistic philosophy
        This oversimplifying Leibniz vastly, he is by no means obviously pluralistic.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Almost no one comes close to this titan. What makes him different from all those other homosexuals is the fact that he was honest and humble.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >>MOGS Democritus
    >>MOGS Plato
    >>MOGS Aristotle
    >>MOGS Anselm
    >>MOGS Descartes
    >>MOGS Hobbes
    >>MOGS Spinoza
    >>MOGS Newton
    Kant
    LULZ
    all midwits
    analytics
    continentals
    MOGGED BY DIOGENES THOUSANDS OF YEAR BEFORE HE WAS BORN OUCH

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    did he really filter Kant?

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    samefag thread. Do not engage. The OP (i.e. the only poster in the thread) is either retarded or a shill. DO NOT ENGAGE

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      saved

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is substance?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      A 3D texture baking suite. Subscription based though. I remain a Blendlet.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >MOGGED by Rene Guenon (PBUH)

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Read his book on calculus and find out

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >MOGS Napoleon

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    anyone of you read his kabbalah book that he ghost wrote for franciscus van helmont?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *