I must admit. I never thought I'd meet another human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only a philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.

I must admit. I never thought I'd meet another human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.

I must admit. I never thought I'd meet an other human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.