Yeah but he also has a lot of easily quotable anti-religion sounding sentences, so they pull those out and treat him like this super anti-theist.
Its one of the biggest flaws of philosophy as a field in the modern age. Where people only know these massive figures by soundbites and then building their understanding of the world off them, instead of digesting the massive work that proves and explains said soundbite to a point where it means something completely different.
That's a paragraph. They live only in soundbites, which is the problem I was getting at. He, like most philosophers of the day, have singular sentences they can extract without context to say what they want to hear.
Because god forbid they read the whole book to watch the mental grappling the author's went through and possibly go through it themselves.
Yeah but he also has a lot of easily quotable anti-religion sounding sentences, so they pull those out and treat him like this super anti-theist.
Its one of the biggest flaws of philosophy as a field in the modern age. Where people only know these massive figures by soundbites and then building their understanding of the world off them, instead of digesting the massive work that proves and explains said soundbite to a point where it means something completely different.
That's a paragraph. They live only in soundbites, which is the problem I was getting at. He, like most philosophers of the day, have singular sentences they can extract without context to say what they want to hear.
Because god forbid they read the whole book to watch the mental grappling the author's went through and possibly go through it themselves.