Hat are some Holla Forums approved philosophers for stuff like ethics, epistemology, aesthetics...

Just make sure to read "Enjoy Your Symptom" beforehand, because otherwise you're gonna end up in a giant post-modern clusterfuck of cynical ideology

Lukacs and other theorists who take early Marx's Aristotelian onto-normativity of essence. Human essence is free-labor, thus all of ethics and social a political philosophy is towards the end of realizing this essence. If we can judge a dog as a good or bad dog according to the essence of a dog, we can judge humans as faulty or lacking in the same way (and we do). Society is just a condition of enabling our essential realization, which means that to maximize our realizay of potentials we need a society that can enable us to do so.

Hegelian ethics is supposedly also about a theory of freedom, but it goes beyond a thesis of creative and expressive labor. Not quite sure how Marx really can differ from Hegel if he had taken a dialectic of free labor to a final conclusion.

Alisdair McIntyre is a favorite of Marxists, pragmatists, and some Hegelians.

Jay Bernstein has what I think is a very interesting Adornian theory of ethics.

unironicly this man

stirner

The part about Lukacs sounds interesting, I really want to read him now.
Reading McIntyre's page on wikipedia he sounds kind of rightwards, why would he be a favorite of marxists?
Bernstein sounds interesting but very minor

I'm unsure about this list, may as well just read philosophers at random

It literally isn't though. His metaphysical position is stated in his later work (probably just to distinguish himself from Hegel), but never elaborated on in any meaningful sense. He owes hes metaphysical and epistemological foundation to Kant and Hegel.

Max Stirner

Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, WVO Quine (inb4 analytic philosophy isn't compatible with Hegelian metaphysics reeeeeeeeee)

I know nothing about aesthetics. I am sorry.

Big boy GFW

Also unironically this.

Oh, I only meant that as people who are worth the read, really - create your own path!

This but I can't tell if ironic or not.

I'm not interested in general philosophy, I only want to compliment the marxism I have

Just saying "spooks" does not make you appear smart, you actual brainlet.

This is why the left turns to shit even when it wins.

- varg

I agree with here. That said, these philosophers were all integral to the development of modern Marxian philosophy; however, with that attitude on what you're trying to get out of it - you're bound to hit a snag in that you'll be inevitably confronted with a choice between ideology and discursive process…to which the pessimists view is that you'll give up, denounce one or another philosopher as trite and recalcitrant pretenders to communism, or that you'll simply call them post-modernist and cast them aside

'aight den
Is there like a short curse on philosophy to abbreviate all this crap?

No, you need Varg's antithesis- Pentti Linkola

He's right at least on one philosopher on the list. Badiou has a really great view on ethics. Mind mending stuff, read "Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil"

I'm admittedly a part of the Badiou Gang. Hopefully there will be more of us someday.

Why does leftypol love explicit ecofash so much?

On the topic of Finland Georg Henrik von Wright is also good on critique of progress and the modern world

Arne Næss is a Norwegian environmental philosofer who is also quite influential

he is just a pretty good meme tbh

I study philosophy in Finland with an explicitly anti-progress, anti-enlightenment philosophy and not even a guy like that takes Linkola seriously

Fuck off and read rafiq.
revleft.com/vb/threads/193790-the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here
revleft.com/vb/threads/194384-Anti-ecologist-arguments
revleft.com/vb/threads/195850-Does-the-abolishment-of-private-property-extend-to-pet-ownership

Because truth transcends arbitrary left/right division.

ur gonna have to be slightly more specific in your critique, spouting a random slogan that doesn't apply to the philosophers, (except Linkola).

or just tell me exactly what to read

I mean just critiquing the general direction of humanity and ruthless and unsustainable exploitation of nature doesn't necessarily imply you have to believe in "spiritual nature" or whatever.

...

I really enjoy the idea that our current direction of industrialization and pollution is somehow in a utilitarian sense unquestionably beneficial to all of humanity.

I do, as do most people. As do you probably, if you were pressed a little. don't quite enjoy the notion that any political idea or struggle that isn't directly correspondent with the ideas of the second international are by necessity stupid liberal shit.

In this view that an accelerating technological progress by necessity leads to a better world you are revealing that you are steeped in ideology. The ideology of the enlightenment which sees humanity's march as an inevitable stroll towards progress. Despite all the horrors of the 20th century people keep insisting on this.

No it doesn't you notsoc

Never seen the young Althusser before.

ayn-rand tier list, tbh

The more I understand Marxist spinozists (Althusser, Badiou) the more I see how Zizek's critique of them is spot on.

makes you think, no?

another rare picture: althusser as prisoner No 70670 in the camp Stalag XA in Schleswig in northern Germany

That's just Ryan Gosling with a shit haircut.

Lets talk bullshit about social constructs.

Why don't you just say that you want an actor to play Althusser?

add to modern Sloterdijk Peter

contemporary nihilism goes well with anarchism, recomented to all bitter and insecure fucks like me.

Which zizek book critiques them the most?

He doesn't. Zizek, Althusser, and Badiou are very much of the same philosophical strain - to separate the former from the two latter makes no sense at all, as their ideas are basically contiguous minus a few minute points. Likewise, to call Badiou and Althusser Spinozists is so very far off the mark, respect to the other user but to imagine such betrays either a conflict of ideas or an act of horrible exegesis

Bump

Choose whichever you feel like. Go crazy! Anyway, it's not you choosing it, it's your societal conditions determining them.