Philosophy

seconding this. This is basic philosophy you would be guided through more or less skillfully in any university. Once you get through there, in chronological time you are approaching the French revolution and from there you have to visit Hegel. Going back in time, I'd recommend Dao De Ching and Aristotle's Metaphysics.

While I'm here posting, I've found that I've not been able to understand the Greeks to my satisfaction for want of reading and understanding their language, or at least their main terms, so I can understand it in its own terms and not English. I understand some like hypokeimenon and phenomenon but it's just not enough. Any resources or tips?

"The Ego and Its Own" by Max Stirner.

Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, Marx, and Bookchin.

Hobbes would support existing Leftist authoritarian regimes that were already in power, but not new revolutionary ones
he is anti-revolution

I like this autistic faggot.

hegel and fichte

The OG

He looks like serial killer

Zizek

Not that user, but "Critique of Pure Reason" is interesting even if you don't agree with his ethics. Though I wish he had time to learn how to write more intelligibly.

Epicurus, duh. Even some YouTube channels I've seen have acknowledged his influence on Marx.

That said, I'm a total philistine regarding literature on him.

Zeno >>> Epicurus

Buddha

His philosophy is highly applicable to day to day life and practicing meditation and mindfulness has greatly improved my life. Dont know whether he would be considered leftist or apolitical though.

are stirnerites just libertarians?

Marx.

It wasn't until I read him that the world started making sense.

wasn't he a proto-liberal?

libertarians are spooked on sacred property rights and sanctity of contract (when removing state from equation only some serious spooky shit could ever enforce it)

Am I the only one who thinks antiquity is grossly overrated and if we erased entirety of pre-modern history nothing of value would be lost?

Not at all.
In-fact many pseudo-intellectual dregs, black nationalists and lazy theology/philosophy students would agree with you.

That does not make you correct however.

Marx wrote his doctoral thesis on Epicurean philosophy.

Heidegger, one of the smartest thinkers in history, arguably btfo'd 2400 years of philosophy. If you want to understand 20th century philosophy you have to listen and re-listen to two semeters on him, read 5 introductory books on him, and then read an academic companion while you read him.

Don't forget to take a daily walk outside

Well, he had specific terms for when a revolution would be justified.

Like, when a government violates its own social contract with its subjects (i.e its own laws) then revolt would be just.

b8

me

My man

yes

nope, that's locke iirc

Novatore is pretty dope. He advocates revolution from an egoist perspective, and writes really flowery but enjoyable prose. Too bad he died in a shootout with cops before he could write more.

unironically the Unabomber's manifesto

jean-jacques rousseau.

i recommend everything he wrote. personally, i consider him more important than marx.

Pyrrho, Heraclitus, Parmenides are the big ones in Ancient Times for me. Spinoza and Hume are pretty dank, love me that critique of causality. In modern times the greats are Debord and Baudrillard.

Books: for Pyrrho you have to read Outlines of Pyyrhonism by Sextus Empiricus. sciacchitano.it/pensatori epistemici/scettici/outlines of pyrronism.pdf

For Heraclitus there's just fragments: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus

Parmenides has a Plato dialog about him classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html but don't worry there's fragments of him too: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Parmenides

Spinoza I would read the treatise over the ethics: yesselman.com/ttpelws1.htm

Hume I would read book one of his Treatise where he breaks down why causality is retarded gutenberg.org/files/4705/4705-h/4705-h.htm#link2H_4_0004

Debord you have to read the Comments on Society of the Spectacle, it's way better: notbored.org/commentaires.html

Baudrillard is the GOAT so you have to read all his shit unfortunately. Just kidding I would go with the spirit of terrorism (monoskop.org/images/7/7a/Baudrillard_Jean_The_Spirit_of_Terrorism_2003.pdf) and then Mirror of Production for the critique of Marxism: dlx.b-ok.org/genesis/256000/975d2aa33ed943ddc94b58db48db0546/_as/[Jean_Baudrillard,_Mark_Poster]_The_Mirror_of_Prod(b-ok.org).pdf.

Will Comments make sense without having read the original

Do you recommend reading society of the spectacle before, after "comments on" or none at all?

I've read about Baudrillard's theories in simulation and simulacra, but haven't actually read the book. I find them very interesting and in many ways do fit what we see in real life, plus being very cyberpunk and futuristic in general. I was planning on reading it soon. Any reason why you like the ones you mention more than his popular "simulation and simulacra" book?

and Hobbes

Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, Searle, Quine, Russell, Moore, Ayer, Kripke, Diogenes, Kant, Hume, Upham, Church… oh and Buddha is fairly lefty and his teachings are #lit (esp Theravada and Zen)

zizek is NOT a philosopher

Hobbes was explicitly against any right to revolution iirc. He was writing in reaction to the English Civil war, and supported the catholic royalists.

Little Emile Cioran, he may be a mistic but his prose is unmatched

yes he basically said it was only justifiable when the state murders its citizens (so really liberals / statists ought to love #BLM more than they already do)

Hobbes I think is the most formidable enemy of anarchists

cynics > stoics > epicureans

you know, just ´coz anarchists still can´t figure out a world without states

Ayn Rand

yeah

Hobbes was a genius. It's hard to believe that he was an anglo.

It´s a nice effort lad but do you expect me to read all that now? On a Friday after work? Let us chill

D&G

if you already read your daily quota of Hobbes today, then you are exempt

He's really a pleasure to read. Some of his ideas are a bit rotten but there's no denying that he was a great philosopher and deserves more respect.

That better not be Deleuze and Guattari or I will see your body 'without organs', antiphilosopher

this, D/G are mystics, not fucking philosophers.

D&G aren't mystics, I've found that mystical works often have a lot of very useful advice once you strip out the obfuscatory language and idealist philosophy. If you stripped that stuff out of D&G you'd be left with nothing because their work is terminally devoid of an actual point.

">Who is your favorite (leftist) philosopher"

He asked specifically for leftists philosophers.
Thats why the other guy said "plato being left. ha".

Do you understand it now?
I could try to explain it on an even more simple and basic manner if you'd like.

I know reading is hard for you leftists.

kindly kys you'reself tbqh.

...

...