Holla Forums's Recommended Philosophers

Sure, German War is Nicholas Stargardt

Imperium is Francis Parker Yockey, its basically the sequel to decline of the west.

thanks, definitely going to check it out

A real human bean.

...

Look up a more obscure Greek philosopher named Demonax. Pragmatic cynic thinker.

How about Weber, Smith and Mill? These 3 are coming soon after the Social Comtract thinkers, and I've heard of the latter 2 before in my other subjects while Weber is said to be the counter balance to Marx during the time.

He's the best philosopher for morality by far. Also look into Descartes.

Mill was a feminist and a degenerate but his views on competition between companies was pretty realistic.

I was able to study him during basic philosophy class and he's too much of an idealist for me. It wouldn't be practical to expect a lot of people to do good in a situation just because of duty and innate goodness. If they did do it out of duty, it would be ridiculous to say that these people didn't feel forced to do so in some of these events.

Marcus Aurelius

Oh yeah, I remembered that in my reading for another class. Utilitarianism is a useful tool though, in regards to forming alliances and making tough choices.

...

Aristotle, Aquinas and as for modern Thomists/Aristotelians Edward Feser and Peter Kreeft.

Utilitarianism is as superficial as communism imho. No depth required to comprehend, just strictly material analysis.

I don't think Eastern orthodoxy is better than Catholicism, but explaining the difference between these two is equivalent to explaining the importance of Aquinas and Augustine.

absolutelydisgusting.jpg

For the quick guide check >>>/32/1749

Hegel is best imo, but learn about everybody and come to your own conclusions, philosophy is a conversation, and it's hard to jump in the middle of it without context.

Apart from what everyone else has said - try Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau for social contract theory.

It would be nice if we could build a comprehensive flowchart of all the major philosophies, a short summary of their ideas and arrows showing chronological order and their influences/who they influenced

Augustine is pretty boring. Keep re-reading Plato; try to understand what he's saying and what he's not saying. Hobbes and Spinoza are great. Mill's "On Liberty" is great, the rest of his stuff was so-so.

Randall Collins, "The Sociology of Philosophies", has exactly that kind of flowchart, although his diagrams are split up over many chapters.

I have this info graphic

For the conscience of the whole, the pre-socratics and that unjewed jew:
* Heraclitus
* Parmenides
* Epicurus
* Democritus
* Spinoza

Historical understanding, ontology and economy:
* Hegel
* Engels
* Marx
* Proudhon
* Heidegger (only for Introduction to Metaphysics)

Social aspects:
* Tocqueville
* Gustave le Bon
* Rousseau

Regarding modernity:
* Nietzsche
* Guy Debord
* Gramsci
* Amadeo Bordiga
* [some french authors]

This.

forced to do so… out of duty?

Trashman

If you haven't touched any philosophical works before, then Marcus Aurelius - "Meditations" is a must, it is just 100 pages or so and it gives you the first glimpse on introspective thinking and analysing the world around you.

After that, you can dwelve into Plato and Aristotle as they are pretty much the first pillars on western thinking.

Kant is a chapter due to his way of writing (="transcendental deduction and unity")

Leave works like Evola and Guenon as last on your list as their works are based on that you have read or the knowledge of the beforementioned. Add to that, their works are very esoteric and dwelve into metaphysics, which requires quite a lot of knowledge to actually understand what they are trying to say.

NIETZSCHE

Whatever you do, spend a lot of time reading Nietzsche. He's the most important philosopher to read today (as far as I know). And he's very difficult to understand, often misunderstood, and he wrote a lot of interesting books, he it will probably take you years to fully absorb him.

Yea, it might be nice to read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, but they aren't necessary and they are really long, dry reads - probably not worth the time. If you go back to them after reading Nietzsche you'll be quickly bored because you'll know know all their flaws.

Yea you can read Meditations by Aurelius, but I'd hesitate to call that philosophy. It's mildly interesting, but it's very simplistic, primitive, and personal.

Yea you can read the Greeks - Plato, Aristotle, and the others - but they aren't all that necessary either. However I'd probably pick them over Kant and the other Germans, and they can be a good starting point for someone just getting into philosophy who wants to wade in the shallower waters.

After you read Nietzsche, you can go on to more modern philosophers, but don't have high hopes. I haven't read them all yet, but all of the ones I have read have been lousy with the possible exception of Wittgenstein (need to read more to say). Most of them took an ideas or two from Nietzsche and recycled them in a very inferior, academic way, or took them in a stupid, backwards direction. I definitely would not recommend the likes of Satre, for example.

…youre a little young to be here

Why do you think that?

P.S. - Whatever you do, stay away from Stephan Molyneux.

Carl Jung

“We are always convinced that the modern world is a reasonable world, basing our opinion on economic, political, and psychological factors. […] In fact, I venture the heretical suggestion that the unfathomable depths of Wotan’s character explain more of National Socialism than all three reasonable factors put together.” –Dr. Carl Gustav Jung

“When, for instance, the belief in the God Wotan vanished and nobody thought of him anymore, the phenomenon originally called Wotan remained; nothing changed but its name, as National Socialism has demonstrated on a grand scale. A collective movement consists of millions of individuals, each of whom shows the symptoms of Wotanism and proves thereby that Wotan in reality never died, but has retained his original vitality and autonomy. Our consciousness only imagines that it has lost its Gods; in reality they are still there and it only needs a certain general condition in order to bring them back in full force.” –Dr. Carl Gustav Jung

Memes are all you need to understand, OP. There are 7 Hermetic Principles that dictate the manifestation and behavior of everything extant. Usually we don't have to apply these to ourselves, because we live in a world of safe mundane submemes, however for the sake of Awakening you are going to have get deep.

Avoid anything jewish-influenced, mysticism is all about attaching the submeme powers to false higher constructs. It is there to 'mystify' you. Only existential cucks want something this profound and deluded.
Philosopher king is the most double-think sorcery I have seen cast on the minds of men. Fuck the triumvirate. Beware of anything dank OP, you are step into true science with anything beyond yourself (beyond the mundane). Enjoy your stay, don't send yourself to hell like my best mate just did.

Never disregard information though, we are always above belief. [Trigger warning newfags] Here's my archive, 5500 pdfs or so, mostly entry-level esoteric stuff. As I see most philosophy and scholastic conjecture as exoteric material, I'm sure you'll like what I've got in there.

The Silmarils / Morgoth's archive - mega.nz/#F!pJNACA5R!yRmrvwQwHAVSwBrhkuj1Ow!oQkk3RTD

Also essential for those who have had their existence defined by society (Shit cunts). Surprisingly light :>

The Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord (1973) (Book is in my archive)
youtube.com/watch?v=IoUIHBSiVAY

I second this.

The description of modernity as an immense accumulation of spectacles is really spot on.
Basically the description of what Orwell theorized earlier and the essential understanding that Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.
Free yourselves, break the intermediates, tear up the images, establish a unmoving link between yourself and the world.

With the destruction of history, contemporary events themselves retreat into a remote and fabulous realm of unverifiable stories, uncheckable statistics, unlikely explanations and untenable reasoning.

Definitely Roger Scruton. He writes about the importance of classical beauty, of the virtues of European culture and in particular of conserving old European traditions, of the ugliness of modernity, of the evils of communism (he worked with the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian underground in the 70s), and he uses past philosophies and his own to offer people a way out of the despair and ugliness we find ourselves in. He literally wrote the book on "How to be a Conservative".

He's just great to read and listen to (there's a few vids on jewtube, including a documentary he narrates on the importance of classical beauty vs the degenerate mess we have today).

This video is very good at explaining why we're unhappy with the modern world, and why it is objectively bad, in very eloquent and persuasive ways. He makes a good subtle redpill because he endorses conservatism without being political.

Lothrop Stoddard

Ahead of his time, you can actually buy some of his original books on ebay. Or look at them online for free on Archive.org

Personal favorites:
"The rising tide of color against white world-supremacy" = archive.org/stream/risingtideofcolo00stoduoft#page/n7/mode/2up
"Re-Forging America"
"Racial realities in Europe" = babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89013486980;view=1up;seq=5

He was not anti-semitic in the open sense of kill all the Jews but as his journal said:
"Stoddard was taken aback by the forthrightness of the Nazis' anti-Jewish views, foreseeing that the "Jewish problem" would soon be settled "by the physical elimination of the Jews themselves from the Third Reich.""

Essentially a "You have to back"

Kind of like Hitler in those times, where he was sending the Jews too Palestine.

By the way he was talking about White Genocide before WWI.

Update from my previous post found Stoddard's The Pedigree of Judah = unz.org/Pub/Forum-1926mar-00321

Article written in 1926:
"During the past two or three generations, to be sure, opposite
tendencies have appeared in Jewish life. The nineteenth century
witnessed the so-called Emancipation Movement among the
Jews of Western Europe. Freed from their legal disabilities,
emerging from their Ghettos, and casting off the discipline of the
rabbis, the West European Jews modified their ideals, and many
went so far as to reject the doctrine of racial exclusiveness or
even to consider the possibility of assimilation with their Gentile
neighbors. On the other hand, the present generation has wit-
nessed the rise of "Zionism", philosophically a reaction
against the Emancipation Movement and a reaffirmation (in
modern terms) of Jewish race-consciousness and separatism.
Modern Jewry is thus mentally in a state of transition, full of
contradictory tendencies whose outcome is uncertain. Discussion
of these tendencies falls outside the scope of this article, which is
concerned with the biological background of the Jewish problem.
To have set forth that biological background, however, is, in the
writer's opinion, a necessary prerequisite to those other aspects
which will be the task of subsequent articles."

List of Philosophers to read:

Germans:
Goethe
Kant
Nietzche
Schopenhauer
Hegel
Heidegger
Husserl
Marx & Engels
Stirner

Greeks:
Aristotle
Plato
Epicurus
Heraclitus
Marcus Aurelius

Libertarians:
Bastiat
Hayek
Goldman
Rothbard
Ayn Rand to understand libertarian autism

Classical Liberals:
Locke
JS Mills
Bentham
Hume
Rousseau
Malthus
Ricardo
Adam Smith

Enemies:
Adorno
Gramsci
Lenin
Trotsky
freud
Horkheimer

others:
russel
wittgenstein
kierkegaard

aurelius should be in roman but w/e

...

Start with Haidt. That book is top-tier. Then I'd recommend The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics. Those two will give you some of the best and most immediately relevant insights about modern politics.
It's an amazing work of philosophy, but it's one of the most difficult books to read out there. I highly recommend starting with something easier or at least getting a guide to the reading of Hegel; that book is notorious for being impenetrable.

Yeah, but it's not genuine. Just like a charity teacher who always shows up to teach but if given the free choice, he wouldn't do so. It's just done out of fear of shame that will come from your peers since you didn't do your duty. This runs the risk of a lower quality of the good deed. Going back to my example of the teacher, the unmotivated teacher may just teach and give homework for the sake of it, regardless if the info is lacking that the student would be screwed during a test or the homework is too laborious without really assessing the student's understanding of the lesson.

I was thinking more so disappointing yourself

Heraclitus was pretty good. Some of the pre-Socratics were based as fuck.

Plato and Aristotle are must reads (Plato was a bit more transcendent but Aristotle was a bit more of a materialist.) Read the 'Four Dialogues on the Trial and Death of Socrates' as well as 'The Republic' for Gods sake, they are integral.

Cicero is based as fuck even though he should've sided with Caesar.

Marcus Aurelius is great, however not really all that political.

Plotinus is fantastic, very important to understanding Neoplatonism, early Christian and Islamic theology.

Boethuis is also important for early/medieval theology, he's also based as fuck.

Thomas Aquinas is core to a lot of Christian and general philosophy of the High to Late Middle ages, however his works are long and very difficult to penetrate.

Machiavelli does great realpolitik.

Edmund Burke's writings on the French Revolution are very important, as well as Joseph de Maistre's.

Hegel is quite important, he influenced many important 19th century philosophers including Nietzsche.

Nietzsche has been mentioned by others and is obviously a must read. Start with 'Thus Spake Zarathustra'.

Many move onto Evola (who is an obvious pick and should be studied closely) after Nietzche however there are many others too chose from after that.

Who to avoid:

Kant is very meh. He's written on virtually every topic and in many places he's quite hyper liberal and idealistic.

People like John Locke and utilitarians like John Stuart Mill can basically be narrowed down to 'muh freedom'.

Rousseau is a source for a lot of the bullshit pervading modern society, although he makes some decent points.

Descartes can be good but a lot of his stuff can be narrowed down to scientism.

Thoughts on Hobbes and David Ricardo?

Hobbes' 'Leviathan' is an interesting and important book although I am quite critical of the Social Contract theory.

I don't think much of Ricardo. I don't really consider economists to really be philosophers.

Thank you everyone for contributing to this thread. Summer is usually the perfect time to catch up on any reading you can't usually do during the year. Archive: archive.is/TQhOW

Thoughts on the Orientals?

The Confucians, the Taoists, the Legalists, and the Neo-Confucians?

I'm quite ignorant when it comes to the writings of yellow people, sorry.

An user directed my attention to Anthony Ludovici roughly two years ago on 8chn, I'll pass on the favor to you newfags. The following site available has all you could ever want in modern practicality.

anthonymludovici.com/

Try Cicero, OP. He's not really a full philosopher as such, but he sure does have his moments.

He's the father of post-modernism denial of objective reality. He's cancer.

kill yourself

archive.org/details/Imperium_352

More Germans:
Hamann
Novalis
Herder
von Humboldt
Fichte
Schelling
Schopenhauer
Scheler
Hans Freyer
Othmar Spann

Voegelin and Schmitt are less kikey

Is Lucian's Life of Demonax the only resource on him?

Stefan Molyneux.

For fuck's sake, all of the Germans you listed are trash.
MARCUS AURELIUS WAS A ROMAN EMPEROR
Seriously, from your shit list, only the Greeks + Hayek are good.
The rest are imbeciles.

Another shit list.

Holla Forums don't know philosophy
If you're a newfag lurking, consider only Aristotle, Plato, Seneca, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius and St. Thomas Aquinas
Nietzsche is good to some extent
Goethe is very good, but only philosophically, as he tried to enter in the science realm too, ridiculously, by trying to apply his metaphysics to the real world truths (his Color's Theory is retardation of the maximum level)

Those are the basics, the list is meant to be short. After you read them, you'll be able to judge by yourself who to read next, instead of relying in pseudos anywhere

But, to guide you in your start, read "Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius" translated by Gregory Hays, then proceed to Aristotle and then Plato

Not defending anyone else, but everyone should read Heraclitus.

note that i recognised my error in the very next post. Also how can goethe, who i listed, be good when you said all of the germans i listed were trash?

Camus is a personal favorite

dude wtf are you doing?

Heraclitus is great. Unfortunately not much of his original writings survives.

Utilitarianism is virtue ethics for the spiritually oblivious.

Spinoza was hardly unJewed. Being excommunicated by Jews is not like being excommunicated by a Church.

Yeah, you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Since no one mentioned it yet, here we go. Pic related on holons, something like meme-fractals of reality.

Oops, I guess I have no clue what I'm talking about. :^)

Oswald Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey, Kerry Bolton and Julius Evola.

Confucians, Legalists, and the Medieval Eastern Neocons are the only worthwhile eastern thinkers, IMO. Remember: Neo-Confucianism was not confined to China.

Just go away, Stirner represents the ultimate selfishness and nihilism.

You went on and on about how Nietzsche is the only worthwhile modern philosopher, and dismissed everyone who came before him in his movement without naming the one guy who actually gives him a run for his money. Are you familiar with Stirner? Or do you genuinely buy into the kike hype surrounding Big N?

He's better than Nietzsche.

No, he probably matches your selfish and nihilist liberal millennial upbringing, thus, you find him better.
He has this retarded Anarchism too, and he thinks that the people have agency or that the mob is capable of intellect instead of the hard truth that it is just swayed by the powerful.
Also, he's "cool" - just look at how those intellectually pathetic people of Holla Forums meme him like children do with their superheroes.

Maybe his image has been subverted by (((people))). Anyway, I think Plato's "Republic" is one of the most important philosophy books. "Leviathan", most of Nietzsche work and Descartes' "Discours de la méthode".

`>>6240464
I'm not even advocating his philosophy, I'm just pointing out to you that he's got better arguments than Nietzsche and preceded him. I don't think Nietzsche was the end-all be-all of philosophy, anyway–I'm just suggesting that you eat the slightly less rotten apple, or fuck the slightly tighter vagina attached to the more fertile woman. Nietzsche has been done to death, and there are so many interpretations of him (many of which are explicit attempts to distance his philosophy from National Socialism) that it's hardly even worth trying to apply his observations to reality.
Nietzsche spouts so many things and makes so few arguments supporting his positions that he ought to be read as a poet rather than as a philosopher. Stirner, at least, accepts a few philosophical premises in his work when he departs from a Hegelian position from the beginning of The Ego and Its Own.
On top of all that, involuntary egoism is a much more realistic position than one which seeks to pursue the ideal of the Overman, which is nothing but a new fixed idea for a new era.

...

Only for the slave morality.

What have you done to overcome your humanity?

...

Whereas I measure human value by: strength (mental/physical), intelligence, knowledge, morality and aesthetics.
I improve myself in all of those that aren't decided at birth.

My claim–that the Overman is an unrealizable ideal–is something that isn't even hard to extract from Nietzsche. The other claim–involuntary egoism is more realistic than a philosophy which seeks to overcome one's own human nature through human action–is the argument being made. I don't even know what arguments Nietzsche makes that can be argued against. Every Nietzschean whom I ask to produce an argument refuses to do so. If you can produce an *actual* argument in favor of Nietzsche's philosophy, I'll be genuinely surprised. Most Nietzscheans are Nietzscheans because of things they observe in society, not because they've been convinced by rational argumentation, which is something that Nietzsche rejects (and which renders him a quasi-philosopher in my view).

Self-improvement? That's not the overcoming of the human. That's the actualization of potential.

Overman -> human
Human -> subhuman
It's all the same, the fact is that acting like a human is incredible among the beasts that dare call themselves human.

You need ideals of excellence for everything, they inspire and guide, not only individuals but societies and cultures.
That's what actually memes are all about: Meaningful Symbolisms.

Also, idealism is not about reaching an ideal, but advancing toward it.

Perfection is hard!
t. spook

The whole point is to get as close to the idealized man as possible. Even if you don't achieve it, then you are still a better man than anyone else who rationalizes it like you do.

But what are you doing to become an Overman? The Nietzschean philosophy is about casting aside humanity and overcoming it, not going from subhuman to human. You may as well just go with Confucianism if that's all you care about.

My point is that you don't even understand what the ideal is. You aren't advancing toward it. You're advancing toward humanity, not Overhumanity.

The Overman is not an idealized man, it's a departure from humanity.

...

...

Patriarcha; or, The Natural Power of Kings

Recommended for traditionalists/monarchists.

It's a good book. An alternative to Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan. Highlights the importance of hereditary leadership and how that tradition branches out through history. Also, as the name suggests – trigger warning.

I see it as man perfected, why would you try to be anything else?

You probably aren't reading the same Nietzsche I am. If you care about pursuing the perfect human form, there are various premodern philosophies that are better suited to the task. Platonism, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam–all about trying to become some sort of 'higher' human who exemplifies the greatest qualities a human being can exhibit. Really, this is the singular perennial philosophy: the practice of self-transformation.
Nietzsche rejects Platonic and Christian idealism and substitutes a new form of idealism in its place, without giving any good reasons to think that the new ideal is really distinct from the others in anything but name. The Overman is a secularized Christ, and therefore is merely a new fixed idea.

I wouldn't say that. The overman is what comes after humanity, man after man in a sense, superman. To me it would be some superior species that comes after mankind.

Can you explain to me how you plan to become such a thing? I'm not asking how the human race can evolve into something other than what it is now, I understand that evolution amounts to species-wide transformation. I'm asking you why you, as an individual, think it's worth pursuing this ideal when you know as well as I do that it's meant to be something that comes after our species has overcome itself.

What's the problem with this exactly? Europe was uncucked for a very brief moment due to that inspiration. Why would you read up on some other people's philosophies when you can take that singular perennial philosophy and apply it to your people directly.

Ragnar Redbeard
Francis Galton

Because Nietzsche explicitly rejects all philosophy that comes before him. Have you read him? He literally posits his own philosophy as a prelude to every one that will come after it.
The problem is that, if you secularize the idea of a human who exists as a divine entity outside of space and time, it just becomes a dogma of the state. A dogma of the state is no better than a dogma of the Church. I am not dismissing the concept of dogma; I am merely implying that some propositions ought to be dogmatic, and some ought not be. A dogma that demands that its followers cast aside their humanity so that they can pursue some post-human form that is unattainable is a dogma that will lead to the destruction of those who take it seriously. Humans are human; none of us are Overmen, none of us have cast aside our humanity, and the goal of the movement of which we are a part is to restore humanity to a world which has cast it aside. I do not mean that we ought to be humanists. I mean that we ought to embrace our humanity, since we cannot, in fact, cast it aside.
The influence of Nietzsche's philosophy on National Socialism is somewhat overstated anyway, Hitler was a Schopenhauer fan. As I've said, it's vital to untangle the Jewish narratives surrounding Nietzsche's philosophy from the philosophy itself.

Not to mention, the Axis powers lost the war that was integral to that 'uncucking,' as you put it. Now look who's cucked.

The fuck are you talking about? The neo-Kantians are the ones we should read, look at Husserl or Heidegger. The transendental subjectivism is an outdated idea, if OP wants philosophy that has some more fundamental bases he should read the neo-Kantians

I didn't know that Husserl and Heidegger we neo-Kantians. I thought that phenomenology was a distinct school of thought that didn't depart from explicitly Kantian premises.

Marx and Nietzsche are the Plato and Aristotle of modern man.

You can hate their opinions, and I meant HATE… But you can't ignore them. Their methods and concepts are central to the world we live in today.

Hegel and Kant are also important.

Heidegger for the real nigguhz.

Hegel and Marx are the Plato and Aristotle of the modern man. Nietzsche is the modern Plotinus. Heidegger is the modern Proclus. Kant is a Socrates.

Heidegger is hard to read, but he's pretty much as far as philosophy can go. Everything after him is just modifications on those themes.

I love Kant and all them but Heidegger for me is the closest thing to a living philosophy. I say that honestly without fully grasping it. He is astoundingly radical, insane, and creative.

Nietzsche is cool and more like Marx or Freud than a real philosopher.

Heidegger is the actual overman of philosophy.

Philosophy's inability to actually solve any intellectual problems over history should tell you everything you need to know about philosophers.

The most charitable I can be is that it's a good intellectual workout, and it's a big part of European/American history. Even that it is a "good" intellectual workout is debatable because of all the damage it does to people who actually trying to solve problems with it. All philosophers seem to be capable of doing is digging themselves deeper and deeper into endless blackholes of thought.

Honestly, I wouldn't avoid French philosophy.

Some of it is quite literally genius. A lot of it is directly responsible for where we are today, for degeneracy.

Still some of it is just interesting as fuck from an intellectual standpoint. Very inventive.

As an American I have a very difficult time sifting the good from the bad when trying to deal with French philosophy. It honestly doesn't seem worth the effort in 90% of cases. France may have once been great, but it's fallen quite a bit, and it's taking American thought down with it.

I will offer you this.

If you want a secular foundation that can tell you definitively that yes, existence exists, reality is real, and you know it (and so does everyone else)… Ayn Rand is solid up until she hits ethics. Her metaphysics, epistemology, and theory of concepts is undeniably true. Her sense of art is good too, in her presentation of (white) man as a fundamentally heroic being capable of achieving greatness.

Where she fucks up in ethics is when she builds it based on a flawed concept of "man(kind)." The idea that we are fundamentally or even necessarily "rational animals" is provably false, along with her railing against collectivism and depicting man as a "rugged individualist." Really she just had a fetish for driven men.

It's very different. I don't really follow guys like Deleuze down their political rabbit holes, but I do generally find their philosophical ideas and concepts engaging and mind expanding.

Most people here would not agree at all, or probably just wouldn't get it.

Nietzsche is credited for being a nihilist, anti-religion and anti-spiritualism. All of them are wrong but also right at the same time. Just like the divine comedy, Nietzsche told us to overcome the tragedy that is our life. (subtle reference)

It is like taking the black pill but at the end you will overcome yourself by embracing the Übermensch and not the letzte Mann. Nietzsche also liked Wagner and Schopenhauer (as figures of literal tragedy). So read Nietzsche for pure non-post existenialism where objective reality is the core of all things. But i must say i still like Hegel tho.

I mean, sure, but what's the purpose of that expansion? Why is it worth engaging with Deleuze and Guattari in the first place? I've tried reading Anti-Oedipus in English, it may be different in French but it honestly just seems like word salad.

Generally, enlightenment and post enlightenment philosophy proved disastrous in practice and that's what we're facing today.

Oh boy

I don't buy into any Kike hype. I always form my own opinions and views of books and everything else, independently of what is popular. I've read all of Nietzsche's books, most of them 2-3x. They're amazingly well written, packed full of insight, highly relevant, and correct on a wide range of topics.

It's impossible to read every author or every book out there. But I will check out Stirner.

Many people were too lazy to read him in his entirety or incapable of fully understanding him because he violated some of their fundamental premises. Hence all the "interpretations".

People like Nietzsche because what he says corresponds to reality, not because what he says is a rigid, logical, metaphysical framework? How horrible!

Nietzsche sought to redefine philosophy, observing that most of it so far has been a error. If you are still enamored of the errors, then it's natural that you'll reject Nietzsche.

I don't obviously. I always contrast the development of animal speciation with that of plants. Animals can't develop when they stay in one place, unlike plants. We, as humans, need to find somewhere to go. Our planet is filled to the brim and we need to focus on space travel. Only then will we further the speciation of an overman. It will also guarantee our collective immortality. The goal of life is to be immortal and all-powerful, to become god. On an individual scale we need to focus on cellular regeneration, the cure for cancer, radiation protection (necessary for space travel anyways,) and creating a formula for the individual immortal human. That way we'll have no need for a belief in the afterlife. We also, especially as European people, need an enemy and non-whites are only threatening in their ability to overpopulate us, which is how neanderthals became extinct, that and superior farming techniques. An alien enemy like the Turians in Mass Effect would be ideal, but that might kill us if they're too powerful. FTL travel and finding a new home after our sun becomes a red giant is also necessary.

To becomen the Overman, Man needs to overcome what makes him a Man. And that's impossible. And you can't become a god, because with all your anti aging tech you will die along with the universe.

Good question.

Let's put it this way. Deleuze invented a sort of way of interpreting other philosophers. He called it "buggery" where he would kind of "deconstruct" their work. Hear me out.

I think the irony is that someone can do that exact same thing to Deleuze. Though I am browsing a fascist imageboard, I actually ultimately don't agree with almost anything said here. I just think this is a strange time in history.

I do believe fascism is the ultimate end for politics and the human race. Eugenics, etc. genuinely. That said, it has to be a completely new kind of fascism. No dictatorships. No violence. No fear.

The kind of fascism I want will be derived from Deleuze. It will be a creative, positive, vibrant sort of thing based less around control than possibilities. A sort of inborn libertarianism which automatically evolves into the best modes for human existence.

Holla Forums itself is libertarian in nature. It exists as a free space. We simply see which ideas thrive.

In that sense, a good form of future fascism can simply evolve out of freedom and free, ethical conditions.

The new fascism has to not have almost anything to do with the old. It will be scientific, rational, racial, and hierarchical. At the same time, it has to be genuinely Nietzschean and artistic, it has to be for the purpose of genuine aspirations, creativity, and affirmation. I don't mean homosexual hedonism. I just mean positivity - good things. Creativity. That means throwing off the restrictive mindset. Deleuze and Guattari are masters of that realm of thinking and offer strong philosophical tools for making sense of things.

I am more of a centrist than right or left, so perhaps disregard me. Pro white to the core though

People can like him for whatever reason they want, but there are certain things that qualify philosophers as philosophers. One can wax philosophical in the middle of a novel without earning the title 'Philosopher.' He explicitly rejects the things that define the philosophical tradition prior to his work.
Here we go. Can you make an argument proving that every philosopher prior to Nietzsche was wrong, but Nietzsche was right? What specifically were their errors? How did Nietzsche avoid them?

This isn't philosophy, this is an outline for the plot of a science fiction book. You honestly sound like a child.

Are you thick in the head?

...

He's not time tested and also some people just call him a redpilled blogger instead of a philosopher.

Fucking masterful

I can get behind that. Maybe I should give D&G another go.

Speculative realism is far and away the most interesting and relevant philosophical "movement" today. Besides some of neoreaction (I M O). Moreso if you understand the historical developments leading up to it.

Imo

Highly recommend Shilling and Hegel if you are already in the deep.

you wot m8

You mean it's not intellectual masturbation. Sorry if you think philosophy is all big words and sounding like a pretentious twat.

I don't understand this fascination people have with Hegel

You're right, it's just masturbation.

For you maybe.

I think he meant Schelling

He was right.

Have you ever taken a philosophy class, or studied philosophy seriously? It doesn't resemble what you wrote.

So do I but one can never be sure.

Aristotle
Plato
Nieztche
Marcus Aurelius
Friedrich Hayek
Adam Smith
Julius Evola
Arthur Schopenhauer
Saint Augustine
Carl von Clauswitz
Adolf Hitler
Oswald Spengler
Jesus Christ [New Testament]
Stefan Molyneux (kek)

Maybe Zizek, but he shouldn't be taken too seriously, the guy is a mayor idealist.

In any case, Moderate Idealism is better than Pragmatism.

I've probably dedicated more time to it than you. I can smell pretentious faggots a mile away. Everything you've posted in this thread is reddit-tier fedora-tipping nonsense. Tell me what you've actually read of Nietzsche or Schopenhauer.

Zizek is a bumbling idiot. I honestly think he's obtuse just for the sake of sounding like he's intelligent.

Mein nigger.

I've read Beyond Good & Evil, Zarathustra, and sections of most of his major works. I've read various essays by Schopenhauer, but I don't really like him that much and haven't spent a great deal of time studying him.
Now, please, explain to me how contains a philosophical argument. I'm genuinely confused.

Staying alive, raising offspring, and doing what I want/can to shape the future in a way that I feel will be positive for my people. Nietzsche didn't talk of becoming the overman, he talked of giving birth to it.

The overman is a philosophy that's all about embracing reality and overcoming pessimism: focus on real life and shaping the future, not on afterworlds and imaginary abstractions based on artifacts of language.

Oh really? Interesting how almost every philosopher has his unique reflection on the nature of philosophy. They must have all missed the memo which very clearly defines it.

I only know how to "prove" tautologies by manipulating logical & mathematical symbols, so no.

Nietzsche has entire sections in which he details the errors of past philosophers. One of their chief errors was lack of historical sense.

How did you come to your current understanding?

Wouldn't that mean Marx was right too?

I'm glad you at least had the propriety to put a space between that crackhead and actual philosophers.

Menschliches Allzumenschliches
Anti-Christ
Also Sprach Zarathustra
Jenseits von Gut und Böse
Der Fall Wagner (perfect critique)
Götzendämmerung (or how to philosophize with a Hammer)
And pretty much everything from Schopenhauer (especially Metaphysik)

It's not a philosophical argument and it doesn't need to be. The concept of the overman is not chained down to your pursuit of sounding like a knowitall faggot. If you can't relate abstract concepts to reality you are just jerking yourself off and don't understand the purpose of philosophy. Faggots like you really know how to ruin the most interesting aspects of philosophy.

Not all of them did, no.
Demonstrate, then, do something. Make an argument.
How about you cuntpaste one or two of them, then?
How about you answer my question? You're the dogmatic Nietzschean.

Why?

Which are what, exactly?

Other than most Holla Forumsaks I recommend reading some of the batshit insane leftist philosophers. Especiallymost lefties personal favourite, Adorno.

It gives you a great inside into a ledties mind, which is a confused mess of missplaced assertions, false deductions and unneccessary dichotomies.

Of course, this is after you read some proper philosophers to really appreciate the difference

Also
This is a fucking philosophy thread, you're arguing in favor of Nietzsche's philosophy. You admit that you aren't doing philosophy.

Thanks, user. I haven't heard about him before.

Learning for the sake of application, not posturing and saying retarded things like: Nietzsche is so overdone. Faggots like you failed to understand the significance of socratic proverbs like I know that I know nothing, you can't learn anything when your goal is to sound the most intelligent with highbrow opinions. You've contributed nothing to this thread but smugness.

Wow! Yes! You get it! That's exactly what I did, and then I gave an interpretation of his concept of the overman as applied to the real world rather than make up some pompous crap that you could jerk off to. So sorry you can't process that.

What is good god's name do you even mean by this? Is philosophy really just some way for you gain self-gratification? You realize that when you apply concepts to reality you are still engaged in a philosophical discussion right? Philosophy is a love of wisdom, and wisdom includes science. It was more of a discussion of science, but hey didn't they used to call science natural philosophy right? I think what really irked you about that post was the fact that you didn't understand it so you think you could dismiss it in one retarded fell swoop.

I'm sorry you think so lowly of Stirner. I'll try to make better arguments next time.
No, you wrote some speculative gibberish. That's what you don't understand: this entire concept is taking place in an abstract environment in abstract terms. Nothing in that post actually applies to reality.
That's just it, you can't just call all of these things 'philosophy.' You're conflating a lot of very different things here. It doesn't make any sense.
I still don't understand what that outline had to do with reality.

conversation*

This is interesting stuff, like meta level and property of oneness.

But I have an objection to step 8, addition 1:

I can't recognize any specific degree of "holons" between us and animals, so that rule could stand.

Is there any good literature on this?

Who is the judge of which definition of philosophy is the right one, and who are the real philosophers? Some kike?

Maybe when I get home. At work now.

Nietzsche was the culmination of all that came before him and every influence that acted upon him. There is no "how", he simple became and was.

Cute Pepress you have here.

No, but if you go back and look at what defined philosophy from the pre-Socratics through Nietzsche's time, you'll generally find a commitment to rational argumentation and the belief that sense can be made of the world. Nietzsche rejects the concept of rational argumentation.
See, this is what I'm talking about. You Nietzscheans never make arguments defending your prophet, you just assert that Nietzsche was correct, that he was the end of some movement, some special entity that stands out as the only philosopher who knew what was going on. You could at least try to convince me you're right instead of asserting your position once again.

And I'm sorry you think so highly of him, go to leftypol if you really want to see the product of such high regard.

Science is partly theoretical and speculative yes. Gibberish? Only to retards like you.

Speciation doesn't apply to reality? Space colonization doesn't? Please explain in detail how those two things don't apply to reality, I insist on it.

You most definitely can call it philosophy, as science was born from philosophy. Thales birthed philosophy because he wanted down to earth explanations rather than people like you, jerking off and putting fancy names on things you can't explain. You do with concepts what Homer did with the gods, praise or critique but never really explain or relate to reality. You don't really know anything about what it means to philosophize, you are more of a sophist than anything else.

He understood that humans are inherently irrational and his and Scopenhauer's focus on the unconscious changed philosophy forever. It is very much true, if you look at a mob, that people aren't rational actors. Rationality is a tool, it isn't the fuel to our fire though. Music and everything that gives spice to life is inherently irrational, our will to live is irrational. Philosphers throughout all the eras denied this. Take the Stoic position, that passion is unnatural or the Christian denial of passion, this comes from an emphasis of the irrational nature of passion, but that doesn't mean it's unnatural. People are not calculators or computers, we are fleshy anxious animals that fear death and love life. Rationality is a gift, but it isn't the end all be all purpose of life. You should reread Nietzsche because I doubt you understood any of it.

I think he's a superior articulation of Nietzsche, not that either of them is the ultimate philosopher.
What in that post is scientific, though?
Well, you're not creating a new species or colonizing a planet right now, are you? You're hardly applying those concepts to reality, you're just talking about them. You're theorizing, none of this is practical, it's absurd to say that you're actually applying these concepts to reality if you're just sitting here arguing online about them.
You can call anything you want 'philosophy' or 'science' but that doesn't make it scientific or philosophical.
How about you provide some scientific studies about this stuff, if you're so convinced that what you're saying is backed up by science?
I dunno, is one of the most sophistic things I've ever read.

David Hume would like to have a word with you

For any fags interested in French philosophy, I found Merleau-Ponty worth the read. He's in line with Sartre on some things but teaches a own form of behaviourism ( if we can see a body expressing behaviour, then it exists ) which relates to his theory of the body-subject. Most of his stuff is pretty heavy reading work though, so beware. He's not necessarily a Holla Forums-tier philosopher, just interesting to read ( by far more interesting than Sartre and Descartes, who I think is overrated )

But not every human activity is philosophy. Philosophy is a very specific human activity. Music isn't philosophy. Our will to live isn't philosophy.
Nobody's saying it is, I'm saying that it's integral to philosophical argumentation.

THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT

It's not just practical it's our imperative to continue the human species and postulate and the best ways of doing so. Are you really trying to tell me that space colonization isn't practical? Go on and explain that.

Philosophy is to you this wishy washy intangible ghost that can't be touched by anything other than human thought. To me it is a tool to shape the world.

greeks invented gay and christcucks are jew slaves, dont bother reading their bullshit.

You're right, it's a question. Are you doing those things?
I'm telling you that you're theorizing about space colonization. You aren't out there actually colonizing another planet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoria#Fourth-century_B.C._Athens
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxis_(process)
FFS, this is basic stuff. The distinction between theoretical and practical work shouldn't be this hard for you to understand.

Is music philosophy, or isn't it? Answer the question, I'm just trying to point out to you that not every single human activity is philosophical. You seem to think that they all are.

Your ahit.

wat

l>>6242661

I never implied that in the slightest. You can go ahead and burn that strawman because I'll have nothing to do with it. I really don't think you even understand what philosophy is or it's purpose. You are the bane of all true philosophers, an annoying pretentious shit that contributes nothing but obfuscation. You're the Zizek of this thread.

Strauss was more traditionalist than Evola, true fact.

The redpill must be experienced yourself. We cannot argue or prove you into an understanding of the limits of argumentation and proof. That's something you must learn and realize for yourself. Nietzsche is there to guide you and to explain it poetically and non-dogmatically, but you have to want it.

Nietzsche is a step forward in a new direction for philosophy. And many, many people realize that. He's nobody's prophet. The reason I love him is that he's been the best, most interesting philosopher (for me) so far. And I'm not alone in that. You can reject him, you can write a response to Aristotle if that's what tickles your fancy, but the rest of the world has moved on so don't expect to be relevant.

kek at that pic

Does non-dogmatic=relativistic?

No. It just means there are no absolute rules, nothing is set in stone. Relativism is just an emphasis on different points of view.

You started talking about the irrational appeal of good music music when I mentioned 'rational argumentation' as being a core of what defines philosophy. Forgive me for being confused.
I don't think you do, either, Nietzschean.

I've read Wittgenstein and Kant, I'm familiar with various arguments about the limitations of thought and language. Some things aren't philosophy. This has been my point all along.

I don't defend Nietzsche's posits but his promotion of the practice of self-transformation as you put it. I don't worship Nietzsche but would say in a vacuum, I would rather exist in a society made with Nietzsche in mind rather than Stirner. It is here

that we fundamentally disagree. I disagree that the attempt to improve as an individual to become something better than others is an attempt to leave humanity behind. I see it as forging a path not normally taken. While to you, it appears as someone who is leaving everyone else behind. Waiting for humanity to restore itself as if one day we're all going to wake up Ubermensch, is naive. Given how the world is doing collectively at the moment, I don't have much interest in waiting to see what happens.

We have different perspectives in embracement. I embrace my humanity by being thankful for the strengths I have been given and being sure to use them while meditating on weaknesses. Is this casting it aside or embracing it?

An violent death is the same as one from a thousand cuts in the end.

If the way things appear to me, in that way they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is false.

Since anything that appears to me, or from my point of view is true, then it must be true that you are wrong.

So how can the absence of absolute rules stand in light of this?

Before reading Nietzsche I recommend this series on overcoming nihilism.
youtu.be/vzRbCrIWURY

Are you using the demarcation argument on philosophy ?

Yes.

I said the inherent irrational nature of music, I never used the word appeal or good. Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that philosophy wouldn't exist without the our irrational drive to live and be curious and wonder. Rationality is only a tool for humans, it's a spearhead to split something into little pieces.

You don't understand what I was saying, then.
None of us will ever be Ubermensch, the Ubermensch is literally something that comes after humanity has cast aside the chains of humanity.
It's embracing it. I don't understand how you think you're transcending your humanity by doing this.
The Axis could have won if Hitler weren't so committed to his own personal vendettas.

I'm simply implying that it's inaccurate and misleading to call some things 'philosophy.' I can call a daydream a philosophy, but that doesn't make me a philosopher.

What do you consider philosophy then ?

This is news to me, I was under the impression that a lot of music was composed using rationality.
And philosophy makes use of rationality, whether or not it comes from an irrational human nature. Philosophy is only really philosophical when it produces arguments and uses reason to support its philosophical positions and premises. This is what I've been saying all along.

The search for truth via argumentation and contemplation.

It also would have helped if Churchill had made peace.

There were a lot of things that went wrong.

Then it is here

that I don't follow. How does this process happen? As I said, we aren't going to wake up one day and collectively say we have cast aside the chains of humanity and ascended. This kind of thinking is no better than any religion with a messiah.

That's why I'm not a Nietzschean.

That doesn't preclude it's irrational nature. I'm talking about the inspiration of music, what really initiates it. People don't compose music for the sake of rationality, but because of their inherently irrational sense of beauty.

Neither am I lad.

You're talking about aesthetic experiences. I'm talking about composition. You're thinking of an audience, I'm thinking of the musician.

Then you are just an edgy faggot because you haven't really read his works, otherwise you would know he himself discouraged that kind of thinking. He advocated thinking for yourself and attacking your own point of view.

hitler killing millions of innocent jews, for instance.

...

No, I'm talking about inspiration you are talking about the process that comes after inspiration. Inspiration comes from something irrational, hence music is inherently irrational. You're looking at the final product, I'm looking at the entire thing and emphasizing how it all starts with something that has nothing to do with rationality.

Didn't kill enough of them though.

I was, at one point, very into his philosophy. I have since rejected that point of view for the reasons I've stated here: the Overman is a fixed idea, a secularized replacement for the idea of Jesus.
The typical Nietzschean cry. "If you read him, you'd agree with him!" Well, no. Not true. I've read him, I think his system falls short.

I don't know where you got the impression that I think that everything is language.

This is trivial. A composer can't write down the music that inspires him if he can't think rationally. He needs to use reason to put sound on paper.
Do you want to ignore the fact that reason is integral to the completion of the process?

At least answer the other part of my post

Saying that humanity becomes overman collectively is a cop out.

...

He should have killed them all instead of leaving survivors.

Go shitpost in another thread.

Stoicism people like marcus Aurelius the greatest emperor after augustus caeser.

So you haven't read him because he also said he hated systems. Pretentious highbrow faggot.

It's the exact opposite of trivial, music would not exist without inspiration.

I'm not denying that, I said rationality is a tool not that it's unimportant in the creation of music. Niggers banging on drums is still music even if they aren't writing it down, all music requires is feeling, rationality just helps take it one step further.

Again, not all music is even written down.

What can you communicate to me without using language? And how much of that is rational?

Where did you get me implying it happened out of me saying leaving survivors? Jews were executed for being communist, like they fucking should have been.

My point is that the Overman comes after humanity has overcome itself, not that humanity collectively becomes the Overman. It's a matter of speciation and evolution.

I know he didn't call it a system, but it can be viewed as a coherent system of interconnected parts.
But this doesn't have anything to do with my point.
Rationality is the foundation of composition.

Why would anyone try to communicate the incommunicable? I mean, I can't articulate the desk I'm sitting in front of because it isn't language. I can't speak a rainstorm into existence because rain isn't language. Does that mean that rainstorms and this desk don't exist? Likewise, the processes that give rise to the ego and self-awareness aren't part of language, they're physiological processes that occur in the body prior to any attempt at articulation or communication.

If you're a huge faggot, yeah it can.

You don't make music because 1+1=2 you make music because you have a sense of beauty. With each post your autism grows exponentially.

Do you think that an orchestra can play a symphony that hasn't been articulated by the composer? Do you think a composer can articulate a symphony in a comprehensible form if he doesn't use reason?

And this happens because humanity collectively decides so? Or because individuals who are in control of humanity decides so?

It happens because humans have overcome humanity. It has nothing to do with decisions. Who 'decided' that we were no longer apes, or cavemen? Nobody. It simply happened.

You dumb nigger, I'm not saying that you shouldn't use rationality or that it's not used. I'm saying that music wouldn't happen without the inherent nature of our sense of beauty. Rationality is a tool, it's not the foundation of music or life or even philosophy. It's like you just started getting into philosophy. Curiosity and a sense of wonder is what drives philosophy. You worship rationality like it's the bees knees.

I haven't denied this, I'm not talking about what 'drives' anything, I'm discussing the process overall while you're focused on origin.
I'm a Hegelian, so…

This doesn't explain your reasoning.

When a caveman used a rock to make another rock a sharp rock to chop down a tree to build a shelter. Is this something just happening, or an individual using what tools he has to improve his existence?

Which part of my reasoning are you referring to?
This is something that happened as a product of a long historical and biological process. The individual was simply the catalyst. He deserves some credit, but so do his ancestors and his environment.

Wow, maybe you aren't a nigger then. Things can't exist without their origin and the origin of life, music, and philosophy is something that is not rational.

That's sad that you would label and limit yourself like that.

I just don't understand how you think this contradicts anything I've said.
You're doing nothing different by committing yourself to Nietzsche like you are.

Human rationality only touches language. If you demand the utmost rationality, you limit yourself to the things that can be readily touched by language. But the bigger problem is that language+grammar has artifacts and is not limited to things that are real. If you're not careful you can easily start talking about things that are not meaningful. This is the problem that plagues rational systems and is why Nietzsche rejected them.

Language is imperfect. Communicating real things via language is the important thing, not using perfect rationality.

I'm not committed to him, in fact I'd gladly accept any legitimate counter-argument against him. You haven't made any, you talk like a faggot and your shit's retarded.

Who the fuck talks like this other than redditors?

How does humanity overcome humanity? You're saying that it will simply happen?

And wouldn't it be best to have a philosophy where making this overcoming of humanity possible involves you doing your part to improving yourself as a catalyst, thus improving your people and descendants, and improving the environment in a way that helps this process?

I don't advocate absolute rationality, I advocate the use of reason to solve the problems that can be solved through the use of reason.
Have you read Wittgenstein?

What kind of argument would you like me to make? I feel like I've made my position clear and done a good job of supporting it.
You can assume whatever you want about me. I don't browse Reddit. My claim was actually (>>6242900) that philosophy is the search for truth via argumentation and contemplation. Rationality plays a vital role in the articulation of philosophical arguments and positions. Do you disagree?

My point all along has been that it won't happen. You're asking the wrong person.

And what lead you to believe that

Your original claim was Stirner is better than Nietzsche actually. Committing this entire argument to two sides.

I've only read the first half of him so far. Not enough to have a strong opinion on him.

Reason is already used to solve mathematics and logic.

Reason could be used to solve metaphysics as well, if you think that's a problem. Nietzsche and his followers consider metaphysics an error, not a problem to be solved. For me, the important part of philosophy is not a logical equation of language, but the process of the evolution of mankind and his thinking about himself and the world.

I'm not convinced that the human race will survive long enough to overcome itself. On top of that, I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to strive to become something other than human. Humans are biologically defined as humans. Why would you think that you can become something else? If the Overman ever comes about (big "if") then it will shun humanity. As a human, I don't see a good reason to follow an ethical code devised for superhumans.
Here's an argument, so you won't be able to post a Stef meme:
Principle of Capacity: If X cannot potentially do Y, then X is better off not trying to do Y.
Definitions:
Man df= any member of the human race
Overman df= the being produced by the human race's collective self-overcoming

1. Every man is obligated to strive after the Overman.
2. No man can ever become the Overman.
3. If (1) and (2), then no man can potentially become what all men are obligated to strive after.
4. If (3) then, by the principle of capacity, every man is better off not striving after the Overman.
5. Therefore, every man is better off not striving after the Overman.
I hope this makes things easier.

There's nothing to solve there. Language can't properly express Being, it can only point us to it.

I stand by that claim. In I was referring to what I said I think philosophy is. I thought you were, too.

I'm going to leave the thread for a while, kinda hope I don't come back.

Me too.

Awesome, I think you just disproved evolution.

I think you'd like Nietzsche if you took the time to read him.

you are all very smart

the Greeks
Aquinas
Spengler
Ernst Junger
Evola
Gregor Strasser
Rene Guenon
Frithjof Schuon
Hossein Nasr
Heidegger
Camus
(((Wittgenstein)))
(((Claude Levi-strauss))) / Clifford Geertz
Marx / Spooky Stirner
Zhuangzi
Confucius / Mencius
Shang Yang
Bodhidharma

This is a good list that will give you both the extreme left wing and extreme right wing vision on things. Also some mysticism / rationalism that will also even out your perspective. And the little represented Eastern philosophy.

A lot of it is also meme authors that will help you to fit in among online Nazis / Fascists / Third Positionists

...

You define the Overman as the moment when humanity overcomes itself, but aren't sure how that would happen. Going back to the cavemen, it would be like explaining to him what our human civilization will have to offer and telling him to adopt Overman ideals to get here. He could either: work on being a catalyst, work on improving his people, and work on improving his environment as best as possible. Or he could say, "No living man here will ever have what was described in that civilization. We should remain as cavemen because none of us will have it."

While the latter caveman is right, the former will no longer be a caveman. He will not have what modern man has, but he will accomplish more than someone who decides that there's no point in striving for something you will not have. More importantly, he will have contributed to being a catalyst and ancestor to the Overman.

If you believe that humanity is doomed and the ride ends here, then what is the purpose of arguing with people that think that self improvement an integral part of any philosophy? You would be better off in convincing people that humanity is doomed rather than trying to prove Nietzsche wrong somehow.

r/k theory muh nigga. Then righteous mind. imo.

Sophie's world, is a history and explanation of the flow of philosophy with a loose narrative around it

Nietzsche is the real deal, but it can lead to mindless hedonism and apathy.

Julius Evola writes about how Nietzcshean philosophy can be used to de-tox from Abrahamic poison to start afresh. This is the key. It avoids the cuck vs fedora paradigm and fosters a spirituality where reason rules but there is still room to dream and have spiritual ideals.

Atheism is pushed and steered by jews in a way to lead people discontent with Abrahamic religions into total degeneracy, hopelessness and abandonment of ideals. They have set it up this way on purpose because they win either way.

The ancient pagan beliefs were a science religion, but they are largely lost since the crusaders burned the library of Alexandria and hunted down anyone and everyone with esoteric knowledge.

The only way to have a new renaissance is to go outside the theism/atheism paradigm and try to rediscover the science-centric spirituality of our ancestors.

No, that's what he was rejecting as the Last Man, the nihilist. That's what he was against and predicted as the outcome of emphasizing otherworldly values. If you really care about the world you live in you aren't going to want to squander it on bodily pleasures. You've made the common mistake of thinking that he was a nihilist, he's just the exact opposite.

His only love life made that same mistake, poor guy.

"She told me herself that she had no morality, and I thought she had, like myself, a more severe morality than anybody." - 1881, Draft of a letter to Paul Ree

HEIDEGGER & Nietzsche

Rank Nietzsche's works.

Pro mode: Rank his translators, too.

WOW

As I've said, I have read him, I enjoy some of his ideas, I think he made some good observations, but I think his philosophy is destructive and impracticable.

How is that more realistic than involuntary egoism, though?

aryanism.net/downloads/books/ramon-bau/wagnerian-conception-of-the-world.pdf

How? Central to his philosophy was the suggestion that we focus on this world rather than an imaginary one after death, does that sound impracticable?

I believe what I described is an unconscious egoist. Completely self serving by working towards a higher ideal, which improves every aspect of his existence, yet also serving a higher being, the Overman to come. Minus the circle jerking with words to validate existence.

That's central to quite a few philosophies. Like I said, why not just embrace Confucianism if that's all you care about? I honestly don't understand, do you think this emphasis on self-improvement is something unique to Nietzsche?

Involuntary egoism is the name of Stirner's philosophy. Nietzsche's philosophy, which you've just described, is not identical to it, and you can't just call Nietzsche an egoist because the will to power and the ego are different things. There's nothing about 'unconscious' service in Nietzsche, it's entirely about the will to power, which can't be acted on if you're unaware of it.
Unconscious and involuntary mean different things, involuntary egoism is the embrace of one's own nature and self as being defined by the presence of an ego, which has only to assert its ownership of the world in order to attain power over it. I don't even know how what you described could be considered 'unconscious.'

I just was recalling who Stirner said an involuntary egoist is and seems to fit what I just described, whether you are conscious or unconscious of what you are contributing to or not. To me, it seems to make more sense to be as aware as possible of one's actions rather than explain "it is what it is" through word salad.

Being aware of your own actions has nothing to do with philosophy, though. It has everything to do with self-possession and self-awareness. I say again, not every single human action is in and of itself philosophy, even if you can make an philosophical argument about it.

According to the person that thinks humanity is doomed and basically there's no reason to even bother living correct?

Only when it benefits your arguments and conclusions?

You're strawmanning here, I said that I'm not convinced that we will never annihilate ourselves, not that we are doomed. Where did I say there's no reason to even bother living? I've been advocating self-improvement all along.
If I punched you in the face and called it philosophy, I'd be a liar. Philosophy is the search for truth through argumentation and contemplation. Anything else is something which is not philosophy.

So you believe that we will annihilate ourselves and never overcome ourselves to create the Overman. That sounds like a doomed group of people to me. If that is true, then we are at the peak, or very near the peak, of humanity's existence. Someone who realizes that they are in that kind of environment would be paralyzed with demoralization.

Yet you're not a fan of reviving the idea of self improvement in a secular way only because it's been done before. I won't argue that single actions are philosophy, but is a lifetime of actions and experiences, things that make argumentation and contemplation possible, and how to best conduct it, philosophy? A lifetime, depending on how it was conducted, that would contribute to the creation of the Overman.

I believe that it's possible, not that it's inevitable. Can you not read or something?
Maybe, but that's not what I believe.
That sounds more like a life than a philosophy.
That sounds like the punch in the face I mentioned earlier: not philosophy, but something else.

Just saw someone on Twatter say that Mohamed Ali wasn't racist even though he believed his thoughts were more racist than his hated figure Trump because Ali said those things 40 years ago. So in his relativistic mind, you could hang a nigger in the past and be ok, and call someone a nigger and be worse because current year.

Thank you then for showing me how Stirner is wrong. One's provable existence, one's life, is all that should matter. Becoming the best man in whatever scenario given, which is determined by mostly by actions and not your definition of philosophy, is then what one should work towards. By doing this they do their part in the process of humanity becoming the Overman, and in most cases will also allow them to live the most fulfilling life possible.

I don't know what you mean by this, are you telling me that people shouldn't care about each other?

Nope. I'm arguing that it is best to be focused on the attempt to live to towards higher ideals, which most importantly affects the actions that predominately make up one's life.

All right, I just don't think the Nietzschean philosophy is the best theoretical basis for such attempts. Whatever, though, if it works for you, fine.

I don't either. I was arguing that it's better than Stirner.

I'm actually quite the fan of Confucianism but the point is that Nietzsche's conclusion is a direct result of a response to the entire course of Western philosophy you 'I'm too cool for Nietzsche' Hegelian faggot.

That's not even true. People attempt to harness power without even thinking about it. You don't think when you duck from gunfire, and you don't think when you try to kill the person shooting the gun at you which results in power over your environment. People don't think as much as you think they do, think about it, or don't.

Most of what you have said in this thread is fucking stupidity in the guise of intelligence, just like much of the western philosophical tradition. Just be straightforward and earnest, speak your mind and stop hiding behind big words. There are some of us who see past it pretty quickly.

An inadequate, incorrect, and destructive conclusion. Not all conclusions are correct, not all arguments are sound.
Not an argument.

What exactly am I hiding from? I don't know what it is that you see through. Can you tell that I don't like Nietzsche? Oh, the horror! You know my game!

Your stupidity in the guise of intelligence according to that user, it says it right there.

I'm arguing against a faggot who thought that this amounts to a philosophical argument and you're telling me I'm the stupid person ITT?

And you're someone who used the argument that it's likely humanity will destroy itself so there is no point in improvement. Your definition of philosophy is suspect as well, allowing you to defend any position taken when faced with ideas you don't like.

(heil hitler)

You've yet to explain this. You just calling it all those things does not make it so. I could say the same thing about any other philosopher. Explain yourself or just stop responding with inane answers.

Wow, my mind is blown! Insane! What an epiphany!

Yeah, it wasn't an argument, I'm just calling you a faggot, cause you talk like a faggot.

Hiding behind not hiding from. You're doing what a lot of philosophy students I've met do, you posture but you don't say anything of real value. You don't say anything at all, it's Zizek-tier bullshit. Just be frank for christ's sake.

That's the thing about philosophy, it's not about what you like or don't like. And I'm pretty sure you're just being a hipster faggot by saying you're too cool for Nietzsche cause as you said: Nietzsche is so overdone, I'm a Hegelian.

It was my reflection on how we get closer to the overman. You don't even understand what philosophy is, you just think it's intellectual masterbation and the second someone mentions something in the real world like speciation or space colonization you're brain breaks you're all like DUDE THAT'S NOT PHILOSOPHY I CAN'T MAKE THAT RELEVANT TO MY RETARDED OUTLOOK ON LIFE

You're stupid but you use big words. We're all pretty stupid tbh, remember I know that I know nothing, that's true wisdom.

I literally said that this isn't my position at least twice. Fuck off.

I've done so already.
Not meant to be one.
I've done that, you tell me I'm not making an argument when I do. Then you go on and assert things about the will to power and the Overman being objective realities and moral imperatives without supporting your claims.
I've said that there are a lot of narratives surrounding Nietzsche and that it's difficult to pick through them, almost to the point that it's not worth it. I actually do think that Hegel's philosophy was pretty much correct. You can say whatever you want about that if you want.
And what have you said?

Space colonization hasn't actually happened, so it's hardly 'real world.' That was my main point, you're just speculating about the future, which is not the same as philosophizing.
And yet you know that we need to colonize other planets?

But it is even if you won't admit it.

No you haven't, all you've said is it's destructive but you never said why it is. You said it's inadequate but you never said why. In philosophy you are supposed to explain yourself or else your opinion is fucking worthless.

You say it's your position but truly mean otherwise. How else does humanity become something better than itself by not first have the ideal of self improvement? Additionally you don't like the idea of people reviving the self-transformation ideal of many philosophical and religious systems in a secular war like Nietzsche help did.

We fedora fight now.

Oh but what is speculation? Hmm? Please say what it is. Then tell me what you think philosophy is again. You might notice some similarities.

Seriously, another thing you do that a lot of philosophy noobs do is get lost in semantics.

You're a mind reader, too?
A philosophy of action dedicated to the production of the inhuman (which is what the Overman is) rather than the maintenance and service of the human (which the Overman is not) is not conducive to a healthy individual or collective life.

For fuck's sake, are you serious?
Yes, because I'm not an atheist, and I think that these values ought to be connected to a proper appreciation of the Absolute and the cultivation of a proper relationship with it. You want secular self-improvement, I want sacred self-improvement.

Speculation amounts to making educated guesses at best, and making uneducated guesses at worst.
Philosophy is the attempt to find truth through argumentation and contemplation.
The two may accompany each other sometimes, but that post was pure speculation. No philosophy at all.

I'm not an atheist either and also work towards sacred self-improvement, but I will take Nietzsche's desire for self improvement over anything that inspires you.

I don't want secular self-improvement, but would gladly take it in comparison to what's going on today. You don't create sacred self-improvement through words alone, no matter how many you try to use to justify that. That is why Nietzsche > Stirner in how I see it.

I honestly don't think that either is adequate. I think that, in terms of the scope of his philosophy, Stirner is more realistic.

Realistic in what way? All I see is the promotion of inaction which promotes inaction which creates stagnation. Which would explain your argument against the Overman which amounts to "do nothing".

It's realistic because it didn't make predictions about the future like Nietzsche did.
I'm genuinely confused as to why you think this is what I'm advocating.

Do you even listen to yourself?

Because I do not know what Stirner's call to action is, but it seems you answered that in this post. The future is the collection of events occurring in the present. Nietzsche recommends that one participates in each present event as if one is already an Overman. In your argument, you're right that nobody alive will actually become an Overman, but that isn't the point. The collection of one's events will have moved humanity closer to one that's left it behind, even if by a small amount. All I see from your argument is being stuck in an analytical mode, analyzing every event but not actually doing anything. One that is unable to participate in any event cannot make predictions because he has no influence on the future.

...

Feels fucking good man

I don't know m9. I read the Greeks a few years ago as a mundane and didn't get much from them. After reading the Kybalion, I went back and got something completely different. It was like I had cataracts my whole life and now could actually read.

...

Is it possible to read philosophy purely for learning about abstract concepts and the proof of their existence? Having to sift through some faggot trying to tell me "No no, THIS is how you should live!" at the same time he's trying to explain concepts to me doesn't sound appealing at all.

Yeah you should just live how you want man, don't let other people give you advice on how to live. They're stupid! Fuck'em!

That's the spirit, user!

Focus on metaphysics instead of ethics.

docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/pub

Key people to read:
Heraclitus, Parmenides, presocratics in general, Plato, Aristotle, Scholastics/Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche

Thanks, user.

(checked)

So that explains why some of his followers can shamelessly handwave any counter-argument against Nietzsche as "Not an argument." "I'm already an Overman! How can POSSIBLY hope to comprehend my intellectual superiority, feeble regularman!"

Hurr d-durr durr durr.
inb4 "You just don't get it!"

Not a follower firstly.

If you present any counter arguments towards Nietzsche's ideal for self improvement then I would consider them. Likewise if you could give me what Stirner would recommend as action, then I would consider it as well. Projecting onto me that I think I am intellectual superior to everyone else isn't how you convince me that Stirner is better than Nietzsche.

I can't speak for the user, but my interpretation of his remark is that many people are led into misinterpretations of Nietzsche and this leads them into apathy. Nietzsche gives us a map to circumvent nihilism and the moron degenerates of today take it and drive right into the center (imo)

Nietzsche is the most overrated philosopher ever, and I mean that.

He borrows heavily from his friends and often takes several different positions. He doesn't extrapolate from anything he observes, he forms a moral framework in that their are slaves and masters and then extrapolates all his conclusions from that.

read him with a grain of salt and steer clear of his worshipers like this fellow here.

What are you even doing m8

Just read everything you can but ignore almost all french and english philosophers starting at 1900

Evola is pretty good.

Which translator would you recommend? I've been told to stay away from (((Kaufman))) but I'd like to pick up a few Nietzsche books translated by someone who did a competent job.

Karl Marx

The AntiChrist
Geneology of Morals
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Gay Science

Those are all I've read so far

It's kosher

Philosophy is a waste of time.

Rubbing cock requires philosophical reasoning you dumb fucking heathen.

Phenomenology is better classified as a school of its own. By Neo-Kantianism I'm identifying philosophers who embrace the Categorical Imperative as justification for human rights, equality, and globalism.

Transcendental subjectivism is outdated, yes, but we have Nietzsche and other Continental philosophers to thank for developing upon it. Btw, Heidegger is great, but leftists twisted his ideas to found Postmodernism.

Post-WWII French philosophy is witty, but it's just too fucking degenerate. It will poison your mind with bullshit unless you have a solid basis.
For example: Foucault wanted to deconstruct culture because society hated dick-sucking faggots like him.
I stopped reading Sarte after I saw that he intentionally wrote a page-long sentence, just to stroke his own ego and prove how witty he is. He also hijacked Existentialism and turned it into Marxism, so fuck him.

Albert Camus is the only trustworthy one. Read him.

1. Nietzsche
2. Zen
3. ?????
4. Eudaimonia

that is an unbelievably prophetic quote

user, just no.

Not gonna read all the replies. Philosophers aren't to be read because you believe what they say or not. You read them to deal with them.

The lists so far are pretty comprehensive. Diogenes and Quine haven't been mentioned yet but not bad.

Read those greats, starting with Heraclitus, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle. Savor them. Enjoy the medievals.

Don't take Descartes too seriously and ignore anyone who does take his thought experiment far too seriously.

Nietzsche is fun enough but pretty 101 level shit. Hume is more fun if you want skepticism.

The closer you get to the current era the more pozzed it is. In the last century, I only consider Heidegger and Wittgenstein to be true philosophers. Sartre, Foucault, and anyone positivist are fucking cancer.

Incorporate or reject their ideas as you please, but you have an entirely different life in a different era, so form your own conclusions and find your own philosophy. Don't try to be an original thinker, that is lefty tier bullshit.

If you are going to be a try hard, try your absolute hardest to be right and find the truth.

Oh and learn at least basic logic. Use unambiguous definitions, distribute your terms, "if p then q", premises form the conclusion, know your assumptions, et cetera.

this

No, all philosophy is shit.

Logic is useless and so are logical arguments. The world is not logical.

No, philosophical reasoning is retarded. Believing you can arrive at truth through conceptual thought is retarded. "Doing philosophy" is like a child playing in his own feces.

Is there any sort of political/philosophical where everyone keeps to themselves? I just think the world is too loud and everyone should just be silent, only speaking when needed, and not sharing their stupid opinions just for the sake of talking. I know it's a dumb way of thinking of things and I understand the irony of asking for others ideas on this subject, but all I crave is silence.

Underrated. Concept of the Political should be required reading.

Interior silence - Hesychasm

I'll give it a look, thanks user

For shame!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

THE GUY WHO RE-INVENTED PHILOSOPHY?

checked. this