Other than Stirner, who is leftypol's fav existentialist...

What are some of Satre's ideas anyway?

Man no shit, almost every philosophical debate over there results in people screaming SPOOKS and disregarding the last 2600 years of human thought for that mantra.

What are some of the main things you took away from his work?

a milkman

Worst philosopher in history desu

People coming together is hardly a original idea, its just that I love the way how hes all about the "rational self interest" and individualism yet ends up being in favour of communism

I honestly think that using "spook" as a tool, for yourself not in public because im not autistic, is a pretty handy way to dismantle ideology in favor of materialism, which I think the left is in dire need of.

Do we disregard 2600 years of human thought entirely? No, of course not. But we should put it in perspective and realize that these ideas are determined by the material conditions, and are really nothing more than "phantoms of the mind"

this tbh.

Is that what he actually said? What about meaning of life?

Basically he says human is thrown into the world as a pure existence, tabula rasa-like, and then shapes himself by making choices. The obvious contradiction being that if you don't already have an essence to work with, you can't make choices.
Of course, he also had to deny biological instincts and the likes to push his meme fantasy.

Well, he was followed around by crabs

Kierky and Camus are my favorites, even though they are kind of on opposite sides of the spectrum.

I like Sartre. Nausea was pretty good.

Would Dostoevsky be considered an existentialist?jfdp

Here's a quote by him:
This will probably convince Rebel to read him, so in a week or two we will know everything about Sartre as he will spam every thread with his new favourite philosopher.

I hate Sartre, but that's not what he said.
The idea of existence preceding essence isn't "free will" but the idea that whether free will exists or not, it doesn't matter because the failure of ethics and man are what produce such excuses and notions of not-being.

Being is the only important factor. The fact that you can into becoming is what gives you freedom.

Why is what Stirner says supposed to be such a revelation anyway? I don't get it. Are his fans really so fucking pre-spooked that they need him to say what's so obvious?
And what does he achieve anyway? What difference does it make, for example, whether a nationalist really believes nation is some godly principle of everything or has simply decided for this political position being fully aware of it as such?

Sigh. It is radical, because it's an acceptance that fixed ideas are bullshit which no one ever does.

Yes we do disregard it.
ALL THINGS ARE NOTHING TO ME

Nu-uh user, that's not weird at all, don't worry! Camus based a lot of his ideas on Kierkegaard, and had deep appreciation for his leap to faith, even though he didn't completely understand it.

I'm still a Camusian despite not agreeing in the sense that I agree wholeheartedly that one should always hold in their heart the right to rebel.

Have read him. He's crap. Worst existentialist.

This is the stupidest quote. It's the most obvious thing in history.

Materialism

Obese christian edgelord get out

...

One old Zen koan goes something like this:

When you fix yourself on an idea, you're at a 100 foot pole and you can't move anywhere else. This is hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.

You think you know everything, but you don't, Rebel. You're such am arrogant faggot no wonder you don't have any friends.

Heh, Overchan told me bad gateway and I didn't see the post. My bad.

I don't believe you. Isn't that simple.

Not incompatible with egoism.

Ideology != spook

Projecting?

Really?

k

untrue!

I know that I don't know shit. What about you?

I know that buddhism advocates living in a way that "goes with nature" like the menophees, and hence isn't at all nihilism.

Why do you think I am arrogant? Because I have opinions? I'm opinionated. I'm not arrogant. I change my mind all the time.

Have you even read the fucking quote?

It's written by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by the way.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/

fuck you

Unamuno or Kierkegaard are pretty good, but my favourite existentialist is…
Shakyamuni Buddha.

Forgot to quote this part didn't you?

Thanks for proving that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Good choice!

What are you even trying to say?
This quote claims Stirner does reject morality, but that he isn't a nihilist (in the sense that he rejects all normative judgement)

nihilism =/= rejecting morality

Yeah sure, he's not a nihilist. I can admit that that was incorrect, though it's a fair mistake, you should agree.

His metaphysics are also seemingly nihilistic because he rejects the universal.

It is a fair mistake because the term nihilist can refer to alot of things wihin philosophy, there is no real 'definition'.

Anyway i like your videos comrade