Holla Forums PHILOSOPHY THREAD
I recently read Plato’s “defence of Socrates”, and I feel that it draws many similarities to the current dichotomy between (( ==THEM== )) and any dissenting opinions (mainly right and traditionalist ideals).
Especially the first few pages of the book, which are as follows:
...
dumping reading meterial
...
...
All I have in the way of infographs, more would be appreciated.
...
much appreciated
The crisis of parlamentary democracy by Schmitt is terrible. His concept of the politicla is brilliant though.
Every concept that cant be pitched within 30 seconds does not hold value anymore. We are in the era of postfactual appeal to emotion. You can recommend as many books on whatever topic you want, unless you are able to put the gist of it into a one liner no one will listen to you. Saying niggers are shit while showing a webm of a nigger abusing an animal has much more impact than taking the time and actually arguing with some imbecile about why niggers lack ~40 000 years of evolution and have no place in modern societies.
The left has understood this way before us. Appeal to emotion instead of basing your arguments on facts works wonders.
Look at pic releated. Most people will agree. No need to bother them about the philosophical aspect of why the nigger is inferior and should be driven of, why man was created unequal.
Memes work so well because of what they are. Easy to digest, simple kept messages. Look at pic 2. Who wants to argue against that?
All of this shit is old and busted. Doesn't teach you about the modern world.
Read French commies instead like
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
I don't know why you guys think Plato and those Greek faggots are going to teach you anything about the world. Philosophy has moved since then you know.
...
The left also understood that its important to read books and be smart WHILE appeal to emotion and all that. I don't know why some right-wingers are so dead set on being anti intellectual.
...
...
Holla Forums monthly books mega archive got shoahed - did anyone make a backup?
the irony in this post
You can read books without being an intellectual. It's just easier to fall in to the intellectual trap if you read a lot. Hitler talks about this in MK.
STOP
Here is the thing guys. No matter how much you hate "cultural Marxism" and critical theory, it is winning. YOU ADMIT that its winning. An intellectual movement is winning and the best idea on how to fight is by being more stupid according to the internet right.
Actually read some Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire or Hobbes. They weren't good goys.
>check
Dubs of truth, being factually intelegent does not make you wise nor smart.
This is a jewish myth that has allowed the proliferation of anti-traditional ideals under the guise of wise judgment.
You can read as many books as you want, it does not matter how precise and valuable your argument is. You still lose to someone who just appeals to emotion.
People tend to see philosphers arguments as something they can use to give their own argument more value, nothing could be further from the truth. If you are a playing for power and especially trying to influence society no argument will ever be good enough unless you accept that the environment in which arguments are exchanged(and with it the arguments themselves) have changed.
It not wise man having opposing views and huge amounts of time to debate them, weight the positive and negative aspects and come to a beneficial conclusion anymore.
Knowledge is never wrong, just dont forget why you acquire it. The market place of ideas currently only sells memes and quick appeals to emotions. If you read these books be prepared to break down the contents to emotional arguments. Doesnt matter if you like it or not, if you want to come out as the winner in this day and age you have to appeal to emotions.
...
Baudrillard can teach us more about the modern world than any meme philosopher worshiped on the right (molymeme). For example here he BTFOs progressives for ever.
Is Albert Camus have anything good to say?
I read some of his works when I was more of a libertarian, and I liked his stance against nihilism, but he was a trotskyite, and more or less against tough measures to be taken against the muds in Algeria during the 1954 war.
I much prefer Evolva and Ernst Junger nowadays though.
Why do you people hate intellectuals so much? It doesn't make any fucking sense.
*Does Albert Camus
Not really, technological advancements haven't gone very far either. Hell they knew about atoms back then, had aqueducts, and employ many techniques still in use today. Not to mention that it was arguably the best time in philosophy. Even in the philosophical world, things STILL in use today and still talked about. Spekticism, Empiricism, Platonism, etc etc
So it's very important not to gloss over it. These times and people were always hot topics and probably won't cease to be any time soon. Voltaire called Plato, "The Divine Plato" even, so take it from one of the greats of satire and philosophy.
Camus is kind of babby's first philosopher but I like him. He's not too deep or anything, but some of his stuff is good. I don't think one should filter the philosophy they read by politics. A lot of "right-wing" philosophy is influenced by stuff created by leftists and vice versa, like how utopian socialists were somewhat influenced by Joseph de Maistre. Camus himself had his philosophy shaped strongly by the Christian philosopher, Kierkegaard.
because rebuilding the western world requires a re-connection to philosophy of the soul and human spirit/condition. modern nihilistic philosophy, whether it was for or against our current position, is in large part at fault for where we are currently in history. They may be able to piont out the issues that we have, and how we came to them, but a long term solution is to return the old ideas of traditionalism.
The propagation of leftism has come from the lack of soul and elevated meaning provided by the philosophers of old. Also gtfo you filthy fucking commie >Holla Forums
Because ((( intellectuals ))) and their ways of thinking goes against everything we stand for.
Because so-called intellectuals are in fact pseudo-intellectuals that are so far up their ass that they totally fail to grasp reality for what it is, instead being focused on their ideals and forcing them on everyone else, no matter the consequences. What we see with this globalist multicultural trash agenda is the direct consequence of the lunacy of the so-called intellectuals.
Also, reading a lot doesn't make one necessarily smart. You can read 25 things that promote whatever idea but that doesn't make it more valid or truer than a single one refuting and destroying the central point of the 25 others.
Hitler outright stood against intellectualism
They're millstones around the neck of any rightwing movement
You don't need philosophy, you simply need the fundamental truth, something not found in the ramblings of boy loving greeks and romans and homosexual monks
Many of those people you reference who 'hate' intellectualism were once very passionate about philosophy, but they reached the end of their tether as they grew up and realized that pseudo-intellectual pleb dumpster fires which run our institutions aren't interested in reaching mutual understanding. Hence they advocate that you put the book down and pick up a sword.
BUT READING IS FOR FAGS, JUST SLASH BICYCLE TIRES AND THROW PISS!
t. Natt
Most of your "fundamental truth" is rooted in philosophical systems which have merely become accepted.
Their "fundamental truth" is the ramblings of the most unsuccessful right wing leader in living memory and the egos of an Uzbek ex-communist and a degenerate drunk Dane.
who?
Ironmarch ecelebs. You're better off now knowing anything.
*not
Goddamn it.
lol wut, literally took a broken country with no economy and managed to fight off the rest of the worlds armies for years, whilst taking most of europe in the process….. K
Not Hitler, James Mason.
cummon CTR, you must have some more relevent people to irrelevently bring up
Oh, Slavros, right? Iron March seems to have joined forces with the CF autists lately. Slavros and other IM guys hang out in their discord group.
And yet he didn't succeed, and Germany ended up more wrecked than ever (along with millions of Germans and other Europeans dead and half of Europe taken over by commies). Unfortunately, Hitler's goals were set back even further than they were at the start.
The American Neo-Nazi movement is generally garbage.
Here is a link to all the monthly Holla Forums books mega.nz
Shitting on Mason is entirely relevant when Ironmarch garbage inserts itself into book/philosophy threads.
Yeah, their greatest achievement is plastering their surroundings with "whitegirlsfuckdogs" stickers, along with the aforementioned piss terrorism.
see
Whatever man
This is why we need an intellectual movement of the right but every time someone tries this other right-wing fags go >BUT MUH INTELLECTUALS DON'T DO NUFFIN and in the end you have new generations of right wingers thousands of years behind on everything reading Plato learn how to take down fat movement feminism or whatever.
Being right-wing is like the crab bucket mentality sometimes.
Do you niggers not see what I am saying? If you really believe intellectuals are killing you, you have to fight fire with fire and develop an intellectual movement of your own. Reading old FARTS liked in OP isn't shit.
Also respond to the Baudrillard quote I posted. Plato never BTFO progressives like that now did he.
If you want to develop a keen philosophical acuity, you should generally start with the Greeks. That doesn't mean only read the Greeks, or spend much time on them. But they set the basis for further philosophical movements.
I have nothing against reading the moderns or Baudrillard but most people will be lost unless they have a good understanding of the general language of philosophy and an understanding of the major players in Western thought. There is a lot of value in reading the Greeks, try reading Alasdair Macintyre or Edward Feser's attempt to reinvigorate Aristotelian ethics and metaphysics.
...
Clouscard
The Phora has an "Insights from the ideological left" thread. I learned a lot from it. Mostly that you CAN take ideas and views from the left and apply them to the right and that there is a massive discrepency in quantity and quality of modern intellectuals on the right and left. I mean do we even have a right wing version of Zizek or anything? Dugin is the only one I can think of.
Roger Scruton? de Benoist?
Nick Land outdoes Zizek in terms of eccentricity though
Speaking of intellectual circle jerking. I have a (blue pilled) friend that keeps talking about pic related as if it was some kind of a bible. Has anyone read it and know if (as i suspect) it's just a load of horse shit or it's any good? The guy that has written it is an anthropologist and an anarchist so i doubt it's any good but since i havent read it i cant really criticize it.