Philosophy thread. Discuss your favorite philosophers, quotes, theories, etc.
I love Ludwig here more because of his amazing life story (as admittedly, about half of what he was on about is a bit beyond me).
I also have to give love to Schopenhauer, as his Essay On The Freedom Of The Will turned me into a staunch determinist after I killed it in 24 hours while jacked up on speed.
Contribute. Don't be a brainlet.
Other urls found in this thread:
Wittgenstein was a cuckold.
Modern philosophers haven't added much
High point : stoicisim
Seneca, epictitus, Marcus arelius.
Diogenes of sinope is hilarious
more like he was gay in a time where you couldn't really be gay. not everyone had Oscar Wilde's balls.
Can I make an addition of Milan Kundera, a writer with deep uses of philosophy in his work
weird post to b, by the way
He wasn't gay, he was an autist. There's a difference.
I'd agree, mostly. I love how a bunch of Marxists would blow Althusser (even after he strangled his wife) until he admitted he hadn't even read half of his own philosophical library.
I'd say Baudrillard and Habermas are worthwhile, though
>habermas
That's a yikes from me bro
Great argument
there's a lot of evidence he was gay, user. probably on the spectrum too, but still that rare creature of brilliance within it.
enlighten me. not even being sarcastic. always looking to learn.
philosophy is gay as fuck
i hadn't heard the name 'til now but i'll be sure to read him
...
Not sure if you know but philosophy is usually on /lit/ by the way. You'll get more responses there.
well this is a coherent argument
Favourite philosopher?
Definitely Machiavelli, because of how commonly misunderstood he is.
Same counts for Nietzsche, even I don't understand his ravings sometimes.
Although I am morally reprehensible to him, as I try to follow Kant's categorical imperative.
Cosmicism is the only truth.
But no necessarily better ones.
thas the shit
Edgy wannabe philosophy starter set :Albert camus
got the book for free cant complain
i'll take that into account
>jews
sigh
I like Kant because his Categorical Imperative is the best method to live a moral life without lying or cheating or stealing or any immoral behavior. It is based on rationality not random whims.
Peterson isn't a stoic.
Sup Forums should follow Kant and stop spamming porn and nude pics and generally acting as coomer chromic masturbators.
Definitely Gustavo Bueno has created the best system since Plato's
Same. Double yikes. He is nothing but hit air.
He was definitely gay. It's known he had partners.
Immanuel Cunt was the first superstar volcel in recent modern history
But not the edgy ones
I like Cassirer. He showed that we live in a symbolic network that we cannot overcome.
Nietzsche, his stages of life were epic. And Nihilism explains much.
hegel and william james that is all
Plato's Parmenides is probably the most profound philosophical text ever written and the foundation of all Western thought. You can interpret the works of almost every philosopher, scientist and occultist that followed him as readings and critiques of that one dialogue.
Parmenides telling Socrates that the theory of forms must be true regardless of the severe beatdown it received during their exchange is likely a cop-out, akin to Fermat writing that his margins were too small. The investigation of the "one" leads to a total, irrecoverable breakdown of all phenomenology and semantics. The "one", the ultimate form that unites all others (since all forms share the principle of grouping individual material manifestations of properties under "one" singular idea) was replaced by Plato with "the Good" (later "God" with the advent of Christianity). Plato's primary contribution was his simultaneous investigation of two thinkers who are considered to be diametrically opposed: Heraclitus and Parmenides. Parmenides taught that there was no change, but rather pure timeless being. Heraclitus taught that there were no essences, and motion was all that existed. Plato's goal was to reconcile these two thinkers with a single metaphysics, but his mistake was assuming that there was at all a difference in their implications. What united their views on reality was the understanding that there were no boundaries between objects and phenomena, and thus no separation of the subject from the object. Plato's messy attempt to reconcile that which had no need for it led to the theory of forms, which postulated 2 separate worlds: the Parmenidian world of eternal ideas, and the Herakleitian world of transience and flux, where shadows of ideas were projected. The separation of metaphysics into 2 worlds marked also the separation of the subject from the object, which was the bane of all Western thought until Hegel (who, coincidentally, rediscovered both Parmenides and Heraklitus).
> "... Discuss your favorite philosophers, quotes, theories, etc. ..." ;
My favourite philosopher is:
Bruce, who is in charge of the Philosophy Department at the University of Woolloomooloo
youtube.com
tells you all you could want to know about the subject
I have come to respect Sartre.
Ortega y Gasset. Takes most of the more influential philosophical currents of the era and takes the most logical and important ideas of each one.
>le stoicism meme
get off podcasts, they're awful soy boy shit
the nintendo wii of philosophy
Coincidentally, the teachings of Gautama Buddha, likely a contemporary of Plato's, also happened to be a response to a prevailing dichotomy in Indian metaphysical thought, namely the conflict between the Essentialists and the Annihilationists, loosely corresponding to idealists and materialists. It is not quite possible to draw a parallel with the Eleatic school and Heraklitus here, since neither of those teachings was representative of either materialism or idealism per se, rather they could perhaps both be called quasi-Taoists.
Although the 2 aforementioned Indian trends did not have as much in common with each other as the aforementioned Greeks, nevertheless Buddha managed to identify what united them, and propose a much more radical and revolutionary solution than what Plato managed to do with his dichotomy. Instead of trying to integrate the two conflicting trends into one system, the Buddha saw that the very adherence to a system, the tendency to create mental constructs and semantic networks and identify with them, was the problem itself. These constructs created artificial separation and drew arbitrary boundaries within reality, leading to contradictions and frustrating attempts at understanding it. The answer was altogether removing these boundaries and extinguishing these constructs, returning to a state of pure undifferentiated perception, and then finally to a state where even perception itself was not a constant: a description which shares many similarities with Heraclitus' Panta Rhei. The state that is achieved as a result of this, Nirvana, is described by Buddha as eternal, unchanging, immaterial and devoid of all properties and boundaries, which corresponds to Parmenides' "One". Interestingly, Heraclitus and Parmenides managed to grasp two different aspects of Buddhist teaching, and both managed to demonstrate the non-substantive nature of systems and semantics. Ironically, Plato's metaphysics ultimately represented a regress in thought.
thanks for this post
My pleasure, user. I'm glad someone is able to find something to appreciate in my ramblings. I know that my tone sounds authoritative and dogmatic; that's partly due to the character limit for each post. I'm trying to be as laconic as possible.
I'm still learning myself, there is still way too much for me to read and understand, and the content of my posts are just thoughts that I've been trying to organise into something coherent lately.
Based historian
I would like to discuss with you but lethe sucks me in
[email protected]
e-mail
In general Scott Clifton was good before he had a kid and got too busy
My favorite philosopher
that's just joe rogan