Introduction 'In a period of history which any one nominate themselves infallible supervisor of the coherence of others, it's worth reminding such distinct people that Aristotle himself, inventor or first formulator of the rules of logic and sofistic refutations, warned that these instruments were of no use without a long previous training in the arts of language and exercise in comprehension. With prudence, put previously the learning of syllogistic ( and it's dumb sister, sophistry ), the treatises in interpretation, the categories ( or types of predicates ), the antepredictions ( or level of predicates ), the psychology of discourse ( or rethoric ) and the art of distinguishing between real and apparent contradictions ( the topica, or dialectic ). On top of it all was placed the technique of coherent scientific discourse, which was named analytics, latter called "logic".' In other words, people jump all of it and start spreading bullshit for all the world to hear, and that is why you see leftists using intellectual dishonesty in order to win arguments, I can expand on this if needed, which I'm not inclined to do. Since we all have our examples of leftists or simply useful idiots talking about things without measuring their words.
Philosophers, in order.
By all means this is not the ultimate list and whatever interests you have can be complemented at your own desire, labels towards individuals will be avoided, at all costs on my part, but I'm not responsible for yourself in any way, and my only wish here is to give light towards the understanding of a subject matter that might interest you, your life, the understanding of the foundations of the Western Civilization.
'Why?' Knowledge isn't transmitted by osmosis, living in the present we are the most blessed and rich in comparison to the past - obviously - for the amount of accumulated material, but this list is neglected in colleges all around the world.
The process is tough, but simple: fulfill the traditional tasks of the academic study provided in the Introduction - in the order which was spoken -, dominate the trivium, learn to write by imitating the classics in three idioms at least: 1.Read a lot of Aristotle - all the works. 2.Plato - #. 3.Thomas Aquinas - #. 4.Leibniz - #. 5.Schelling - #. 6.Husserl - #. Absorb as much as you can from the German and Austrian universities in the first half of the XX century, know very well the Comparated History of two or three civilizations, absorb the classics of theology and mystic of at least three religions - at your choice -, and afterwards, and only after you finished those tasks, read: 1.Marx 2.Nietzsche 3.Foucault
If after this regime you still feel impressed with what these latter three, it's because you're really dumb and I can't help you in any way.
Camden Kelly
Sophistic Refutations*
Carson Hughes
Once you've finished this basic tutorial, you can humiliate any PhD for the best university you know about. If you're interested in authors with focus on harsh rethoric and other information, I can provide that as well. Harsh Rethoric Writers: 1.Tertullian 2.Léon Bloy
Ryan Turner
Interesting material for study in another philosophical subjects of importance: 1.Marcus Aurelius 2.Boethius 3.Nicolo Machiavelli - In case of this in particular I suggest a study of his background
Sebastian Long
Bump.
Mason Moore
Arthur Schopenhauer - How to Win an Argument Without Being Right - with stratagems and other sorts of things in regards to rethoric.
Samuel Clark
Bump
Easton Nelson
I guess self-bump was removed.
Ryder Morgan
Conservative interesting modern writers for once you've finished the starting material: 1.Eric Voegelin 2.Roger Scruton
A must read for political philosophy. Machiavelli appears to have pillaged much of his philosophy from it:
>Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care.
>[79] The consequence of this love is that the government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings. An example of this is to be seen in Julius Caesar who... loved his soldiers to such an extent that when he heard that some of them were slaughtered, “he refused to cut either hair or beard until he had taken vengeance.” In this way, he made his soldiers most loyal to himself as well as most valiant, so that many, on being taken prisoner, refused to accept their lives when offered them on the condition that they serve against Caesar.
>consider the means by which a tyrannical government is upheld. It is not upheld by love, since there is little or no... between the subject multitude and the tyrant... On the other hand, tyrants cannot rely on the loyalty of their subjects, for such a degree of virtue is not found among the generality of men, that they should be restrained by the virtue of fidelity from throwing off the yoke of unmerited servitude, if they are able...
>On the contrary, the government of kings, since it is pleasing to their subjects, has for its protection, instead of hirelings, all the subjects. And they demand no pay but, in time of need, freely give to their kings more than the tyrants can take. Thus the words of Solomon are fulfilled (Prov 11:24): “Some (namely, the kings) distribute their own goods (doing good to their subjects) and grow richer; others (namely, the tyrants) take away what is not their own and are always in want.”
I ain't reading all this shit monkey nigger, just give us the tl:dr
Jackson Clark
that's alot of reading but I sure am interested
Carson Allen
Much obliged, I'll take note of that.
Dominic Moore
Bump for autismo OP. gonna read the entire thread later on.
Xavier James
It's everything they don't want you to learn, Aussie, because once you do, they can't win an argument without resorting to dishonesty. And yes, it takes years for serious study, it's really something you should undertake with all seriousness.
Luis Martin
>>Good kings, on the contrary, are loved by many when they show that they love their subjects and are studiously intent on the common welfare, and when their subjects can see that they derive many benefits from this zealous care. >>[79] The consequence of this love is that the government of good kings is stable, because their subjects do not refuse to expose themselves to any danger whatsoever on behalf of such kings. An example of this is to be seen in Julius Caesar who... loved his soldiers to such an extent that when he heard that some of them were slaughtered, “he refused to cut either hair or beard until he had taken vengeance.” In this way, he made his soldiers most loyal to himself as well as most valiant, so that many, on being taken prisoner, refused to accept their lives when offered them on the condition that they serve against Caesar.
Consider Spicer's first press conference and Pres. Trump's one last night. In both cases the media got savaged and punished; at the Spicer conference, it was because the media was demeaning Pres. Trump's supporters, trying to demoralize them and shitting on their parade/triumph, belittling it. Pres. Trump said in an interview the following day that he would not tolerate the Press demeaning his people/supporters.
Then yesterday's presser. The media turned to attacking people close to President Trump, attacking their reputation, integrity, competence and character and questioning their loyalty. President Trump personally took up their cause and ripped the media a new one. For this, he wins the love and gratitude of his supporters generally and the love and loyalty of his staff; and now both will likewise be inclined to defend President Trump from the press and those who attack him generally.
Grayson Young
Thanks, leaf, it's my only vocation. People forgot or refused to pass ahead the foundations of the Western Civilization, there is too much propaganda but no solid starting point to be found around most of the threads.
Angel Gutierrez
Which makes it even more interesting and to understand that trully it is a man of genius, consider that when he was interviewed he spoke about having read 'only 13 books or so'. Which we can capitulate in understanding where he took his education, and how great was the knowledge his father transmitted to him. In short, to me it seems like he is naturally gifted, meanwhile others that don't have the same luck or history in their development can resort to reading about the roots of our culture.
Zachary Fisher
In this reply where I spoke about reading all the works of Aristotle, the order of reading was given in the Introduction, this is the basis for you to study this - and all the other works from other writers/ideologues.
Ayden Evans
Also, Aussie, Aristotle studied 40 years under Plato before starting to produce his own works. So that's how serious these Philosophers took their work.
Luis Miller
>no jung >no kierkegaard >no wittgenstein ok pleb
Caleb Smith
It was explained on the second post to fill in the other material you had interest in, the examples set in were for a beginner in regards to logic. Skipping the material I made reference to would be the same as jumping from the floor to the 10th of a building, and then starting to climb the ladders to the rooftop.
