God tier philosophers

What does pol think about philosophy? Which school do you favour? Do you think there was a golden age for philosophy and when was it? Which names or book titles do you recommend?
Also what do you guys think about stoicism? Is it a good pill to swallow?
How do we cope with nihilism?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nhPcn-2iHJ4
youtube.com/watch?v=R-sYDf0YGv4
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I am pretty sure that Sup Forums doesn't care for philosophy. But if it did, it would probably be the "Might is Right" tier books and social darwinist shit

...

...

This is the only philosopher you need to know my son.

Based

Guarantee you that kid's mother painted that sign and dragged him down to some tumblr-tier event just so she could photograph him holding it. Parents like that should be catapulted into the bosom of the Pacific ocean.

>taking political and economic advice from a boy

>Start up the rotors...

I am thinking of reading Evola and to start with "Rebel against the modern world", is he good/worth the time ?

isn't that the autist who demanded his listeners cut off communications with anyone who "supports the state"? What a ridiculous faggot.
>I swear its not a cult, it just does everything a cult does.

Not being ironic. I really like him and his book.

More or less "might is right".

really got my neurons going "bzz bzz"

> pol
> might

That always cracks me up. The only might you'd be able to project would be with a gun, but prolly even that would rack your tender vittles by way of recoil.

There is no coping: life is inherently suffering. The only salvation is to renounce all your desires.

youtube.com/watch?v=nhPcn-2iHJ4
the best god tier philosopher is Nietzsche
and his best book is "thus spoke zarathustra"

This !

And did he claim in the contrary? I don't think he did. Your post is pointless and is little more than a insult.

But not all things are suffering. However among all things many are, and so you can rightly suggest that tor renounce all things would be to roundly alleviate suffering. However, joy being tied to things, would also be renounced. Hence he who is associated with things that give him both considerable joy and tolerable grief would not necessarily benefit from a lack of desire.

>God tier philosophers
William Lane Craig

I love this man

>The only salvation is to renounce all your desires.

Or how you can be a cuck in just one step!

read Fyodor Dostoyevsky and fred nietzsche

>How do we cope with nihilism?
youtube.com/watch?v=R-sYDf0YGv4

But you strive for joy, right? It isn't always there. So you strive and suffer, for a moment are joyous (although Schopenhauer would say that isn't a positive emotion, but simply the lack of pain associated with striving), then start over and suffer more until you die.

...

Evola, Nietschze, Hobbes and I myself am particulary fond of Aurelius.

Basically I'm torn between being a stoicist and a cynic.

aside from his version of the KCA, what else is good about him?

they share....on facebook...sometimes

Good taste but I'd lean more towards Stoicism rather than Cynicism my dear toothpaste.

Hans Hermann Hoppe, Tomas de Aquino, Kant, Rene Descartes, Frederic Bastiat, Murray Rothbard, Jesus Huerta Soto, Leibniz, John Searle.

Pleasure and suffering are two sides of the same coin.

There are better coins though.

I've been starting to get into philosophy as a reaction to the crushing meaninglessness of life and my suicidal depression. For years I've considered my philisophical views some form of nihilistic hedonism but that's not cutting it anymore. If simple pleasure is all that there is then I might as well spend the rest of my short life lying on the beach with my veins full of morphine and meth. There's got to be something meaningful.

Current reading list is
>Socrates, Plato and Aristotle since they are the foundation of the Western canon
>Maybe one or two of the leading Christian philosophers. Perhaps Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. I doubt they'll make me believe but I've heard they're somewhat necessary for...
>Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and the existentialists. They're the ones I'm really interested in given they confronted pretty much the exact same issues I'm struggling with. But given 2 of the 4 are profoundly religious and 1 had a mental breakdown before dying at 55 maybe I shouldn't hold out much hope.
I'll see where I go after that. Maybe Buddhism would give me a reason not to kill myself.

But that's all a lot of hot air and future plans. So far my political understanding is limited plebtier podcast level.
>Michael Sandel's Justice:What's the Right Thing to Do
>Jordan B Peterson
>Various podcasts and lectures covering the Ancient Greeks.
I say they're plebtier compared to primary sources but they've still provided a great foundation to build on. Can not recommend Michael Sandel enough as a good, easily digestible introduction to ethical philosophy - great way of doing something productive self-improvement while gaming or commuting. JBP is fucking everywhere right now but there's a reason for it.

At the same time I've been expanding my understanding of political philosophy so I've been working through the writings of Marx, Hobbes, Kant, Hayek, Smith, Machiavelli and Evola (mostly for the meme value). Plus the Greeks where they come up.

But I'm generally pretty happy. I'd imagine that I'd be less happy if I didn't strive to be happy. I'd also argue that to strive isn't to suffer.

>although Schopenhauer would say that isn't a positive emotion, but simply the lack of pain associated with striving
He's need to justify this claim. I could just as easily say that strife is instead the absence of joy.

You'd need to convince people that to not desire would make them happier.

nobody wants Ortega :(

Shit, forgot to mention Aurelius. His meditations are what I'm reading now.

I don't just mean bodily pleasure when I refer to joy an happiness, but also satisfaction and contentedness. These things I can attain by acting, and can loose through inaction, and in order to justify an action I must have a desire, which can be wise or unwise depending on the desire, and the actions taken to acquire it.

Kants moral code will make you a miserable person. And his extreme admiration of reason is simple-minded. He neglects the heart. True heroism is found in people who combine their heart with reason.

>the earth is flat and spirits move the celestial bodies Augustine and Aquinas

Really the catholic church was the one at fault when the schism happened. Look more into eastern orthodox who preserved more of the truth. Like you said the existentialists were mostly rebelling against the catholic/ Protestantism church. (not so much kierkegaard though)

Does your fleeting happiness really content you so much that you could gladly die?

Shit nigga... Impressive. You're gonna be a smart boi.

Hey me too user. Me too

I can understand joy which I see as fulfilled contentment but from my understanding happiness is the fleeting moment from fulfilled desire. Having to chase desire I don't believe is wise. Desire fulfills much of the time nothing but the aches it itself cause. The richest man of this world and the poorest man of this world have the best chance to understand the same thing. Desire does not fulfill a man.

bump

I lean towards Stoicism, Cynicism and to some extent Confucianism.

Societal stability and realistic approach to the nature of life seems sensible to me.

No. And does that matter? Why ought my happiness be measured by my willingness to die? Could it not be said that being sufficiently happy is a disincentive to die? For if I live in happiness and consider it good, would I not want to continue to do so? And would continuing to do so be a negative only by dint of the fact that suffering will occur along the way, regardless of it's irrelevancy relative to my joy?

would he say that God is a spook?

cynicism
also
>nihilism is bad

I don't consider happiness to be fleeting, but rather a state. I'd tie the abundance of contentment, pleasure, and satisfaction to the arching concept of happiness, personally. I'd call the instant gratification after a sated desire just that, gratification.

>Having to chase desire I don't believe is wise. Desire fulfills much of the time nothing but the aches it itself cause.
If I were to weigh in my mind both the negative consequence of the chase and the boon of the attained desire and decide that the boon outweighs the cost, then why would I fret at the existence of the suffering, when without it I'd never have the high of attainment.

While desire and the attainment thereof can be reduced to the greed for material possession, that which could make a man ill instead of well, this need not be the case. Instead, we can consider desire more broadly, and include contentment, satisfaction, and pleasure all as desires. To attain contentment and satisfaction does not necessitate loosing them, only to square more, as to acquire a material possession does. While pleasure is indeed fleeting, and the desire for it is self feeding, it's also bloody boring to not have it.

Hence, desire can either be framed as vein, or virtuous, and can coincide with what you would consider virtuous. So long as you please your ego wisely, accounting for long term and short term benefits, you'll do fine.

The idea that you should serve a god is a spook. God personified by a church is a spook. Tenets made by a god are a spook. Then again, laws are a spook, but consequences are, therefore if you could be convinced of the existence of a god, it's probably wise to serve him.

But there are always interesting perceptions of god people come up with that I'd be interested in hearing about. I'm assuming you have something to say.

Consequences aren't*

You don't cope with nihilism.

You kill it. You put on your biggest smile and look up. You see your target and move towards it.

Let's make an ethnicly homogenus EVROPA my brother.

Don't get me wrong he's great but when it comes to his political stance? Pretty much a fucking kike. "Muh state is bad, they take away your freedom. It's not like they did anything for you."

I think we are having a difference of definitions on what happiness is and this conversation is going to turn into spiritual v carnal dispute. I am a deeply spiritual person and have studied /chased more understanding past only philosophy of the physical senses. I can understand what you are saying because I have experienced carnal living just as any other man but from the journey I have had my knowledge widened of greater things to attain.

All men's bodies die eventually. This is the problem with solely living for conquering the physical world. Not only that as I was alluding before the spirit/soul of man will not be fulfilled even if he possessed the entire physical domain because they reach for something greater.

I think the fundamental question "Do you believe in God?" is simply the wrong question.
I live my life as best I can. I try to do the right thing because I want to do the right thing. I don't do it because I was promised eternal salvation or threatened with damnation, it's just the person I want to be. I may not be perfect, but I try to improve.
People who ask "Do I believe in God?" ask the wrong question. They should be asking "Would I act any different if I knew God did/did not exist?".
Many people would. Many would not. many religious people, if you ask them that question and question their actions in the hypothetical situation that they knew god did not exist, wouldn't even stop going to church.
The real truth is that it shouldn't matter if God exists. I will live as best I can, and when I die, either God exists, and I will be judged on a life I've lived as well as I can, with my chest out and my chin up, or I will have lived a good life and died with a smile.

If certain knowledge of the existence or lack thereof of God would change the way you act or who you are, you have fundamental problems that need to be addressed in how you live.

i consider happiness to be an illusion, in that perspective is everything
there are two ways to be happy: one is to increase your means and the other is to lower your expectations

My favs not all philosophers but definitely philosophical.

Santiago Sierra
fredreich Nietzsche
Jacques derrida
artur Schopenhauer
George Orwell
Franz Kafka
Samuel Beckett
Jordan b Peterson
wassily Kandinsky
Krzysztof kieslowski
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Walt Whitman
Henrik Ibsen

I think that the most E V I L philosopher was a Franchmen.I am talking about the creator of vivisection.You know who.
With philosophy the biggest problem i interpretaction.Hitler was reading Nietzche and Nietzche would be never proud of it..As you see..Philosophy can be confusing

I should add Jean genet and Jean Paul Sartre to that even though they were wanton degenerates

>And his extreme admiration of reason is simple-minded.
Why would he even write this then?

...

Kant is crucial in the timeline of philosophy and modern thought. He was one of the avant garde for concepts of modernism. So was Kandinsky and even Piet Mondrian to an extent. They rode the crests of fine art and saw how it was the vehicle for its time to introduce new concepts to the intelligentsia

>I think we are having a difference of definitions on what happiness is
What you call happiness I call gratification. I call happiness a state, you call it a condition. We can pick terms and move forward. The loading of terms is spooky and we can ignore it for the sake of dialectic.

>conversation is going to turn into spiritual v carnal dispute
I contest that the spiritual can become the personal should you disambiguate it's ability and disregard the supernatural. You can make the spiritual one with you and then make it bellow you and do what pleases the ego.

You can make personal arguments for how the spiritual is important and how you can't be truly pleased without it, however can you truly argue that to rationally and wisely please the ego is to live in some way lesser to the spiritual individual who enslaves himself to the spiritual?


> I can understand what you are saying because I have experienced carnal living just as any other man but from the journey I have had my knowledge widened of greater things to attain.
I could just be doing it better than you could because I live without spooks. What "greater" things exist that can benefit me, and how do they benefit me? If they do not benefit me, then to know them would only please me in so far as to sate my curiosity should I have any.

>All men's bodies die eventually. This is the problem with solely living for conquering the physical world.
You'll die just like I will. You can pretend there is an after life but you are simply afraid.

>Not only that as I was alluding before the spirit/soul of man will not be fulfilled even if he possessed the entire physical domain because they reach for something greater.
Only while you still have mind. You may become peaceful within yourself, and you may live maximally, however none of this matters after you die, or at least there is no reason to believe that it does. Then, what happens above the physical and the mind are not the concerns of the mental being.

>I'm assuming you have something to say.
I believe that reason is itself is God. Something that Hegel pretty much stated.

I'm pretty tempted to skip the Christian philosophers desu.
I've heard they're important for later schools of thought, particularly Nietzsche, but given they believe in a universe ordered by some omnipotent supernatural entity and I ... don't ... I can't help but imagine reading them will be a relatively low-yield exercise.

That's the plan.
And backing it up with getting /fit/, raising a family with my qt never-even-kissed-another-man gf and working my dream job in Sydney's best hospital you'd think I'd be living the dream.

oh hi

But I want to die and perish. Because just before you die you get to meet Mother.

She is the source of pain in the world. She gives it us because she loves us. In fact she loves so much she will reincarnate us so that we can experience it all over again.

Death is my mother.

read bonaventure's "the mind's road to God", Augustine's confessions, and forget aquinas until you want to dive into metaphysics. That being after the greeks.

>i consider happiness to be an illusion, in that perspective is everything
But to me, the person, who perceives them, their illusory nature is inconsequential. The consequence of the illusion being an illusion are nothing to me.

>there are two ways to be happy: one is to increase your means and the other is to lower your expectations
Then pick one or do both.
I'm inclined to agree with the premise, which seems to be that your action is more important than your intent. However this is looking at it the wrong way. This is true only the outside observe to whom your motivation matters little as they observe your action. To the practitioner, the doing individual, however, why he does something may have many emotional consequences. To do things for a god is to do things out of fear and to often go against you desire. To do things for a "good" that is set by another, i.e, request, law, or creed, is to again ignore your desire frivolously. However to do for yourself will, while not eliminating altruism for all of the emotional good it brings, always server the ego. How much your actions benefit you is a measure predicated not on what you are told to do, but rather, how wise you are about serving yourself.

There is in fact no downside to living for your own ego, not even necessarily to those around you.

>I believe that reason is itself is God. Something that Hegel pretty much stated.
How does he define god?
Why exactly are you miserable? Is life to easy? Or perhaps, do you want greater things? I think if you're 100% honest with yourself about what displeases you, you'll find it. No one can lie to yourself better than you.
But regardless, you're rather impressive. Something to be proud of.

...

>You'll die just like I will. You can pretend there is an after life but you are simply afraid.

I don't understand how someone can make so definitive a statement as that. Same as I don't understand atheists while I understand agnostics. What do you consider absolute truth so as to help me understand how you can make such an statement?

>I could just be doing it better than you could because I live without spooks. What "greater" things exist that can benefit me, and how do they benefit me? If they do not benefit me, then to know them would only please me in so far as to sate my curiosity should I have any.

The things of my God are the best and no one has them unless he allows. I have also experienced not only through spiritual revelation but many physical manifestations of my God to cause me to believe him. The future has been predicted many times accurately, he has told me the things people will say before they say them word for word, and I have quoted scripture I had not read almost word for word to people when I first began learning from him. I don't expect you to have these experiences as to know as I know but I will try to testify these things as being real to you.
Life is my father and my end. I will become one with him in eternity and be free from pain.

Thales of Miletus.

Not directly but here is an excerpt from wiki
"For his god Hegel does not take the logos of Heraclitus but refers rather to the nous of Anaxagoras, although he may well have regarded them the same, as he continues to refer to god's plan, which is identical to God. Whatever the nous thinks at any time is actual substance and is identical to limited being, but more remains to be thought in the substrate of non-being, which is identical to pure or unlimited thought."

Yes. Its a good start(Ride the Tiger has required reading beforehand), but he's an idealist(mind over matter) so don't back down at the instant he book doesn't take realism into account too much. Also it's revolt

>I don't understand how someone can make so definitive a statement as that.
The fact is your guess as far as anyone who hasn't experienced your phantasms (Assuming you've had some spiritual moments with some presence) is as good as mine. There is in fact no reason to suggest that you aren't rotting on the same planet as me. Philosophy and thought under that presumption is useless to everyone and just spooks you needlessly.
>Same as I don't understand atheists while I understand agnostics.
Atheism is a knowledge claim, agnosticism is a statement of believe. To be an agnostic and to admit that you don't actively have a believe in god is to become an atheist, for belief must be active, therefore agnostic atheism is a valid, useful term, indicating that the individual has no active belief in god, but is also unsure of his existence.However to have church men throw drool at you predicated on nothing will lead one to disregard, not consider as possible, for the musings of the church folk are no more lucid than those of a mad man.
>What do you consider absolute truth so as to help me understand how you can make such an statement?
If a man was to tell me that the world was atop a turtle, I would call him a moron and count him incorrect. While this action isn't philosophically diligent, for we could indeed be atop a turtle, you could hardly judge me. As it is with the claim of after lives and gods. Not disregarded because they are implausible, but instead only because they are baseless rantings that exist among a backdrop of hundreds of their like.
>The things of my God are the best and no one has them unless he allows.
Source: your ass
> I have also experienced not only through spiritual revelation but many physical manifestations of my God to cause me to believe him.
And you are reasonable in your belief. However only someone who has experienced such delusions ought to consider your rantings credible.

Hegel desu.

As a child I prayed in pain for years and experienced nothing, and I grew cold as a result. I could find no comfort in the fantastical. If your god is real then he is malevolent by my understanding, or above it. I do not care for him, because the mind tricks of the cognitively dissonant are powerful and hardly a testimony for god, for when I believed with all my heart and cried out in pain, he did not answer. He is inhuman in that regard. He is to me relivable. However regardless of his existence, his supremacy is equally as questionable as his existence. Indeed, I can see nothing more in your testimony than phantasm, for as the mad man claims to so apparitions so do you. The difference being the mad man has no vested interest in an apparition to keep him comfortable and secure his bias. Therefore, is the mad man and his delusions not a more trust worthy source than you and your God?

Kant's *okay*, but he's totally wrong about how the past can never be infinite.

Friedrich Nietzsche or that belgian fellow Aristotle

*sniff*

>but given they believe in a universe ordered by some omnipotent supernatural entity
Almost all philosophers have this, it's called meta-physics.

> could find no comfort in the fantastical. If your god is real then he is malevolent by my understanding, or above it. I do not care for him, because the mind tricks of the cognitively dissonant are powerful and hardly a testimony for god, for when I believed with all my heart and cried out in pain, he did not answer

oi your missing a lot of what religion actually preaches
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all things shall be added nto you";
"the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with that glory"

In other words, once you have be redeemed or enlightened, you won't give a shit about the pain you endured to get there. Rather, as scripture says, you will take it as a learning lesson from God.

I'm going to be 100% honest. I don't understand what he's on about there. I'm not familiar with many of those terms.

>"Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all things shall be added nto you";
How convenient. I should just do it because the book told me, beforehand being given no reason to do so. And upon doing so for many years, nothing happens. But I am to believe this is his plan, that I after suffering supposedly in his arms would grow tired of his incorporeal embrace?

>"the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with that glory"
A glory that I am promised by a source not shown at all to be credible.

>In other words, once you have be redeemed or enlightened, you won't give a shit about the pain you endured to get there.
I think I am enlightened in a manner of speaking. I just didn't do what the church folk told me to do to get there. Enlightenment's ties to god are less than superficial. It's an arbitrary conflation.

full quote Romans 8:18
"And if we are children, then we are heirs: heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ—if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him. 18I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God.…"

...

...

I can guarantee you that you wouldn't think pain is merely a spook if you were to be tortured. I agree that it can be if one chooses too, that is something that christains, buddhists, and I'm assuming Striner says.

>I think I am enlightened in a manner of speaking. I just didn't do what the church folk told me to do to get there.
never said the church was the right way to go.But if we are talking dogma, saying that everything is a spook, including dogma itself, is still a dogma. It's the same paradox of nihilism and doesn't get you far when you question why the ego isn't a spook itself.

I believe I can relate to you in some way but please don't berate me if you don't believe so. When I was younger I suffered horribly all the time. It was the worst suffering I will ever have to go through in my entire existence. If you have ever read of ego death some say it can come from suffering and I believe I reached that point. The suffering washed out everything else until I became a shell of a human. The only reason I didn't kill myself was my respect for God and belief that the body kept me from even greater suffering. I became numb to the suffering as if my brain filtered it out. Kind of like how you don't usually see your nose unless you focus and then it reappears. I cried out for God to save me. This is the part where I tell you he answered me right? He never answered me but he left me there burning. It went on like that for a long time until he sent me a dream and healed me. My suffering was gone in an instant. He is the only God who loved me enough to deliver me. I shortened a lot of important things about this story but I wanted to say from that human beings may have to humble themselves in their limited capacity of understanding to not hate God for their mortal pains. The madman would be less of a trustworthy source because his god does not have the power of my God.

idk, like i follow kantbot on twitter and shit.

>tfw brainlet

What a terrible list of lists this thread is.

Continental philosophy is utter BS.

To understand philosophy at all you need to read Hume and the empiricists and Descartes and the rationalists. This sets you up for Kant who sets you up for Frege.

Your next stop is the Vienna Circle and the English positivists and analytic philosophers like Austin and Wittgenstein.

Now you are ready to understand modern philosophy. I'm partial to Davidson. Though since you are politics nerds... I suggest Nozick

While the bible may justify this nonsense, it does not explain why it is just as to satisfy my ego.

>I can guarantee you that you wouldn't think pain is merely a spook if you were to be tortured.
Pain is by definition, not a spook.

> I agree that it can be if one chooses too, that is something that christains, buddhists, and I'm assuming Striner says.
Pain isn't an abstract concept or social construct. It is essentially real.

>But if we are talking dogma, saying that everything is a spook, including dogma itself, is still a dogma.
To have a word with a definition, and to then assign concepts that fit such a definition to the term, is hardly a dogma. I am not told to do it. It is bellow me. The definition and it's implications is my property that I use as a tool. It is as much a dogma as a wrench or a screw driver.

>It's the same paradox of nihilism and doesn't get you far when you question why the ego isn't a spook itself.
Because the ego is defined as the person himself. It is real. It isn't so much an abstract concept as it is you, and you think therefore you are.

To acknowledge spooks is not to be spooked. To assert as such is nonsensical.

you cope with nihilism by understanding it as the blessing it is and enjoy your existence

From which book was this extracted?

Any kind of philosophy that doesn't selfish asshole philosophy that is simple and doesn't make many rigorous demands, like Ayn Rand. Kind of like Camus is for Redditards.

I suppose Kant for the poltards with a functioning brain. My biggest influence is Sartre, Being and Nothingness made a pretty profound impact on me when I was 18.

>analytical philosophy

yeah maybe if you're a fucken NERD

>To have a word with a definition, and to then assign concepts that fit such a definition to the term, is hardly a dogma. I am not told to do it. It is bellow me. The definition and it's implications is my property that I use as a tool. It is as much a dogma as a wrench or a screw driver.

a belieif in an ego( a definition) is a dogma. It is a concept that you firmly believe in. It is the contrary to metaphysical nihilism only in the extent that it denies the one thing you hold onto: your own ego

>Because the ego is defined as the person himself. It is real.

simply a spook if you choose to believe so. If all causation(which is real only in relation to the ego) is what matters, then I, the ego, choose to deny the belief in my very existence. And if it is truely a spook that follows with your guidlines, I am in a paradox

How do you cope with the fact that Wittgenstein based his The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus on a single illogical presupposition and that this took him decades to recover from, where he came around his silly religion and belief to infallible logic?

So is it not equally as plausible to say that your own mind tricked you and you didn't at all see god? Of course, it's your mind, and once you go made and begin having delusions, you aren't in any place to question it, for if not in your mind, what can you trust? Of course, you will externalize your mind to god, but in the end, you are still trusting the world that your mind builds around you. The rest is simply delusion. You are the creative nothing. But of course, your delusions are your own and as real as anyone else's reality.

So no credence to your claim can be gleamed assuredly from your testimony even if I were to consider your perception of events a perspective of what actually happened.

And you didn't answer my question. How are you any more reliable a source for righteous and all powerful phantasms when the mad man is under no duress born of cognitive dissonance to see phantasm, while your delusions (perceptions, truths, whatever you want to call them) help seat a bias you have and ease the cognitive dissonance of a belief without predication? In fact, how is the mad man not more trustworthy than you, he who in his darkest moment was broken and a prime candidate for delirium, and who is also biased?

Can you now perhaps see that to me, I can view you as only mundane among a sea of ranting lunatics?