Which philosopher in your opinion is closest to the pure ideological incarnation of Sup Forums?

Which philosopher in your opinion is closest to the pure ideological incarnation of Sup Forums?
Pic related is probably my opinion.

Somewhere between Diomedes and Nietzsche.
Everything is meaningless but live life with purpose all the same
Only a few can reach greatness and guide humanity as a whole
But if that's not your cup of tea, fuck how civilisation over-complicates things and just do something you're comfortable with.

Albert Camus.

Mostly because he wanted to kill himself often, just like all of us here on Sup Forums, and found reasons not to.

Platonism and stoicism are the way, the truth and life.

Socrates, Most people think they know everything about everything, but they're actually dumb fucking cucks

Diogenes

This.
Cynicism masterrace coming through.

You mean Reddit's philosopher?

This - ok not a philosopher in and of himself - but nevertheless a good representation of what its like on a daily basis for those of us who give a proper fuck.

Platon (meme), Carl Jung (meme magic), Heidegger (memetics and general attitude towards modernity and death), Whitehead (2D/3D and the supperiorty of the fromer), Nietzsche (pepe), Otto Weiniger (redpill).

Socrates isn't really understood. He didn't write anything down. The only accounts we have of him are Plato's writings and they are in the form of dialog skewed by Plato's perception.

that guy in highschool with no friends that thinks he's smart and acts like he knows better than the rest.

This is actually mistaken. I recommend that you look into the Memorabilia of Xenophon, which Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, your countrymen, thought presented a far more accurate picture of Socrates than did Plato. It runs into tens of thousands of words. There are also many anecdotes of Socrates scattered among the writings of various authors.

As for Plato, some would consider him a proto-Communist, and he also believed in having a community of wives.

Diogenes von Sinope was a degenerate, blackpiller and the first cosmopolitan (the only state/Nation he accepted was the cosmos). He wanted not to overcome human, but to Fall behind him and become a dog (cynisism is from the greek word for dog). He likley was a jew (the nose knows).

...

Rockwell
More like Degeneres

hmmm

Aristotle.

Old Sup Forums: Evola
New Sup Forums: Nietzsche
Nu Sup Forums: Diogenes

I wasn't aware of that, I will look into that more and read up on it.

Plato is /leftypol/

Cynicysm is just a cover.

Marcus Aurelius because this board is only one thing in it's core: a stoic.

As redpilled as that seems in the modern context, I'm pretty sure nearly all humans throughout nearly all of civilized/agricultural history have thought similar things and basically been tribalist.
It's really only in Western countries since the 60s that people have thought any differently.

Adolf Hitler

>138194289
Prophet Muhammed

>alt left tardos actually believe this
He was, what is it you leftypoos like to call them? 'crypto-fascist'?

Hitler

I just watched a bunch of Jordan Peterson vids last night. I really like that guy; he's smart, he sets a good example, he has traditional values and articulates clearly why they're desirable.

This. Marcus Aurelius' meditations should be required reading for any polack.

Not a philosopher
Not a philosopher
Care to explain how?

kant

>Is it not also reasonable to assert that the Greeks are a single people, all of the same kindred and alien to the outer world of foreigners?
>Yes.
>Then we shall speak of war when Greeks fight with foreigners, whom we may call their natural enemies. But Greeks are by nature friends of Greeks, and when they fight, it means Hellas is afflicted by dissension which ought to be called civil strife.

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer.

...

maybe Heidegger ?

Sup Forums is inherently sophist becuase they just want to win.
they make memes that are disinfo just to win arguments.

Sup Forums is a sophist.

also
>upload failing

which means you know jack shit about Plato


>t. majored in classical scholarship.

My grandfather -

" David, you mark my words, if the government leaves things as they are and don't nip it in the bud, this country will be over run with niggers. You will be a stranger in your own land" 1979

Or jack shit about Sup Forums, or I'm just shitposting, which is probably more likely. There are probably much better answers on here, now that I think about it Schopenhauer might be the closest.

No.
Communists and Jews are sophistical.
We want the truth.
Not our fault that the truth leads to victory.

Arthur Schopenhauer, King of the NEETs.
>MGTOW
>Thinks Christianity good for normies but doesn't believe
>lover of nondegenerate music
>Jew-wise
>knows that intelligence estranges you from people
>monarchist
>blackpilled
>wisdom of the East
>often kekworthy bantz
>exact opposite of cringe "fashy" haircut

>Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

>thinks women are worthless
>pays police for killing rioting leftist students
>said "intelligence is reversely proportional to sociability" which could be the Sup Forums motto

Rene Guenon. Plato

He is too good for Sup Forums

This is probably /our philosopher/

>Platon is leftypol
No, he would have despised them. I doubt you actualy read anything from him, but if you do get yourself a good translation, if you are unable to read the original and two or three dictonaries and the original in order to look the important stuff up. Most of the modern translatilions deliberatly mess with his thoughts. Some (((transltors))) make it look like he was an flaming communist.

Julius Evola

Diogenes of Sinope.
Homeless ranting poorfag

the only correct answer

Socrates, I mean you're close, but Socrates was a troll and they killed him for it.

like Mike Enoch, he also liked to fuck Jews

>Jordan Peterson
>traditional
He is just a person, who wants what was Mainstream twenty or thirty years ago. He has by no means really traditional values, if you take the word tradtion seriously. Also he is just naive, in the world of toda, what was Mainstream twenty years ago is just not going to fly. I like him for his navity and for his dedication to myths and his search for meaning in them, but he is underestemating biology and over eastimating the intellectual live of other people, especially those who are not european. He lets the myths take hold of him and projects them on to others and thereby offers them a narrative of their live, this is what psychologist do and this is also why they fail to adress groups especially other groups and the Dynamics between them.

...

>Diomedes

this. anything else is wrong.

Schopenhauer fucking obviously

tl;dr
blowhard
those who can, do, those who can't, criticize.

...

My vote goes to this guy.

NORMIE GET OUT OF MY SUN
Calls Alexander The Great a cuck for not being able to handle his smell for bathing

Plato was basically a communist. I can't imagine that anyone here who has read and understood the Republic would find it appealing as a whole. There are tidbits that everyone knows and thinks out of context are interesting, like his discussion of different political systems, but people seem to overlook or forget that he proposes the destruction of natural family units in favor of a kind of common stock, where children are forcefully redistributed and nobody is sure whose children are biologically whose. It's also odd that any libertarian-learning Sup Forumslacks would find Plato appealing, since he's a statist.

In any case, all of the political matters in the Republic are not meant as actual political philosophy, but a metaphor for a discussion about the nature of the soul--the well-formed soul is like a well-formed society, so if you have some idea of what the latter looks like you can make progress on figuring out the former.

Aristotle is much, much closer in almost every way to Sup Forums's outlook.

Diogenes
Told Emperor to fuck off, mocked greatest ancient minds and masturbated whenever he felt like.

>Calls Alexander The Great a cuck for not being able to handle his smell for bathing
Well Alexander the Great did a lot of damage because of his desire to try to compensate for his daddy issues, son of the king of Macedonia and all. Burned brightly, burned out young, and nothing lasted beyond his multi-continent temper tantrum.

Democritus

>Democritus was born in Abdera, Thrace,[4] around 460 BC, although, some thought it was 490 BC. His exact contributions are difficult to disentangle from those of his mentor Leucippus, as they are often mentioned together in texts. Their speculation on atoms, taken from Leucippus, bears a passing and partial resemblance to the 19th-century understanding of atomic structure that has led some to regard Democritus as more of a scientist than other Greek philosophers; however, their ideas rested on very different bases.[5] Largely ignored in ancient Athens, Democritus is said to have been disliked so much by Plato that the latter wished all of his books burned.[6] He was nevertheless well known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle. Many consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science".[7] None of his writings have survived; only fragments are known from his vast body of work.[8]

There is a lot of missing and wrong things in this wiki article but the parallels are quite satirical if you know a good deal more about the presumed history.

>masturbated whenever he felt like.
I am in awe...

>In any case, all of the political matters in the Republic are not meant as actual political philosophy

this argument is always put forward by people that like to pretend The Laws and The Seventh Letter don't exist. He may not be actually advocating for the system of governance in the Republic but he is creating it as an idealized form. In the later books he is also pretty clearly talking about various forms of government

Magnesia, the city-state of The Laws, is much more meticulously thought out and still contains elements of communalism

>"Why doesn't Heidegger tell a word about the Holocaust ?"

your grandpa was a good man user

In greek and roman society, they doled out bread to the masses to keep the cogs of the bigger citys running.
This was a sort of humanitarian measure needed to stop the city from collapsing from the bottom up into chaos for all levels, but I'm sure you'll call that 'communism'.

I'm not that rustled by your jimmy-shuffle, I just think it could be a little less black and white for you, y'know?

I was looking for the bones of your father, user, but could not tell them from the bones of slaves.

If your not a Kantianist, you are a pleb.

I wasn't putting forward any argument, just giving some context for those who skimmed the book or don't know anything about it.

Plato was ofc a fascist you dumb fuck. You must have read strictly nothing about him to pretend he was "basically a communist."
The Republic's society is a society of castes in which people are strictly separated according to their individual intellectual values. The society closest to Plato's doctrine was Sparta, of which he says "that's pretty much that, they are just a bit too extreme when they throw handicapped infants down rocks."

I wasn't criticizing you I was just referring to that part of what you wrote and how many philosophers try to obfuscate The Republic and other works of Plato in an attempt to not have to deal with or admit what's he writing about

What do facts about what the "greek and romans" actually did have to do with the evaluation of the prescriptions in a written work by one Athenian?

The goal of communism is a classless society.
The goal of the City is to have a rigid class society where only the exceptional or the incompetent may change class.
And the way you're describing it does it no honor. What Plato suggested is that all children be exposed to philosophy from a young age to determine those that have an affinity to it. Those would be separated from the family. The State would be their family, because while the family is the greatest strength of a State, it is also easily subverted and, because of that, its Achilles' Heel.
The rest would be the lemmings, they would stay with their families, be raised to common expectations not warped by accomodations due to their sex, race, etc.

Interesting self image you are trying trying to externalize. Looks like you are a man, who doesn't take himself seriously. I guess the reason behind this is your yearning for being accapeted by the common at the market place. Yet history has no place for the fool loved by the common. What about your topoi, if you can make an argument ad rem i would appricate it.

...

The "rigid class society" applies to three groups, one of which may be a single person, and the auxiliaries (i.e. a military), who are a minority, and everyone else. Although there is a strict tripartite structure to society, for citizens, by far the vast majority, there is no class hierarchy.

You should read the Laws, and all the works of Plato. People read the Republic and make hasty conclusions.

And only the first and the second castes share their property. The caste of the "commoners" (the "belly class") live seeking profit through manual work and trade.

Why does he say this?

>That city, then, is best ordered in which the greatest number use the expression ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ of the same things in the same way.

that guy is taking Xenophon's Socrates seriously, despite almost every philologist that wrote on the subject generally disregarding the idea that Xenophon's Socrates is more akin to the historic Socrates than Plato's

Yes but not much profit, Plato writes that wealth and poverty both reduce the quality of craftsmen and that this would somehow have to be legislated against. Keep in mind that the the classes aren't rigid; children with aptitudes for another lower or higher class would be moved up or down accordingly without mind to the class of their birth

Certainly some other greek traditions of thinking had some influence on any given athenian.
This isn't implied by Plato. The hieracy developed by him is only concernt with the side political, but for the lowest class the could be people, who are more wealthy etc. than others. So there are defacto several "classes" hidden in the thrid class.

People like Evola are too esoteric for Sup Forums. I would say Sup Forums is most similar to the NS lite philosophy of people like GLR, David Duke, and WLP

Socrates, Plato, Plotinus, Evola

Read every work by Plato, once you have gained insight to the forms and feel it in the world, move on to the Enneads and understand the One. That is all that is necessary to look back on the rest of history and find its injustices, Evola is a great musing on what has been destructive to the good over the past millenia and what must be done to fix it.

Well, that makes sense in his doctrine. If Plato is against free trade, that's not because he is against the inequality that free trade can father among men, but because of the mere and old idea that "trade is dirty", because it lessens the quality of the men involved. That's a very different concern, a difference that makes the difference between communism and anti-capitalist fascism.

At any time you have thinkers who endorse the practices and ideas of their age and thinkers who oppose them. You can't point to the practices and use them as evidence of what someone from that milieu thought.

>reduce the quality of craftsmen and that this would somehow have to be legislated against.
He is not against wealth or poverty as such, but against excess.

What is thr best translation for The Republic and other works by Plato?

That is why his government of philosophers is most likely a council of philosophers with some sort of Judge coordinating their ideas more than a single individual blessed with philosophical insight with absolute power.

Sup Forums is not one person. The closest analog I can imagine is a padded room into which all the philosophers that have been or will be mentioned in this thread are thrown and left to stew for weeks, bickering and arguing and shitting in the corner before picking it up and rubbing it in various faces.

The endorsement, admiration, whatever of a particular group does not invalidate the underlying merit of a thing. Was Diogenes an acceptable answer in the couple thousand years between his ascension to the philosophical pantheon and the founding of Reddit? Would he be acceptable tomorrow if Reddit were to suddenly disappear overnight?

Based kekistani!

You can't use them as proof, but certainly as evidence. I doubt that there are people, who don't share some of the bias and the common Sense of their time.

Sounds about right

Sup Forums is seneca and the users are nero

I'd recommend the Enchiridion of Epictetus as an easily digestible intro to stoicism...it literally means 'handbook'. Stoicism is proto-christianity, not only the firmament of western civilization, but also the pillar around which we scaffold. It's as individualist and non-collectivist as you can get.