Ironically, I've become more authoritarian and maybe even religious after actually consuming philosophy

Ironically, I've become more authoritarian and maybe even religious after actually consuming philosophy.
My stance on abortion has completely reversed. I used to not care either way. At most I didn't like it from a fiscal point of view.
Now, I find it ethically abject on multiple levels and I'm considering breaking up with my GF over it.

To the idiots who will attempt to defend abortion because it means less niggers: you can have infinitely less niggers if you just end the fucking welfare state. America spends just over one trillion EVERY YEAR on welfare spending. Niggers exist because we subsidize their existence. Cut off the welfare and foreign aid and the problem fixes itself. Abortion is the real white genocide and it should never be tolerated for any reason whatsoever.

>"consuming" philosophy

Now this is a good thread.

Can you give any reading recommendations?

>going religious instead of rationally woke in current year

ishiggity diggity

Yeah?..

I'm rationally religious. As a means to an end. That's the true woke stance.

You are not supposed to passively consume philosophy, you are supposed to actively contemplate it, crititcally evaluate it, apply it to your way and view of life.

Consume(d) isn't a passive adjective or verb. Means to be absorbed in thought by.

But to do that you need to read or "consume" different views and ideas

Not today. Consumption is a mindless process. You may be consuming philosophy as a product of entertainment, or as a status object that is supposed to elevate you amongst your peers. That is exactly mindless kind of consumtion our society is guilty of.

You're thinking "to be consumed by". What you said, was as if you ate a burger of ideas and now you 'wtf I like ideas now'.

In some way yes, but you can consume it in so many different ways. You can read a book and consume it that way as you should if you want to practice philosophy seriously. Or you can consume it in the form of memes, short youtube videos, by reading quotes of phylosophers taken out of context and placed as a proof of some idea. This consumption is not motivating you to think, its just exist to make you feel good, to make you feel right. While the physolopher is supposed to understand that he is wrong most of the times.

Stop the sophistry.
You cannot describe yourself as rational as long as you give credit to an organized system of thought that requires that you specifically believe in articles of faith, which is the complete opposite of thinking rationally.

>you specifically believe in articles of faith
But even is science there articles of faith - axioms that are believed without any argument. Like what is the point? Literally does "the point" mean in geometry?

>I've become more authoritarian after actually consuming philosophy
Same here, I got much more authoritarian and right-winged after I started doing Philosophy at university.
Which is ironic because I may be the only non-libcommie there.
Suggest me some authors OP

abortion is alright for the deformed, low iq, niggers, rape, incest, etc..
you must fix the culture underlying the governing body, you can't fix the abortion problem by dressing up dudes in military outfits and weapons and barging in on abortion docs and all the resources/bureaucracy that go along with prosecution.
but fixing culture takes effort, time, and love. we can't have that on pol.

>"academic" mental masturbation: the posts

The main difference is that it's not forbidden to try and refute an axiom, and as long as you can demonstrate with proper proof that the axiom is false no one is going to persecute you or kill you because of it.
Religious dogmas are not to be denied or refuted in any way, you just have to believe it or face the consequences of your blasphemy.

This. I fucking hate those weird pseudo intellectuals who argue about the way you said something, so semantics.
Essentialy this. All problems that show up in Capitalism, aren't problems with capitalism.
It's the problem with the population at large, the immoral consumeristic conformistic degenerates.

>as long as you can demonstrate with proper proof that the axiom is false
By definition, you can't demonstrate that an axiom is false.
In all ways, it's exactly like a dogma minus the persecution
And please don't use the
>religion is evullll they kill and persecute people >:( *tips fedora*
argument

Anti-abortion=Nigger-loving

are you implying that organized religions did not kill and persecute people, slaughtering millions throughout the centuries?
seriously, nigger?

>dogmas are not to be denied or refuted in any way
weeeell, if you can prove that you are a prophet then you can expand on the religion and change dogmas. You need to perform miracles to prove your status. In science world you also have to have a status of some sort otherwise you wouldn't be takes seriously. And some scientists achieve such a high rank of respect their ideas are discussed as proven even without final experiment to prove their worth.

Being authoritarian and conservative about culture doesnt require being religious. Religion is a tool of the smart to control the stupid masses.

>
>>you specifically believe in articles of faith
>But even is science there articles of faith

There is extensive orthodoxy and dogma in much of science. Take a look at how *experimental* physicists who make observations that conflict with the standard model are treated. What is peddled to us as (((science))) is often very much political as well as disingenuous applications of "scientific method" and even strict materialism.

To suggest someone who believes in God or has a religious tradition is incapable of reason is total horse shit. Do a survey of the personal beliefs of mathematicians. Are they incapable of rational thought?

Moreover, read the fucking history of western philosophical thought. The entire motherfucking foundation of reason is built on the work of religious people, whether the believed in Zeus or Jesus.

I'm all for debate, and acknowledged there are things that are undefined or epistemologically impossible, but this hypocrisy and ignorance is pretty irritating.

Fuckin great thread!
>Stoicism for life!

Where am I implying that?
I'm just pointing out that it's an extremely stupid and weak argument against the core principles of religion, which tend not to advocate violence, but rather its followers do
>inb4 some extrapolated decontextualized passage of the Quran or the Bible

>Indicates rationality necessitates individualism

Religion is a form of organisation. I'm not a theist but I understand the pros and cons of religion. I am aware that huge numbers of people who aren't theists still follow religious traditions and ceremonies.

"What is the point of studying Euclid?" is reportedly the only joke Isaac Newton is thought to have ever found funny. Except the student who asked him wasn't making a joke.

I think we can all agree that both individuals and organizations have tormented and oppressed people throughout history.

khmer rouge is best rouge

Governments are super authoritarian these days and religious, in the sense that they worship feelings-based science over any principled moral code. So, what you really want is a set of principled laws, based on a historical study of human behaviour in ancient civilations and more recent times as well, which ancient religious texts provide a damn fine framework, along with the more recent writings by those called philosophers; and that those laws are applied equally across the population. This seems like such a simple idea, and yet, ask a college student what they think about it and they will scoff and tell you that they are smarter than Socrates because he lived 6 kajillion years ago and couldn't even invent a car.

Growing up I was told that abortions were empowering.

Now I'm disgusted I fell into that feminism trap.

I'll start it off:

I recently bought Heidegger's Black Notebooks, after an exam on Being & Time.
It's an interesting read to say the least, easy to see why the philosophical community instantly dismissed it and tried to sweep it under the rug.

Nietzsche too, obviously. I did an exam on The Gay Science and it was fun, especially going to read those aphorisms the professor just skipped over.
>140. Too Jewish. If God wanted to become love, he should have forfeited his judging: but he was too jewish for that
>203. Hic niger est. ["Here's a nigger", although (((they))) translated it as "here's a dark man"] Normally he has no thoughts - but exceptionally he can have evil ones

I also finally gave in to the hype on Sup Forums and bought Ride the Tiger by my compatriot Evola, he poses some interesting points but I don't like people that can't adapt to their environment. His whole argument was that he couldn't.

You are a small minded faggot.

You're full of shit, philosophy is commie hogwash.

City of God by St. Augustine is a good start

What did you read, exactly?

You're dumb. Abortion is good because it is eugenic.

Literally written by a rapist nigger