I'm a PhD student of philosophy and quite intrigued, but also amused by the ideas popular on this site, since they are an eclectic combination of conservativism and post-modernism, Enlightenment and Romanticism. Sup Forums manages to be libertarian and authoritarian-collectivist at the same time.
So, are there some philosophers whose ideas you fully endorse?
Other urls found in this thread:
orwell.ru
index.varnelis.net
twitter.com
Augusto Del Noce
"The last two virtues of a dying society are tolerance and apathy. " Aristotle
I've never heard of this thinker before, but he sounds a lot like the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory - a philosophy condemned here.
If you want to be successful in college, the philosophers of the Club of Rome is a good place to start. They're all globalist, of course.
none of them.
This is more towards other Sup Forumsacks. OP is probably doing alright.
Stirner, Evola and Nietzsche are obvious choices.
only Heidegger is relevant for current study, the others are more for historical context.
Sup Forums is just an extension of the Sup Forums hivemind, so to really understand what we believe you need to read about eris and the discordians. most here are neoplatonists without understanding why.
on the whole i am a contrarian radical centrist who enjoys playing two extreme idealisms against each other in the hope to bring about cataclysmic and utopian change in equal measures.
this is done for the joy of it. also because we are the influence makers (those of like mind) we can easily craft tools with which to influence the masses of idiots circling the spheres like schools of feeding fish eager to fight for any scraps of wisdom. this feeds into the egotism that all intelligent people are slaves too, after all what fun is it if you can't take credit?
Kierkegaard.
Edward Feser, Thomas Aquinas and any of the neo-scholastics
critical theory is condemned on Sup Forums because it's considered Jewish
Yeah. Funnily enough, Sup Forums shares most of the Frankfurt School's main concerns, namely, rejection of mass media and mass culture.
Redpilled tier:
Sextus Empiricus, David Hume, Parmenides, Zeno of Elea, Aristotle, Hobbes
Good tier:
Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Miyamoto Musashi, Machiavelli
Decent tier:
Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard
t. Jew
>I'm a PhD philosophy student
>need others to spoonfeed him his own field of study
checks out
Sort of? if you've ever read Kevin Macdonald you can basically distill this common ground in the following sense: Sup Forums criticizes mass culture because it is Jewish, and the Frankfurters criticize mass culture because it is Gentile. Macdonald points out that the New Left in America was a largely Jewish movement made up of Jewish left-wing thinkers with a strong Jewish identity and aversion to gentile culture, since they were in a large way reacting to the Holocaust. like a lot of Adorno is pure projection
You're a fag
>Aristotle
>Jesus Christ
>St. Augustine
>St. Thomas Aquinas
>School of Salamanca
>Machiavelli
>Thomas Hobbes
>John Locke
>Alexis de Tocqueville
>G.K. Chesterton
>Hans Hermann Hoppe
>Friedrich A. von Hayek
Most of Pol consists of a bunch of religious Christcucks who know nothing about actual philosophy and the fact that their dune coon religion copied pagan ideologies such as Stoicism and Platonism.
Modern right wing:
Armin Mohler
Alain de Benoist
Paul Gottfried
Conservative revolution:
Oswald Spengler
Ernst Junger
Martin Heidegger
Edgar Julius Jung
Carl Schmitt
Traditionalist school
Rene Guenon
Julius Evola
mircea Eliade
Emile Cioran
Titus Burchars
Religious:
Augustine of Hippo
St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Gregory of Nissa
St. Hyeronimous
G.K Chesterton
Joseph Ratzinger
Conservative:
Edmund Burke
Joseph de Maistre
Louis de Bonald
Juan Donoso Cortes
Interesting leftist:
Zygmunt Bauman
Slavoj Zizek
Stefan molyneux
uh huh, nice LARP
sage
This thread is about serious philosophers.
Goonan
ITT pic related brainlets who just know a paragraph or so of certain philosophers works
kek
>the board's so split it supports both Hoppe and Hobbes
Finally someone with actual good references
I don't know a lot of philosophers. In fact I'm afraid of reading about their thoughts and get influenced by their views. I'd rather try to see reality through my own than rely on someone's else perceptions. I remember reading some Descartes book once, very small book, and as I kept reading it I couldn't stop thinking how many assumptions he was making, and wondering if these assumptions are correct or incorrect, and counter-arguments would emerge in my mind shortly after. I remember I could find a lot of things I could refute in that book. It could be said I was thinking in terms of what's untrue, while some claim some thing is untrue, and so on. So yea, I can't help you on your request, but I do want to warn you to think for yourself. Always try to find the underlying assumptions in whatever work you're reading and think deeply about it, but that' just my opinion.
Fag
Paul Joseph Watson
Me? Heh, i’m a contrarian radical centrist, kid. See, I play both extremes like a puppet master, using them to bring out my utopia through destruction. I’m the thought creator, the difference maker, the influence behind the culture, i’m The Phoenix from the ashes. Heh, I know it sounds scary but stick around kid, I just might teach you a thing or two.
...
Radical centrist pls go
Obligatory
>Memechiavelli
>No Sun Tzu
>Tfw too smart to read philosophy
Retard
you've discovered my carefully laid trap, well played, but have you inadvertently fallen into another one?
>no Karl Pilkington
this is why Sup Forums is retarded
You're an idiot, play a record.
>i’m a contrarian radical centrist
A lie you tell yourself because you suck at arguing. Badly.
> See, I play both extremes like a puppet master,
You annoy everybody, both sides hate you, and they want you to go away.
> using them to bring out my utopia through destruction
You're also a fag.
>>No Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu is for nigger-tier pseudo-intellectuals
> But muh cut off supply lines and focus on muh enemy's weakness! Waaah!
The attack their supply lines and weak points, faggot.
If you need Sun Tzu to teach you that, then you shouldn't be reading Sun Tzu, you belong in special care.
julius evola
friedrich nietzsche
>'m a PhD student of philosophy
W H Y
i guess ideological brainwashing turns him on?
I feel can see your fedora tipping through your words. Fuck you are a faggot
I guess, but it sounds a lot of work just to get yourself off
“OoOooOoohh.. Tell me, Daniel-San, what is the sound of one hand clapping?”
Lul.
The macho Man Randy Savage
Evola, Guenon, Plato
Gk Chesterton has the best writing style of any author I've read. His stuff is pure joy to read
>So, are there some philosophers whose ideas you fully endorse?
George Orwell. He is the classic Left Libertarian, or Libertarian Socialist, which seems to fit well with some of the conflicting ideologies you mentioned.
You should read his Notes on Nationalism.
Diogenes, brah.
Trips.
>Hobbes
>Locke
costanzamememe.jpg
>all these replies
>not a single mention of the Lord himself
Jesus is the best philosopher
>tfw you will never be obtain even 1% of his wittiness
Fap fap fap
The one and only Max Stirner
The ego is the only thing that matters
fuck of kike
I endorse the great
sage
P Y R R H O
Y R R H O P
R R H O P Y
R H O P Y R
H O P Y R R
O P Y R R H
Plato/Socrates, Aristotle.
Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler.
Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, Savitri Devi.
Have read some but not all of these authors, and I see them recommended here a lot. The ones I have read have been quite enlightening.
>So, are there some philosophers whose ideas you fully endorse?
Wilhelm Reich, Plato
fuck Freud and his scumbag nephew Bernays
"Turn the other cheek".
"Love thy neighbour as thyself".
"Let your wife lay with other men".
>Jebus
what a fag
> (OP)
>Wilhelm Reich
kill yourself
Moses and Solomon, then Caesar Vespasian
Really interesting list.
Better to be a fag than a cuck
You're never going to get a consensus.
But Heidegger, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, and Schopenhauer are my favorite. Not in that order, though.
If someone only were to read one philosopher and none other, though, I'd choose Hume for them.
But they will grow up to be based black men.
You betray postmodern schooling or inclination in every post.
Thomas Aquinas
What's wrong with Herr Reich?
Typical leaf, doesn't know about regression to the mean.
Ayy cuck, the long and short of it is that Sup Forums is the first fully digital community.
Have a lookee here: index.varnelis.net
By and large tho, Sup Forums is best described as NatSoc(ask someone for the related reading list), plus some more Rand.
In terms of what people here think they believe, watch Peterson’s philosophy videos.
I agree with everything except Nietzsche no longer being relevant. Nietzsche is the Anti Jew, anti Platonist, Anti Cuck par excellence. In fact, I challenge the more educated of you Polsters to read Daybreak or La Gaya Scienza. Nietzsche exposes the Jewry in christianity and how this has cucked the west with Equality bullshit.
If you understood anything of Heidegger you would come to the conclusion that Him and all other fascist children of the post modern world were fathered by Nietzsche. People claim that the Zarathustra was under looked, but in his lasts writings Nietzsche explicitly calls Plato a Jew and a priest (Ctrl-F on the Will to Power pdf which you can easily google). Nietzsche's Anticrhist, Twilight of the Idols and the Will to Power notes are too much for us to handle yet. The only man who came close (which is still far from the peaks of the Nietzschean corpus) was (((Leo Strauss))), that German Nazi Jew who brought the Fascist thought in disguise to America. (((Leo Strauss))) makes Heidegger look like a bitch. Heidegger never managed to contaminate America democracy with weakness. Leo Strauss, with the help of his cunning Jew ways, was able to bring Fascism to America.
That's why the German jurist Carl Schmitt let (((him))) escape the shoah, bc he knew Strauss was a nazi philosopher who would promulgate Nietzschean Fascist principles
>eclectic combination of conservativism and post-modernism
lol
The secretarial office of the Rockefeller Foundation has now informed me that the Foundation’s German Committee has recommended me to the Paris Central Office in the way I had wished. The final confirmation is expected in mid-May. Given that this confirmation has, as I hear, yet to be withheld in any instance, I can now presumably count on being sent to Paris in the autumn of this year. I cannot let the occasion of this communication pass without assuring you once again of my most heartfelt thanks for your support of my application. But it is not only this help in an outward matter, albeit of nearly vital importance, that compels my gratitude to you. Allow me, Professor, to submit that the interest that you have shown in my studies of Hobbes represents the most honorable and obliging corroboration of my scholarly work that has ever been bestowed upon me and that I could ever dream of.
Leo Strauss, letter to Carl Schmitt, March 13, 1932
"Leo Strauss saw through me and X-rayed me as nobody else has."
Carl Schmitt
Reminder Carl Schmitt was an excellent Nazi. And Strauss a Nazi Jew.
Fascism or Die. As long as your Philosophy is not the cucked bourgeoisie philosophy of English Utilitarians, you're good.
Preferably read, Heidegger (His lectures on Holderlin, and on the Ancients), Ernst Junger, Evola and Nietzsche. You should always read (((Leo Strauss))) but if /Pol won't forgive a single jew, then fuck it, you won't lose too much.
Nietzsche
emil cioran
zappfe
david benatar
thomas metzinger
Marsilius of Inghen
Thomas Aquinas
Religious:
Moses
Rambam
Giorgio Tsoukalos
Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Tecumseh
Social:
Ron Paul
Ralph Nader
Yukio Mishima (essayist, author, playwright)
Von Braun
Legal/gov:
L. Brandeis
Ben Franklin
Moses
St. Thomas Aquinas
Everybody is a philosopher, being 'qualified' in philosophy isn't worth the paper it's printed on, in fact, I'd say your own personal views and beliefs are heavily influenced and skewed by others via the curriculum forced upon you.
To answer your question, yes, there are people whos ideas I endorse and people whos ideas I don't.
People major in philosophy to understand how to better structure their thoughts and describe them to others.
Brainlets who do it because 'ima become a philosopher' are too stupid to complete it. Its the highest IQ major of all majors.
Its also completely unnecessary and the degree is worthless, but then smart people realize the academia complex is a scam and dont really worry about such worldly things. Unfortunately half of Sup Forums thinks the bigger your bank account the bigger your virtue and is under the delusion that making money is 'contributing to society'.
You want some good philosophy read Ecclesiastes.
Plato and the Bible.
Only philosopher I trust.
How can we know if we fully endorse the views of a philosopher without peering inside his head? Or if you're talking about their works, without having read everything they have written?
Besides, according to consequentialist ethics, we should only fully endorse ethics if fully endorsing them have positive consequences. Those consequences will vary not only with the philosopher, but with the society they are endorsed within. Hence the question should rather be: which philosopher's views do you fully endorse in your personal context, and which context is that? Or perhaps: which philosopher's views do you fully endorse in each of a variety of contexts?
Fascism is just another enlightened, rational-materialistic attempt at creating heaven on earth, like every ideology is. Though it at least tries to copy monarchism, it fails to understand the metaphysical meaning behind the system.
The Truth is in the Divine order in the natural world, read the Bible.
Fascism is just another enlightened, rational-materialistic attempt at creating heaven on earth, like every ideology is. Though it at least tries to copy monarchism, it fails to understand the metaphysical meaning behind the system.
The Truth is in the Divine order in the natural world, read
Don't read that shit. It's too real :(
>imagine not suggesting Alex Jones
Did you really fall for bait this obvious, or is this counter-bait???? We're on too many levels here...
>post-modernism
you mean "mysticism" friendo
>muh nihilism
*offbrand