Who's your favorite philosopher/school of philosophy, Sup Forums?

Who's your favorite philosopher/school of philosophy, Sup Forums?
And why?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm
youtu.be/mkuRqZ-SssI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Pessimism and posthumanism. Schopenhauer is my favorite philosopher, also a fan of Nietzsche but I haven't read his works thoroughly at all. I agree with Nick Land that we should let an AI carry our legacy forward, we won't need humans for much longer.

Christianity if it counts. It has divine authority.

carlyle is underrated, especially sartor resartus

I recently started reading Meditations from Marcus Aurelius, it has some nice core values.

No contest

I've started a while ago to read Plato's dialogues in this order
plato-dialogues.org/tetralog.htm
I'm almost done with the first tetralogy (because I'm a lazy piece of shit)

Thomism.

1) me
2) because i hate thinking like someone else

All you need in life for happiness is the freedom to live a self determined life, examination of life, and companions. I can see no hole in Epicurus' thinking (other than his physics of course)

Stoicism, Marcus Aurelius.

A S C E N D E D

Stirner opened my eyes to the virtues of individualism. Not only is the political implications fascinating but the affect on my personal life was huge. The ego and its own is a must read.

Heidegger saw all the problems with modernity, and saw what was coming. There's a problem with only seeing reality through a scientific/materialistic lens. We're living through those problems now.

youtu.be/mkuRqZ-SssI

Globalist scum

Diogenes for the time he burst into Plato's school with a featherless chicken and told everyone look at this human because Plato once said a human is a featherless biped.

Kierkegaard and Locke

Why

It may be a meme answer to the question, but I agree. In all things I aspire to be like Diogenes, one of the few men in history who could be truly called free.

Heidegger is my favourite individual philosopher.

Favourite School would probably be Phenomenology and I have a soft spot for the Pre-Socratics. My dissertation was in Heraclitus.

John Stuart Mill, he was absurdly brilliant and had a great deal of 20th century thought despite living in the 19th century. Possibly history's greatest logician, exceptional mathematician, and refined the golden rule significantly. Also, his utilitarianism is completely misunderstood since it is conflated with his tutor/godfather Jeremy Bentham's greatest good for the greatest number. His theories are much more advanced than that, but he tied them in with Bentham due to Bentham and his father raising him/his earnest belief in their goals.

Diogenes was the Sargon of Classical Greece.

Yeah, it's a beautiful, solid philosophy, the only way to escape it's metaphysic is to deny that something outside yourself is objectively existing.
There is this story where Thomas Aquinas had an apple next to him on a desk and before starting a lesson he used to say that whoever didn't agree that an apple was sitting on his desk should have left the room.

That's interesting. Most academic practices start with Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo.

Thomas Carlyle was better than John Stuart Mill.

His book abort The Negro Question made JSM have a tantrum.

It's incredibly difficult to have respect for Mill.

Schopenhauer. He doesn’t sugarcoat anything. You can learn about the immutability of biological hierarchy, the absence of free will, the meaningless meat grinder of natural selection, the fact that in spite of technology, zero advances have been made in discovering true meaning and happiness since the dawn of life, ect, but Shopenhauer gets to the essence. Life is an unprofitable, meaningless episode disrupting the blissful peace of non-existence. It is all meaningless. It is all horrible. Someone needed to say it. Thanks Schopenhauer. The truth is horrible, but it is comforting to hear the thoughts of another articulate, intelligent being who knows and suffers.

>Thomas Carlyle

So your argument is because Mill was an abolitionist and wrote an argument against a guy who wasn't one, the guy who wasn't an abolitionist was a better philosopher?

Why? Because of his women's rights stuff?

I see Mill as the precurser to libertarianism. He argued for individual liberty through the minimization of pain, the lack of treading on people, and the arguments against governmental ability to utilize death penalties. He was certainly a (possibly the) classical liberal, but I am not getting the hate, unless you are combining him with Bentham.

And his description of women is perfect.

Nietzsche , cause he make a valid point on how Christianity fuck the world.

Then why does he bother to write?

Science because philosophy is waste of fucking time.

Close but no cigar.

Kierkegaard and Bishop Berkeley is superior existential/empiricist combo

...

Active Nihilism

The passive nihilist says that life has no inherent meaning and the universe doesn't care about you, so it's futile to try and change the natural order. He's hopeless.

Active Nihilist says the same thing but concludes that we have to find our own meaning to life and existence. He's hopeful and wants to change the chaos of the world into civilisation and peace.

No real philosopher that I know of talks about this. It's mostly a message found in works of fiction

To achieve status and food, and to full the pain. He is a biological being compelled to seek these things. Just because he knows it is ultimately meaningless, it doesn’t mean he is not subject to biological drives. He is compelled like we all are, by genes and environment to think and act the way he does. He doesn’t choose it. None of us choose anything. We are machines.

kierkegaard

/ourphilosopher/

Shouldn't you be making your own philosophy instead of locking yourself into a paradigm constructed by someone else?

This. Nihilism can be beautiful if approached with the right mindset. All will die, all will end, BUT - we have now and we have this.

We find and accept the “meanings” that we are programmed to. Everything we do and think is a product of circuitry that attempts to maximize genetic fitness, it the meaningless game of natural selection. If you are programmed to make up a meaning because it makes you more able to cope with life, move as high as you can in the social hierarchy, and reproduce, then you will. Also meaningless.

Not that I don't value science more than philosphy, but they are not incompatible.

It's saying "Movies are a waste of time, I listen only to music". Clearly a moronic thing to say.

Look at my response to OP, about nihilism.
Most people that aren't religious/pro science are nihilists or hedonists

Epicurus,he provided the corner stone of scientific thought. His views on death are pretty encouraging,

"Το πιο φριkτό, λοιπόν, από τα kαkά, ο θάνατος, είναι ένα τίποτα για μας, αkριβώς επειδή όταν υπάρχουμε εμείς αυτός είναι ανύπαρkτος, kι όταν έρχεται αυτός δεν υπάρχουμε εμείς.

"The worst of evils, Death is nothing to us, exactly because when we exist (he) is inexistent, and when (he) comes we don't exist"

You can still think for yourself while comprehending the thoughts of others. You don't have to disregard more than 2000 years of philosophy and start from scratch. Especially because these people have often spent their entire lives thinking about these matters and explored ways that you likely wouldn't find on your own.

>French flag
>life has no inherent meaning
>So we have to find our own meaning to life and existence
>No real philosopher I know of talks about this

Have you never heard of or read Satre or Camus? This position is them in a nutshell.

I have to agree to some extent, about what you say. But I will differentiate between "The meaning of Life" and My Own Purpose in Life.

The meaning of Life, itself, is indeed to reproduce and pass on your genes. So genetic fitness is indeed a big part of our life.

But then you exclude all "meaning", because you're taking the Determinism.

What you're saying, is that our choices don't matter, because nature choses for us, we don't have free will.
That's Determinism.

I do suscribe to the Free Will school of thought. I do think that we can chose to go against what natures tells us to, and that's why people can suicide for examplr, it doesn't makes sense in the Determinism philosophy, therefore free wil exists.
I do think it's a mix of both. Our genes control us, indirectly, but we can chose not to listen.

So I respect your opinion and view, but will partially disagree. If you don't mind, Mr user

Socrates.
>The only thing I know is that I know nothing.

He was a pathetic liberal, yes.

I see your point but my impression of reading the mental meanderings of such minds will keep me boxed in their thought pattern. Guess I'm just bitter from being raised roman catholic and learning the origins of it so I'm not impressed with thinkers of the past

>No real philosopher that I know of talks about this
You're not well-read then.

Diogenes. He was like the shitposter of antiquity.

you should learn how to think before you read

Diogenes.
I'm not very smart.

German idealism, Plato, Leibniz. I mean if someone really is into philosophy it's very hard to single out one philosopher or school. Simply philosophy does not work like that, you are always digesting it. If i can point out to one philosopher i don't like it would be Schopenhauer, as Wittgenstein said "has quite a crude mind ... where real depth starts, his comes to an end". I remember reading his text "on the basis of morality" and thinking, how can someone who misunderstood Kant's ethics so much be considered even remotely good philosopher.

I'm not completely uncultured, lol. I didn't study them, as in I didn't go for a philosophy degree, and high didn't really talk about advanced guys like them.

Sarte talked about existentialism and Camus was a humanist, trying to save people from nihilism.

These two were also Marxists or Communist. Pretty fucking far from my own philosophy and point of view. I'm a neo-lib

So unless you have an actual source, that talks specifically about Nihilism through Camus and Sarte, I don't really accept that.

Sure, they are precursors but the subjects they go after are either too specific or don't go over this specific line of reasoning.

But I could very well be wring. Enlighten me if I missed something, or said something stupid.

Confucius

Ah, so you dismiss his philosophies because at the time he was a liberal in his time.
Do you even know what classical liberal means? Have you ever thought for yourself beyond the bounds of a conservative-liberal dichotomy?
In the modern world I would be defined closer to a conservative than to a liberal. In the 19th century I would have been an extreme liberal. Those words, in themselves, mean nothing. They are a comparison to the time.

Nick Land and Accelarationism. Because it has to get worse before it gets better.

Nietzsche talks about it a bit.
But he's not a nihilist, is he now?

He talks about active / passive nihilism from an outside view and as something negative.

That's what I mean, by that. There are not many philosophers, that I know of that defend and debate each side of nihilism

Or am I wrong?

I don’t mind. You didn’t choose to think this way- not in a fundamental sense anyway ;). And sorry, but the suicide argument does not disprove determinism. We evolved to respond to extreme pain by trying to escape it in anyway possible. Just as a person would jump from the twin towers to escape the heat. This escape response is an adaptation that usually is benificial on average- but that is the key word- average- sometimes adaptations become hinderances. Just like an adaptation for being tall will usually result in greater reproductive success, in times of famine it actually might cause you to starve because you need more food to fuel a larger body, than a smaller man would. You can see adaptations go awry in many instances. For example, losers who have experienced the trauma of losing in vital areas of life have chemical changes occur in their brains and hormonal profile. Their testosterone and serotonin drop, they lose confidence, and are more likely to lose in the future. This may seem to contradict natural selection- after all, how is it benificial to become even weaker after a loss? Well, the reason these physiological responses evolved was to avoid even more catastrophic failure. If you kept trying to fight a superior opponent after losing with no dulling of your aggression and confidence, you might be killed outright during the next encounter rather than simply be banged up. It is better for reproductive success to accept a lower place in the hierarchy and try to obtain a few scraps of food and mating opportunities over the course of your life, than to die continuing to try to achieve alpha status. This can become maladaptive however when circumstances change and you now have the tools to obtain status, but are unable because your brain and physiology is still operating with low status chemistry from prior trauma. Doesn’t mean that natural selection is false. Suicides are the same way.

Myself :^)

Honestly most western philosophy is useless and boils down to how you feel about the definitions of specific words
The only practical western philosophical school is stoicism. Most eastern philosophical schools are directly applicable to life, even if schools like strict legalism are catastrophically bad ideas

based diogenes

Philosophy made possible country you live in.

>enjoys philosophy
>too dumb for real science but wants people to think they're smart anyway

>:^)
>;)

Hmmm...

There's only one nihilism, either you believe that all is meaningless or you don't. If you "forge your own meaning" then you aren't a nihilist. Nihilism is viewed negatively because there's no value in a lack of something; other than, potentially, as a transitional state.

I completely understand, but suicide in the normal sense, that people off themselves still seems counter natural.

People become despressed and try o suicide when they lose their usefulness in society.

So the natural thing to do, for life, is to implant, in it's population, the sense of feeling useful, that turns to suicide if you're not being useful to the group.

It's not about pain. Not pure pain at least. It's sacrifice of the individual to serve the group interest.
But yet again this contradicts the other laws of natural selection that animals fight for the right to reproduce over others of the same species. You're fighting your kin just to promote your genes and not their.

Suicide is the contrary, you promote their genes and you cut off your own from the gene pool with suicide.

This is what is contradictory. Suicide is logical in the realm of ants, of any hive mind, but we are individuals fighting for our genes to prevail.

You see where the contradiction is absolute and there is no way around it?

You don't seem to understand.

There is only one Nihilism, yes, if you limit it's definition to an observation and not a dogma.

>Life has no meaning
>This = Nihilism

That's great bud, but it doesn't give you a set of ideals to follow.
The passive/active nihilism discussion is about what comes after the observation "Life has no meaning"

>We do nothing, it's useless = Passive
>We can change our world and our values for the better = Active

You can say what you want. The concept is out there. I'm not inventing anything. There are articles about this, search if you want to know more.

Jung