Philosophy

What are some red pilled philosophy books I ought to read? Or any good political related books in general?

Attached: 51qDDD1WFML._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 37K)

philosophy is blue pilled. Read non fiction you mutt.

Attached: и-ти-гор-ый-42094127.jpg (722x900, 66K)

>reading another man's thoughts instead of formulating your own

braincuck

Knowledge comes from learning from others and further extrapolating on it. And by the way, how did you learn about history, did you just think it up yourself?

For fucks sake, look at these brainlets. The absolute state of Sup Forums.

Start with the Greeks, OP. Always start with the Greeks.

Theology is red pilled, philosophy blue pilled

Summa Theologiae - St. Thomas Aquinas
City of God - St. Augustine of Hippo
Polycarp's Letters to the Philippians
Writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch
The Everlasting Man- GK Chesterton
Documents from the Council of Trent

City of God
Art of War
Till We Have Built Jerusalem by Moss
Behead All Satans

In that order

Theology is for the weak minded

Read the stoics and disregard the rest

Sorry, Bess not Moss. There are two books with that name, it's the out of print one.

Has society reached the level of the last man? Even traditionalists aspire to have a nice comfy life with a woman and children to provide for, regardless of pursuing a larger societal goal, is this a trait of the overman or the last man?

>implying you formulated any of those word or concept you're using at the moment to express your opinion

Checkmate retard

second that, Republic by Aristo is alwats a good start. then you should decide wich direction youre going. Nietzsche is a lefty meme that is widely missundearstood, if you start deom him you will get the wrong idea

That is not redpilled. It is the psuedo poetic ravings of a lunatic.

N has an argument in On the Genealogy of Morals, however.

Actual red-pilled philosophy is AJ Ayer. Language Truth and Logic. Karl Popper. Conjectures and Refutations. The Poverty of Historicism. The Open Society and It's Enemies. Also read Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia (if you are a libertarian).

Julius Evola.
Also Stoics like Aurelius and Seneca.

Ok who should I start with Soc, Plato, or Aristotle?

>Republic by Aristo

You mean Plato.

girlslaughing.png

I have a feeling we’ve already reached Last Man levels of decay.
The Leftists of today are the heralds of the Last Man.
The best we can do is fight back any way we can.

no one can explain the overman, would you not say that a great athelet is overman by pushing himself to better others? or is he the last man for buying a comfy life?

Nietzsche is misunderstood by the left, but if you aren't stupid you can read what he actually meant.

OP wants to read politics also, so I would say Plato's 'Republic' and Aristotle's 'Politics' are a must for OP. Stoicism would be good just for personal world-view (If he find an appeal to it).

As everything with Nietzsche's obscure rethoric, it can be up to interpretation. I have also thought about the same thing you say and I couldn't find an answer. I'd love to see what Nietsche have to say If he ever lived in our fucked up society.

Please read Popper. He gives a devastating refutation of Marixist Historical Materialism

wheres that Sup Forums approved book archive?

Attached: 1508604639208.jpg (480x480, 23K)

Anything by this man.

Attached: 8iixATI0_400x400.jpg (400x400, 22K)

Fight Club

youre right, i actually meant socrates (plato), stop laughing!

>nietzsche
>redpilled
choose only one. the fucker was anti-christian, loved jews, fell in love with a jew but got cucked by another jew and was a permavirgin but STILL managed to die of siphilus

Are you taking a piss

Checked and agreed.

What makes you think Nietzsche's predictions have merit? If anything they are a hypothesis with an untenable account of psychology at their core.

Reading philosophy of science will make you wary of "philosophers" that deal in historical inevitability.

So anti-christian is not redpilled? You are close minded

If your abstract reasoning is good enough everything he says makes sense.

Start with Plato's 'Republic'. Socrates didn't write anything and everything about him is known through Plato's works (his disciple), which is why some believe that Socrates never did exist.

the ultimate redpill is Christ

But Jesus was only written about by his disciples

Stop watching tv. Stop reading books. Hit the gym. Shoot guns. Marry a white girl. Have white children. Believe in Christ.

Well, I for one hold the belief that nothing in history is inevitable, but some of the predictions Nietzsche made were fairly good.
I wouldn’t call them predictions as much as “things that are likely to happen” should the West continue on its current (for the 19th century) path.

what about the torah?

>Anti-christian
Let me guess you never read Nieztche and only knows the out of context quote "God is dead".

This guy here is great

Attached: CS PIERCE.jpg (318x438, 18K)

Anti-Duhring.

There are many similarities between Jesus and Socrates. Both wise men, both never wrote their teaching but were written by theis disciples, both were accused for criminal act and both sacrificed themselves.

Checked
In Tyler we trust.

>believe in these things and don't think about it
0/10 go make a circlejerk theist thread.

Stop reading? So you should stop reading the bible?

>Believe in Christ.
nigger, pls

Attached: 117569.jpg (250x400, 9K)

judaism as it known today is very inspired by Aristo and his views on the sould. Torah can be read as an origin story but you wont really learn anything spirutial from that. The Kabbalah is just a jewish interpretation to Aristos soul

>Nietzsche

Attached: Tipper of fedoras.gif (263x396, 649K)

Yes. Questioning God complicates everything and leads you astray.

Others do it. I just listen.

And you know this is true, along with him existing, how?

Attached: 4chan-closure-pepe-the-frog.png (736x673, 466K)

Because your own existence means there's also God.

Start with greeks, presocratic thenove your way up to Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles, Isocrates, the off to the doctrines like Epicureism, Stoicism, Cinism and so on. After you are done with those you Will have some solid foundations to study and read modern philosophy.

It helps develop critical thinking and understanding how we evolved so you can know the basis of most of the laws and rules that surround you. See It philosophy like history classes but for the Evolution of our ways of thinking rather than the Evolution of civilization. Do It in your free time and don't get into it too Much or you Will end up a commie or worse, an annoying twat.

It is ridiculous, place is full of 'em now.

dog is bed :OOO

You have to prove this is true, if you're just going to keep asserting things.

ive read several of his books. i was really into him as an edgy 15 year old

It's a proof in itself. But it's up to you to believe it or not. Then again, that's not gonna happen. You can't prove anything to milleanial soyboys.

Others will probably recommend classics, or 19th century positivists, so I'll try something a bit different. I'd say everyone on Sup Forums should read at least one of these books:
>The Sane Society, Erich Fromm
>Minima Moralia, Theodor Adorno
>Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm
>Eclipse of Reason, Max Horkheimer

These are all good but relatively short reads by "Frankfurt School" philosophers for understanding the origin and intellectual foundations of modern leftist ideologies. I think they're wrong, and you all probably will too, but there's not really any excuse for not having even a basic understanding of what the other side is saying.

>its true because it's true.
That's not how reality works, bud.
>soyboy
Oh great, more assertions. How do you know thats true? Or is this all you're going to do?

nietzsche is tough to read, its more like you study it

Carl Jung’s and Freud’s books because Freud was friends with Nietzche, Robert Nozick’s books

You have to have an understanding of Freud and Jung to understand him. They met the guy and use Nietzche in their works without specifically naming him

>Carl Jung’s and Freud’s books
No
>Freud was friends with Nietzsche,
No
>Robert Nozick’
No

Attached: 1520595344127.gif (450x450, 776K)

while i agree that we should be familiar with the ideological and historical roots of contemporary leftism and cultural marxism (and politics, philosophy, history etc in general, Horkheimer and Adorno are rather complicated and tiring to read and i don't think translated versions make understanding their ideas any more easy. im not even sure Adorno even knew what he actually meant. Perhaps an introduction to "critcal theory", as the leftists dub their cancer, is easier for most anons.

Freud wrote to Nietzche because he was curious about

Mein Kampf

Intellectuals and society by Sowell is you want a low key jew expose, even if he fails to make that connection. (((Intellectuals)))
Vision of the anointed is good too

So you didn't understand them, got it.