Redpilled philosophers?

Can Sup Forums recommend me any philosophers worth looking into?

Nietzsche seems relevant.
Heard some good things about Heidegger.
Epicurus, while unrelated, is still worthwhile.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Jünger
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Donoso_Cortés
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolás_Gómez_Dávila
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Carlyle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola
youtube.com/watch?v=ecLT5aiMc34
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Stefan Molyneux

Ayn Rand, Hans Herman Hoppe

Rand is the only one of value because she is the only one who updated Aristotles philosophy for the scientific revolution

stephanus molibdenus, classic greek philosopher, inventor of the non argument argumentative

Start with Plato.
Read Republic, then join an actual professional philosophy community, cause Sup Forums doesn't know shit, generally.

Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and the only philosophers you need

You are wasting your time with everything else

Isn't he a cultist?

Tell me a bit about Ayn Rand. I've only heard bad things about her, chiefly that she and Hoppe are both ancaps, but that Rand has no real grasp of economics in her books.

I disagree, as I think Nietzsche will always be relevant, alongside Epicurus.

>Be more than what you already are; transform yourself through culture into an idealized version of yourself.
>Make time for yourself, your friends, and do work that feels fulfilling to you and improves you.

Her books are philosophical, even the ones on capitalism are about the morality behind it, but she views economics the same way the Austrians do; theoretically not historically

>Not Descartes and St. Augustine as well

...

Nietzsche was a kike lover.

/leftypol/ is two clicks away.

>political ideologies

I'll be honest, I think we could borrow a page or two from the kikes.

They want something? They take it. We should be doing the same. If they're on top, that just tells me we need to pick up the slack.

Stirner is a miserable cunt

It is fitting he died cold, alone and worthless from a bug bite

Soren Kierkegaard
Diogenes
Meister Eckhart
Otto Weininger

>Nietzsche

>Nihilism
>God of the Fedoras

I'd rather not

>Soren Kierkegaard
Why him? He sounds like a bitch.
I'll admit, I've only heard the presentation for him on School of Life, but I don't like what I've heard.
"Love is tough, marriage or non-marriage... either way you're fucked."
"Gib yer life to Jesus."

Diogenes is based as fuck, though.

Hegel, Heidegger, Hobbes, Plato, Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Arthur Mueller Van Den Bruck, Alexander Dugin.

Well first Ayn despised anarchism, she was for a severky restricted state and an unregulated market, self love and not sacrificing yourself to others are chief in her philosophy, but also not sacrificing others to yourself. Moral self interest

NICE WAS MAD AS HELL. THAT WHAT AHEISTS DESERVE.

Also try some Orthodox writers and saints like Fr. Seraphim Rose and his works against nihilism, read Dostoevsky (Brothers Karamazov).

>Rene Guenon

Be Peace Upon Him.

Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard

He was an anti-nihlist you uneducated retard

Exisistentialism is just as bad a nihilism

Patrician taste my friend.

Not an argument?

If you're into figuring out ways to get whatever you want, Anton Lavey is good, same with Aleister Crowley. Not much of a cultist myself but they're good reads. Ps. check the devils notebook by anton lavey, you can read it pdf online, google

That's right, goim self interest is bad, you are being oppressed so just give us.......errrr collectivize the means of production.

Stirner is close to be the ultimate redpill but ultimately ends up being the edgiest of the Hegelian edgelords.
Hoppe is close to pure redpill. Definitely Carl Schmitt for a more traditionalist POV.

existentialism its non-edgy nihilism

>giving your labor to any state
no thanks alon ziv

I've read a lot of Nietzsche and he was really cool when I was 18 but now that I'm in my mid-20's he just comes off as an angsty, whiney, brat.

Edgy

Ernst Junger if iit's correct to call him a philosopher.

>cooperating with other people is bad
>people who believe states and nations just appeared one day
Reddit is down the hall to the left.

Oooh, I like this thread.

>Hans-Hermann Hoppe -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

>Ernst Jünger -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Jünger

>Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn

>Saint Thomas Aquinas -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

>Edmund Burke -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

>Donoso Cortés -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Donoso_Cortés

>Nicolás Gómez Dávila -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolás_Gómez_Dávila

>Thomas Carlyle -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Carlyle

>cooperating with other people is good
sounds like someone still needs a hand to hold when crossing the street

I'm seeing good taste in Sup Forums.
Nice

I forgot Julius Evola and Kierkegaard!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Søren_Kierkegaard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

>Nietzsche
>anti-nihilist

is this bait

...

Nah, sounds like human fucking nature and healthy mammalian thinking and brain function

A man who describes himself as "socially conservative libertarian" is not a philosopher, he's a walking meme.
There is no conservatism without authority.
There is no authority without state.
Average and dumb people need rigid set of beliefs. State and religion provide that.
It's all intellectual wankery with no application in real life whatsoever. Get redpilled all you want but don't make a mistake of trying to form a political opinion based on it. It's not applicable.

The fact that most of the things you hear about Ayn Rand are bad tells you something.

Same thing with Hitler.

are you sure human nature isn't the opposite?

Please.

The state if the first source of degeneracy and cultural marxism in the West.

I'm in favour of authority, of true authority (Church, family, community), not an ilegitimate, inefficient, rent-seeking one (the state).

>comparing Hitler to a Jewish Russian woman who advocated extreme individualism

>There is no authority without state.
Church and aristocracy existed before the state. Tradition is also a form of authority that can be socially and culturally enforced. Hoppe and Block have written about this.

> atheist FAGlosiphers

Lol no. The Bible is all you need.

Kierkegaard is the most hardcore Christian I have come across. Even if you're a fedora, he's worth reading. I was interested in him for his existentialist views and read him a lot back when I was an atheist.

In The Sickness Unto Death he very deeply analyzes existential despair, and presents a cure. (Other existential thinkers have been nihilistic fedoras and their prescription boils down to the life of engagement - basically hedonistic degeneracy.)

Here's a good introduction to his thought:

youtube.com/watch?v=ecLT5aiMc34

Same, bro. I read the entire works of Nietzsche in German when I was 6 but now I'm twelve and a half I gaze down contemptuously upon this finest and most original of the philosophical minds of the 19th Century like an eagle in its eyrie upon a badger in its burrow...

But seriously folks:

Yes, I think the more serious and reflective browsers and posters on Sup Forums need to go back to SOME serious synoptic thinker to try to form some general idea of what we are fighting against at the present juncture and what we are fighting for, and Nietzsche seems to be the most promising candidate there.

His philosophy is premissed on the perception that something went seriously awry with Western culture at some point but he rejects all the answers that lie nearest and easiest to hand and are most attractive to idiots.

As some stormbabby has already pointed out, he laughed at the idea that it was all "da Jooz"' fault.

But he didn't even settle for the still-simplistic idea of a basic world-historical opposition between the "Judaeo-Christian" and the "Greek" attitude and chose to explore the more complex idea that something went wrong even very early in Greek cultural history.

Somewhere in Nietzsche, I think, lie the elements at least of an answer to the question of just why the West suffers from this endogenous compulsion to destroy itself and all it has achieved and today - when forces seem to be arising IN the West that set themselves firmly against this - constructing such an answer in a full and coherent from is crucially important.

And I'm all in favor of that but discarding with state is literally impossible.
Again, state is not something that just happened and people were trapped suddenly.
All critiques of state spend time on ripping it apart for it's flaws but ignoring the benefits, and idiotically believing there is something as ''eternal'' system. All systems fail, chaos happens, then order is restored.
Only logical thing is to support things that have most longevity and minimize suffering, at least for your group.
>socially and culturally enforced
No such thing.
Why did aristocracy appear? Because they were people who had power, violent power.
Only dependable thing in life is violence. State is the best way to blunt and limit that power, so it doesn't cause much damage. Then comes everything else.

Most famous philosophers were theistic you uneducated pleb

...

Sandy hide sandy hide by your will I will abide.

Otto Weininger was a Jew, but one of the most self-hating who ever lived. He despaired at not being able to overcome his Jewishness and committed suicide at 23.

He wrote the original redpilled book on women, Sex and Character, published in 1903 (the year of his death), and it has never been surpassed.

>DUDE MAKE YOUR OWN VALUES AND DISREGARD EVERYTHING YOUR ANCESTORS PASSED DOWN BECAUSE YOU KNOW BETTER LMAO
>redpilled

'no'

Exactly Rand is based cause she discovered objective ethics

>ITT people unironically liking Ayn Rand

This smug fucker

Can't you see the correlation between statism and degeneracy? Save for a few exceptions, state-growth correlates with expansion of multiculturalism, leftism, and leftward shifting of the Overton Window.
Take the US, for example. In 1800 it was a minarchistic, aristocratic republic, like the Founding Fathers meant it to be. A small state. Traditionalistic and aristocratic.

Following the silent democratic revolution of the nineteenth century, both the state and progressivism have but grown.

I'm not against government, though. The state is a rent-seeking, parasitic creature. Aristocratic government to protect the commons is eprfectly fine.

See: England, Saxony, Spain and Iceland in the Early Middle Ages. Or Liechtenstein right now, for that matter.

>ayn rand invented being selfish

i remember being 14 as well. go read some actual philosophers and realize she is an uneducated hack who can't write

Nietzsche and, not a philosopher but a great thinker : Freud. A jew, but a redpilled jew.

Comparisons can be draw in the regard of how the public pushes its opinions of them. Learn to read you slanty eyed gook.

O shit your reddit comic really convinced me. Now I'm a #SocialistMissile

Emil Cioran is based

See what happens when you start a "philosophy" thread on Sup Forums?
It's like allowing some hollow-eyed freak handing out self-printed pamphlets at an intersection to actually engage you in conversation.
We'll never get rid of this delusional self-important ignorant pompous bore now.

What is it, Frenchie?

“Now a government is secure insofar as it has God for its foundation and His Will for its guide; but this, surely, is not a description of Liberal government. It is, in the Liberal view, the people who rule, and not God; God Himself is a "constitutional monarch" Whose authority has been totally delegated to the people, and Whose function is entirely ceremonial. The Liberal believes in God with the same rhetorical fervor with which he believes in Heaven. The government erected upon such a faith is very little different, in principle, from a government erected upon total disbelief, and whatever its present residue of stability, it is clearly pointed in the direction of Anarchy.”

Please don't fall for Nietzsche, all his book are literally strawmans

that being said it really depends on what you want, do you want a universal thought system? Read Hegel and Kant, do you want some practical book toward life ? Read Epictetus, do you want some spiritual change in your life? Read Plato, do you want some modern pessimism to counter all this bullshit in contemporary media? Read Schopenhauer, do you want some political analysis in contemporary era? Read Thomas Sowell, Ortega and Gasset, Zizek, etc.

There are a few ideas that will resound in ALL philosophers unless they are clinically retarded (like stirner, nietzsche, ayn rand, etc). Most philosophers will agree in the same things and you should REALLY seek those as you truth founders, otherwise you will end like a fucking academia faggot who doesn't know what is true from what is not.

Your first truth in your path towards knowledge should be that woman are bitches, and bitches can't be trusted

good luck user

this

> French superiority complex

I see far far more correlation between individualism and degeneracy.
>Take the US
You can't do that. Different cultures and conditions, different solutions.
People don't exist in a vacuum.
>Aristocratic government
Problem with aristocracy is same as the problem of monarchy. Virtually nothing guarantees that successors will be as good as their forefathers. There is no objective way of ensuring they are competent.
People are by nature flawed creatures. System is there to mitigate the flaws.

She didn't invent it. She put it into words that were understood by many. How is that a hard concept to grasp you mong?

I bet you've never even read her books.

We know many things our ancestors didn't.
History is something to be learned from, not a guide to live by.

Feudalism blows babies because the idea of building a nation on loyalty and the divine of kings is a stupid notion, but we can learn from it.

Also, you could get 200% more from pol if you knew some macroeconomics, you could read some bigass book like mankiw or you could read one of those shitty comic books that teach everything with humor, the decision is yours but macroeconomics will give you a hand to cut all the bullshit that some niggers spout here

>Please don't fall for Nietzsche, all his book are literally strawmans
cant understand the concept of allegory. cant understand nietzsche realized that with logic you can proof anything you want given a certain charisma. Nietzsche is a great thinker because in the end he figured out a way to separate bad values from good values and realized that the superior man should be able to create superior values. he is the ultimate anti degenerate thinker.

>discovered
>made it easy to read

pick one

and i've read all her books. the only decent one was anthem.

French modesty complex, if anything.
I haven't seized on this thread, as this other guy has (what the fuck is that flag anyway?) as a soapbox from which to broadcast my own ad hoc definitions of "culture", 'truth", "morality", "the state" etc. which have no weight at all behind them other than the hot air of some anonymous Internet poster's self-esteem.
I have simply posed a question which I would be happy to engage people in the thread on about whether a particular, already widely-acknowledged and respected philosopher might be a useful basis on which to draw for a system of thought and values adequate to the present situation.

Perhaps it's a semantic misunderstading.

I do not (now) mean aristocracy in the sense of a hereditary nobility. You're probably thinking of 17th-century fat guys with wigs and makeup.

There was a paradigm shift in the 10th century regarding the role of the aristocracy. In the Early Middle Ages, aristocrats were actually the best ones (aristos); especially in regions with consuetudinary (common) law (generally Northwestern Europe).
The nobles were warriors who spent their entire lives fighting and defending their homeland. They HAD to be the best, because if they were weak or excessively tyrannical, they would be deposed by either another aristocrat, the king or the commoners (contrary to popular belief, social mobility and popular militias were very widespread in 10th-century England).

After the 10th century, the nobles went from gaining honor and power through war, to getting wealth through taxation. The aristocracy turned from rural into cosmopolitan.

I want a true aristocratic government. A group of people (Männerbund) who take an oath to defend the commons with violence, simply put.

You speak like a true conformist. Why would the ensemble of philosophers you mentioned necessarily know the truth?

Also you spout non-sense against academia, but you recommend to read some 101 macro book, a field that is notorious for having a bias towards "fancy mathematics" instead of well-funded empirical results.

The structure needs a strong basis to sustain itself.
With no basis, there's not even a structure.
By saying that the values nature molded with time are disposable and you can make your own ones through nothing is extremely arrogant and will bring doom to yourself.

I mean, look at this.
Note how the faggot has, by this point, completely forgotten that the OP's question was "Can Sup Forums recommend any philosophers worth looking into?
Or rather - much worse - he has remembered the question and decided the answer to it is:

"Yes, me."

By saying that the values nature molded with time are disposable and you can make your own ones through nothing is extremely arrogant and will bring doom to yourself.
its not through nothing values are molded by desire, praticity, necessity and also nature. Life itself is a natural value, we share it even with animals. Honor isnt, and in some cultures like japan, honor is a greater value than life itself. some people still comite suicide when they fail on some social mediums.

Froggie pls, I'm talking with Montenegro. The shit I'm writing is not made up. I've read lots of philosophers and historians and taken their ideas. (EVKL, Hoppe, Nietzsche, Doolittle, Carlyle, Maistre, Weber, Duchesne...)

Do you want to discuss Nietzsche? Go ahead then.

Schopenhauer

You just lament about the poster and haven't delivered any arguments to refute his points as far as I understand the conversation. Do you think that resonates well with "intelligent readers"?

The only one you could grasp is the one that is 40 pages, what else did you read and what was the problem lmao

>cant understand the concept of allegory. cant understand nietzsche realized that with logic you can proof anything you want given a certain charisma

are you retarded? it's backwards, you can prove certain things using allegory even if it doesn't make sense since Plato times with the sophists.

Nietzsche couldn't even define his values because when you confront his texts about it he only responds "The Higher man should be, like... HIGHER, and the LOWER MAN is like... full of SHIT". Nietzsche is just the passion going extreme and pushing people to go full extremist in their views disregarding what is truth or not

Nietzsche would put that being a conformist is a bad thing, but that's because he doesn't even know the virtue of measure, or he applies to the wrong things. As I said Nietzsche is the passion gone wild without regard of what is truth or not.

He influenced modern feminism

philosophy is such a fucking waste of time

why don't you go do something productive?

writing that post was such a fucking waste of time
why didn't you go do something productive?

I know that m8, but how do you prevent that aristocracy from becoming commercial aristocracy?
Also, rifle made every man an aristocrat. Aristocrats existed in a time when combat skills were hard to acquire and highly valuable.

Diogenes, man, that guy was alpha as fuck. Would drink with/10.

rand has neither a grasp of economics nor philosophy.
and neither does she have a grasp of decent writing either.
dont waste your time with her, read Stirner instead

Not an answer

nah, sometimes most people say something is bad, because its actually really bad