For anyone tired of Sup Forums in its current state, lets have us a good ol' Philosophy Thread
Starting with my favorite philosopher Albert Camus, pic related.
Alpha, good looking, and pretty redpilled. I want to know if he is Sup Forums approved.
He talks of the Absurdity of life, and that people who find life with no meaning either commit suicide, or make up a meaning, dubbed 'philosophical suicide'
>existentialism
Sup Forums is a Christian board. Next.
Great choice! I enjoy the old Greek stuff like Aristotle and Plato.
>Sup Forums is one person
and shove your middle eastern cult up your ass
I know existentialism is anti-christian, and I dont fully devote myself to any one philosophy, but I like some of the things he says
Whether or not life is worth living, he says it is, but you must embrace the absurdity of it, dont get caught up in thinking there are rules, everything is fucked, but have a good time
Alot of the more modern philosophers are offshoots of the old greeks
I like Platos cave, read it when i was a young lad in like 7th or 8th grade and it made sense to me
>now knowing the difference between existentialism and absurdism
Stick to your blue pill theocracy burger fag.
He didn't dub making up meaning philosophical suicide as in fact essentially whether you came to conclusions yourself or borrowed them from established ideologies they are all made up meanings. France needs to borrow from Meursaults book and kill the arab more often.
>who is Soren Kierkegaard
American education.
Camus is the Fonz of philosophy. I prefer Schopenhauer and Cioran. My favorite living philosopher is easy.
Bertrand Russell and his eyebags
CAMUS WASN'T A FUCKING PHILOSOPHER
HE WAS A NOVELLIST
YOU FUCKING CUNT
>He didn't dub making up meaning philosophical suicide as in fact essentially whether you came to conclusions yourself or borrowed them from established ideologies they are all made up meanings.
Yea i worded that poorly
youtube.com
here is a link for anyone interested, the channel is pretty good for getting into different philosophers
hitler did nothing wrong
'cept his paintings those mofos are generic
Are you 12?
If the majority of Sup Forums is Stormfag, then no.
Hitler wasn't a Christian, he wasn't anything.
He believed in a God, but he didn't beleive in any religion of the time.
Who else /evola/ here?
Plato set up thousands of years of misdirection in western philosophy that started being fixed only at Hume.
Absolute pleb tier. Fuck his method of "argument", fuck forms, fuck plato.
"We are all doomed, so let's escape the world by fucking anything that moves."
Existentialism in a nutshell.
Being a good philosopher 2000 years ago is different than being one today
Old philosophers can seem idiotic today, but back then it was more meaningful because people were different
Why do you hate Europe so much, user?
Sorry, forgot the HUGE difference between one autism versus another.
>hurr life is meaningless please kill me
>wasn't a realist
I'll say "what is modernism?", Alex.
old philosophy > new philosphy
He actually talks about enjoying the little things in life, like flowers and walks in nature and going to the beach
he also talks about how talking to women and being with them is fun, so i understand why you are against him Australia
He is not a hedonist
Geez, what a load of crap
...
Not an argument
What would you do if you wanted to philosophy and there was no one before you, you might live in a cardboard box and eat only old pizza like Diogenes just to try and prove a point, but nowadays you would probably have to do some really degenerate shit to even get people to pay attention to you
He was just another existentialist like Sartre. Typical degenerate smart-ass Frenchie who abandoned the christian faith. Well I guess his smartassery didn't help France in the end if you look at it today
Diogenes fits so well to todays degenerate anti-philosophy, that I might wonder if he ever existed or isn't simply a modern creation.
You might be literally retarded. Philosophy existed before 2,000 years ago. Plato and Socrates were initiated into the Egyptian mystery schools, that's where they learned their shit for fucks sake. God you're fucking dumb.
So true, I think philosophy is probably degenerate and anti-god, even thought I started the thread
It seems that all these people are searching for the "big question" when the answer should be right in front of them, we are miracles, everything has been foretold, and we stray.
Modern Philosophers narrow their views onto certain subjects like politics and social situations, but the "big question" philosophers are degenerate
Camus is a good "its not happening" ideaology, when you can ignore the redpills and go outside and deal with other people, its best to just embrace the absurd, but then you go on Sup Forums and read about the current/end times and I am back to the horrors of the redpill
It seems the temporary blue pill without succumbing to the liberalist marxism that is so popular these days
>Sup Forums in a nutshell
things that are disgustingly overvalued:
-freedom
your original statement wasn't an argument.
If I were to say, the sky is red.
and you say "what a load of crap"
and I say, thats not an argument. just imagine your frustration!!
Btw. how can you be a free person in France? Frenchies were always pathetic serfs
Absolutism - serfs, Jacobin terror - serfs, Napoleon - serfs, german occupation - serfs, V Republic - serfs, can't speak your mind because you're a "racist"
You have to look at Camus and Sartre in the context of the state in which they live. Frenchies were never free people, because France was never a republican state like Poland, Venice, somewhat UK or the USA. Why do you think the Revolution happened? Because they were ashamed of their absolutism, this is why they were so obsessed with calling each other "citizens" and called themselves "friends of virtue", and were giving themselves names from the antiquity. This is why they come up with so much stupid shit, because they're incapable of actually practicing freedom
I'm currently reading "The Plague."
there is more on earth and in heaven than is dreamt of in your philosophy, sweet OP
I'm stupid and unsure yet I act like I'm sure anyway because I have better debates that way.
The revolution happened because the civil servant class that had been established under absolutism decided to get rid of the King so that they could run the circus without the ringmaster.
France was already a de-facto oligarchy as the other republican states you mention.
>Camus
>shoot arab on beach
>the sun made me do it
>MASTER WORK ON EVERY CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY COURSE.
What now?
>new philosophy
pls
I really enjoyed his book The Stranger. I was kind of able to relate to the protagonist.
>old philosophy
Literally the equivalent of today's management training courses.
>shoot arab on beach
>I was kind of able to relate to the protagonist
>Why do you hate Europe so much, user?
Why do you think that not following the tales of the sand tribes is same as hating Europe?
You have enough freedom to realize you are in a cave, but not enough freedom to escape it.
Well? I would shoot an Arab anywhere, desu.
Frenchies were looking to the UK and the USA and their mixed political system. They wanted to be like the Americans and the British, where powers were limited and balanced
This is why the king was called a "tyrant" even though his reign was totally legal and why there was an obsession with the ideal of a citizen, even today Frenchies are obsessed with calling their state "the Republic". Frenchies wanted to get rid of absoultism where the king had unlimited power. The problem is that Frenchies are not used to freedom and they simply exchanged one oppressive system for another but in a different form
Absolutism was good for the bureaucracy because it's the king who gave them jobs and created the idea of the modern bureaucracy in general
FPBP
Not related to your wise comment - but America has never produced any philosophers.
What? The Federalist? Writings of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison?
Unless by "philosophers" you mean some idealistic bullshit like existentialism, german idealism or british liberalism
Does that mean you are incapable of thinking on your own?
Camus is stylized as shit, his philosophy pertains as much to existence as French New Wave pertains to actual life
>as in not at all
Heidegger and Wittgenstein
*hedonism in a nutshell
>Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison
They all freely admit just ripping off Locke and Hume.....
If you knew even a rough outline of history you'd know the entire point of Europe was Medieval Christianity. Le "desert tales" meme always leaves out that a lot of classical Church theology was neoplatonic. Medieval realism is Christian scripture mixed with classical Greek philosophy. And before some autist starts with the "WE WUZ PAGANS N SHIET. DA KIKE WORSHIPPERS RUINED OUR PAGAN SHIET" it was the Germans who most easily adopted the Christian religion because much of their preexisting symbolism was congruent with Christian symbolism. Fucking heretic.
>Frenchies were looking to the UK and the USA and their mixed political system. They wanted to be like the Americans and the British, where powers were limited and balanced
Power can't be limited or balanced. Sovereignty can't be split or destroyed. In the case of Burgerland, it is the civil service that holds Sovereignty through the mandate of the supreme court.
I think you should read The Machiavellians by James Burnham. Vilfredo Pareto also has some interesting thoughts.
Your posts reeks of enlightenment superstitions. Natural law, unless you are a catholic scholastic, is completely retarded as a concept and only useful as a tool of propaganda, just like the dumb biblical arguments for the divine right of Kings.
If you want to understand why the American founding father's were wrong, I suggest you read up on the English civil war.
Says generation "Bill Nye the Shill Guy." I think much of classical theology would go over your tiny materialistic Jew brain.
>Power can't be limited or balanced
Yes it can. Through laws. This classical thought of Aristotle, Cicero and Polybius
>it is the civil service that holds Sovereignty
I don't even know what that means? Civil service has some competences, ok, so what?
>divine right of Kings
protestant doctrine of modernity
>only useful as a tool of propaganda
in oppressive states like Russia or China sure. How about you think outside your very own Sweden where it may be the case that citizens don't really feel any moral imperative to demand autonomy in the public space
De Botton is a hack, you can find equally accessible philosophy primers from someone who isn't a philosophical Pottery Barn
aye
I disagree thats where they learned their shit. It was an influence I'm sure, but to say that they owe their philosophy to Egypt is straight KANGZ tier
What the fuck am I even reading. Philosophy is degenerate and anti-god? Kierkegaard? Aquinas? Augustine? To name only the most entry level. You sound like someone who thinks every philosopher is Nietzsche. Read more.
this is subtle, well done Finland
>Yes it can. Through laws. This classical thought of Aristotle, Cicero and Polybius
Law is subject to whoever can win on the battlefield. It is no coincidence that bureaucracies emerged when mass armies of conscripts made mercenaries and knights obsolete.
>I don't even know what that means? Civil service has some competences, ok, so what?
That they are above the law and decides whatever is considered the exception to the law.
They are pretty much running the entire circus these days.
>in oppressive states like Russia or China sure. How about you think outside your very own Sweden where it may be the case that citizens don't really feel any moral imperative to demand autonomy in the public space
Natural rights is a retarded concept. Might makes right.
I don't understand your last sentence.
>not a philosopher
I hate when people say "I think" or "I feel." Your feelings and opinions don't shape reality ffs.
"Plato studied in Egypt for 13 years under the Horite priest Sechnuphis. Many Greek philosophers had studied at Egyptian schools. Iamblichus wrote that Thales of Miletus insisted that Pythagoras had to go to Memphis to study because the Egyptian priests were a veritable source of knowledge and wisdom, especially when it came to the natural sciences, medicine and astronomy."
college-ethics.blogspot.com
And the Egyptians probably borrowed a lot from the Hindus.
>Law is subject to whoever can win on the battlefield.
I keep forgetting continental Europe uses Civil Law and not Common Law.
>my favorite philosopher Albert Camus
I read The Myth of Sysiphus and honestly found it a little wanky.
The Stranger was a great read though. I think he did better as a fiction author than a philosopher.
>Sup Forums is a Christian board.
Damn straight it is.
>I hate when people say "I think" or "I feel."
Better that then pretending their opinions and feelings are obvious truth. Honesty is preferable, don't you think?
Except I didn't say either of those. I said "I disagree." Very different.
I am well aware that they went to Egypt to study.
>draw a picture of a boat
>write EU on the side
>"""""philosopher"""""
>I sweep a whole realm of philosophy under the mat because Jesus
>Might makes right
In your viking barbaric worldview probably that's true. If might makes right, then why is it that countrie fight with each other? The dispute should be settled with one might winning, shouldn't it?
>I don't understand your last sentence
No wonder, you're a Sven. Not everywhere it is the case that people who live in a country feel the obligation to put a mask on their face as soon as they go outside, because they are afraid of the oppression of the state and of what certain authority will think about their opinion, especially when it's critical about a eg state authority. In some places people enjoy way more autonomy than in others. Not everybody is swedish
>That they are above the law and decides whatever is considered the exception to the law
And what if there's an insurrection in the USA which will limit the power of the civil service? Who has your Sovereignty then?
>"philosophy" thread
>OP pic is camus
lol
>very different
Not really. You're saying it's your opinion unless you have some sources to back up your apparent opinion. You don't spend thirteen years studying somewhere so it can have a mild influence on their thought.
If you consider substituting evidence with emotion or contemplation as "honest" then sure. As far as intellectual or academic pursuits it's useless and probably would be considered dishonest.
Did I trigger a modernist degenerate?
Is this the loser that makes the Jesus threads? Don't you have another cheek to be turning?
>In your viking barbaric worldview probably that's true. If might makes right, then why is it that countrie fight with each other? The dispute should be settled with one might winning, shouldn't it?
In the real world, things are not settled with speeches and great philosophical arguments, but with iron and blood.
Look, I used to be a libertarian like you, then I found Thomas Carlyle, and realized that it is faulty thinking. I went further with James Burnham and Vilfredo Pareto.
>No wonder, you're a Sven. Not everywhere it is the case that people who live in a country feel the obligation to put a mask on their face as soon as they go outside, because they are afraid of the oppression of the state and of what certain authority will think about their opinion, especially when it's critical about a eg state authority. In some places people enjoy way more autonomy than in others. Not everybody is swedish
It is funny that Sweden under Absolutism was a much freer society than Sweden under a welfare-state bureaucracy.
As for questioning state authority, you will never be able to get away with that anywhere.
>And what if there's an insurrection in the USA which will limit the power of the civil service? Who has your Sovereignty then?
The obese Burgers have clinged to their guns, pretending that there is going to be an uprising against the powers that be, because they are impending on their liberties, for two hundred years without doing anything.
Now the bureaucracy have almost finished transforming it to Brazil, still no uprising.
But yeah, if some peasant rebellion managed to defeat D.C and slaughter all the corrupt officials, bankster thieves and communists parading around Harvard, they would be sovereign. As I said, might makes right. But there is nothing anywhere near being a feasible challenge to the powers that be.
But that is as unlikely as Poland successfully invading and occupying China.
Is this how you retards pacify all your insecurities and cognitive dissonance?
...
>things are not settled with speeches and great philosophical arguments, but with iron and blood
speeches and philosophical give grounds for the use of "iron and blood". Besides, as I said, If might is right then if one side wins one day, it's right, but when the other 24 hours later wins, then suddenly it's right? You know that in order to reason properly you reason through coherent sentences?
>you will never be able to get away with that anywhere
Why are you so sure? Maybe not entirely, but it's absolutely obvious that not every state is as oppressive as others
>for two hundred years without doing anything
The history still didn't end. Now they government is getting more and more oppressive about religious freedom, I wonder how will burgers react
>Now the bureaucracy have almost finished transforming it to Brazil, still no uprising
Civil War was a breakthrough. That can happen again though
He converted to Christianity just before he died though
who doesn't love shooting an Arab for no reason?
>speeches and philosophical give grounds for the use of "iron and blood". Besides, as I said, If might is right then if one side wins one day, it's right, but when the other 24 hours later wins, then suddenly it's right? You know that in order to reason properly you reason through coherent sentences?
There are very few instances in history where one side wins, and then gets overturned by the other, who in turn instantly loses to the other.
The Union destroyed the Confederacy. The Confederacy didn't rise under the guise of the KKK and destroy New York and reinstate slavery.
As I said, propaganda is useful. Everyone who aspires to power has a need for cannon fodder or cattle to collect tithes from.
>Why are you so sure? Maybe not entirely, but it's absolutely obvious that not every state is as oppressive as others
It is not as if my security is threatened if I speak my mind, it is more that my financial options will be limited. Full repression is not really needed once sovereignty has been instated.
If the reigning oligarchy is actually threatened on the other hand, then actual suppression is definitely on the table.
And yes, states varies. Singapore is not prosecuting people for saying that there are only two genders or that transsexuals are freaks, but if you are communist advocating a workers revolution to overthrow the government, then you might encounter the brute force of the state.
>The history still didn't end. Now they government is getting more and more oppressive about religious freedom, I wonder how will burgers react
They are going to keep taking it up the ass. Just as with Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
>Civil War was a breakthrough. That can happen again though
The US civil war is best understood as the plantation owning gentry that dominated the early US getting out-competed by the mercantile and industry oriented puritan descendants of Massachusetts.
There is faction like the plantation owners that can organize and fund a civil war.
>There is faction like the plantation owners that can organize and fund a civil war.
There is no faction like the plantation owners that can organize and fund a civil war today.
that's dedication to absurdism
You're doing God's work Ameribro, I'm writing my thesis on Camus.
I don't know that all this fuss is about trying to find 'meaning' in life. Isn't the purpose of life to live and to keep living, passing your life to the next generation and so on? Pretty simple shit really.
Yet here we sit with our thumbs up our arses while shitskins outbreed us and take over our countries.
btw here's a proof of how Camus preferred his own people in the war of mudslime vs. French.
counter-currents.com
all right America - we all know you're keen as custard to shoot Arabs.
But you've got to write moody existentialist philosophy about it or nobody takes you seriously.
Do you even smoke?
>Camus
>existentialism
you sound extremely butthurt about france
>There are very few instances in history where one side wins, and then gets overturned by the other, who in turn instantly loses to the other
Nevertheless the concept of "might is right" is nonsense. If that was the case then bolsheviks should never have overthrown the Tsar because he had the might and was right. You have to have always some thoughts about what do you want the use force for. Might itself is never a ground for anything, only a mean through which you reach your goals that are more or less philosophical
Where Russia? Russia took the substantive brunt of the Germans in the First World War. Fucking Swedes, cyкa.
youtube.com
Muh socialism doesn't work if there is someone dictating you what to do.
Butthurt for what? I'm just explaining things. Even after WYD in Poland Frenchies were surprised that you can so openly manifest your religion in a country as opposed to France
by definition Camus is existentialist, but he refused that. But who the hell cares, Camus is the MAN.
Camus is most certainly based. The Plague is quite relevant.
By definition, he is an Absurdist, which is not the same as being an Existentialist.
>Nevertheless the concept of "might is right" is nonsense. If that was the case then bolsheviks should never have overthrown the Tsar because he had the might and was right. You have to have always some thoughts about what do you want the use force for. Might itself is never a ground for anything, only a mean through which you reach your goals that are more or less philosophical
You autistic dipshit, might makes right is what made the Bolsheviks overthrow the Tsar. Since the Tsar didn't have enough might, he got the boot.
Alexander the liberator was murdered by communists, Alex III and Nicky II were quite likable guys, totally not power mad psychopaths like many of their predecessors.
The Tsardom fell, because the Tsars had grown weak. Not because Bolshevik philosophy was anything but sophistry to excuse the power-grab of those insane psychopaths.
sorry, I mean by definition of existentialism
The guy that essentially created existentialism was a Christian
>might makes right is what made the Bolsheviks overthrow the Tsar
But before might bolsheviks had a doctrine and they only used might to put that doctrine in use. Might itself can be judged in any way
can't
>But before might bolsheviks had a doctrine and they only used might to put that doctrine in use. Might itself can be judged in any way
The doctrine was useful in the sense that it allowed them to build an organization and get aid from overseas.
Lies can be useful, but they remain lies.
Kant is still the one that made the best moral.
In order for a society to works, each perso must act in a way that, if everybody acted as he did, the world could go on.
Note that we can apply this moral against the global warming.
>In order for a society to works, each perso must act in a way that, if everybody acted as he did
So, the Golden Rule.
Yep, Kant was the first to think of that.
Camus wasn't a philosopher.