In times of great turbulence, such as those we find ourselves in, a change of perspective may be exactly what you need.
And it's for that reason that I'm here to shill for Derrida, and his ideas on the preference of speech over writing (among other things)
(Here's a quick overview of this specific philosophically inclined frog)
Other urls found in this thread:
Pic related
Emerson.
> To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.
> Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.
> To be great is to be misunderstood.
Nigga, I don't need Sup Forums approval
The only real answer.
only one you need
...was it ever even implied you did?
Rene "Giver her the D" Descarte
His entire works can basically be viewed as instructions on how to redpill yourself.
While I respect your trips, didn't he """"prove"""" god existed?
He was a psycho who thought animal vivisection was okay because animals don't have souls
This too.
Get out, you are doing nothing but making yourself look like a buffoon. If you are going to type something like that at-least make an effort for it to look splendorous.
...
fpbp... Embrace your edgy nietzsche phase
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the man may as well be Sup Forums incarnate.
So to speak.
I assume Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Socrates, Foucault and...Camus
> nobody has mentioned Hugh Mongus
Aristotle, Aquinas, Heidegger
>Foucault
Nice meme
>Aristotle, Aquinas
mah nigga.
>Heidegger
Haven't read his stuff.
Also, Alistair McIntyre
>no Land
I like Thomas Nagel. I hope he is Sup Forums approved.
>Alistair McIntyre
Looked him up, sounds interesting. Adding to my to-read list
Philosophers aren't as valuable as poets, composers or painters. They just throw some barely thought ideas and wait for someone to view them as idols. Poetry requires rhyme, personal implications; painting requires skill and dedication; music requires skill and timing.
I'd always enjoy a good piece of art over a "philosophy" book. The philosophy of an author is well explained in his paintings, songs or poems. Just take a look at painters such as Ivan Shishkin or Vincent van Gogh and bands such as Drudkh or Summoning.
Is it really that "edgy" though?
That's why he's red-pilled.
I vaguely remember Ed Feser bringing him up in a post and criticising his philosophy of mind. I respect Feser's judgement, and his opinion was that Nagel was better than most atheist philosophers, though still flawed
>Heidegger
my nigga
t. Romanian intellectual
Nobody proved shit, nigga. They just made inductive arguments in the style of deductive reasoning, making huge leaps of assumption and presupposing a shitload about the world
That said, Alvin Plantinga ain't bad for god stuff.
Found the retard. Goethe was a fucking philosopher you cretin, so was Schiller. You're just basicaly admitting that you're too stupid to appreciate both.
Derrida is literally the grandpappy of deconstructionism. Gtfo
Hipster trash.
>marxist jew godfather of the SJW movement
>/pol approved
This.
>He was active in cultural activities against the Apartheid government of South Africa and on behalf of Nelson Mandela beginning in 1983.
Derrida sounds like the kind of guy Sup Forums loves.
Mullah Nasrudin
TRIGGERED
R
I
G
G
E
R
E
D
An excerpt on Derrida's concept of "the democracy to come":
>But any and every democracy will also always be found wanting because it must refer to a bounded territory or a limitedpopulation, because it must be constituted by a decision as to whois and who is not to count as "equal" in principle in this state. Derrida extends the analysis to the principle of equality itself, which can never do justice to the irreducible singularity of those counted as citizens--but without which there could be no laws, and no possibility of legal justice in the first place.
Nietzche also said God is dead and Christians killed him, and yet you'll find no shortage of his fans here. His ideas go far deeper than the politics of skin, fuckstain.
>.... THEN HOW DID YOU KNOW IT WAS ME?
Nietzsche didn't mean that as a statement for atheism, it was a comment on what was happening to the culture, and a tragic one at that.
Who said it did? I doubt you'll ever find an Atheist that literally believes big G God existed but was killed by mankind's actions. The idea stands regardless, that the pure concept of a supreme god being was ruined by the excesses of mankind.
...and yet Sup Forums appears more pro than against this fellow (despite it's increasingly "traditional"/literalist slant). But wait, what am I doing?
>pic related
Wot?
Derrida is lefty as fuck m8. Just read Carl Schmitt instead
>not one mention of Evola this far into the thread
What the fuck.
Also, Derrida is literally the worst philosopher of the last two centuries. Deconstructionism is at the root of soooo much of the SJW poison eating away at the west. If you actually pay attention to their ideology and how they process and analyze things instead of just dismiss them out of hand as retarded (which they are, but that's beside the point) you'll see the very clear and very direct line from him to them.
Holy shit this ingenious.
>defending derrida in the OP post
>using leaf memes in response to serious posts
Sage
...
Me.
>implying you can't guess which other posts on this board are mine
>implying I'm not an unnamed defining character of the alt-right
>post structuralism
Dismissed.
Good taste.
50/50, Foucault was a disgusting Marxist.
One of few decent living philosophers, along with Alain de Button (who's a massive fag).
Underrated and overrated at the same time. 10/10 absurdity.
This idiot is why we have to say "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome" until they finally admit they're actually intimidated by equality of opportunity and what it implies, that is competition.
Derrida is cancer.
>when the leaf actually gets Nietzsche
Good leaf, now leave.
It's pre-existentialist mysticism.
>lol ontologies are confusing, am I profound yet?
>bringing up the
I thought everyone was still blaming the Frankfurt school for that? Not to mention you're saying a guy who didn't even believe the concept of "equality for all" was possible (or even reasonable) is the cause of the cry bullies.
Do you even understand what deconstruction is? It applies to any idea that is placed upon a pedestal to the detriment of another, including "Social Justice" (or even "deconstruction" vs structualism, lel)
Most people have no clue what Evola is talking about.
Easier to go with Guenon or Spengler first.
...
>responded to a bunch of posts ITT
>Calls Molyneux "One of few decent living philosophers"
>doesn't comment on my Land post
WTF?
My fellow aristocrat of the soul.
Land > Evola
You seem to be misunderstanding me. Stating what deconstructionism is or what it was intended for as a methodology is not the same thing as stating its effects or how it has been utilized (see: Marxism). My post was more for the latter, as it's been wielded by the social justice crowd to corrode elements which are foundational to western civilization (or, as you put it, "placed upon a pedestal"). It may or may not be the fault of Derrida himself or his philosophy in the same way that guns are not responsible for the murders committed with them. It as a methodology is a weapon currently being used by the left to murder the west.
I know, and fewer still IMO have even read him. That was more about his meme status on Sup Forums and how ostensibly popular he is here.
Alright senpai I'll post my faves
Homer
Heraclitus
Plato
Cicero (+ Seneca and Aurelius)
Augustine+Aquinas+Bonaventure
Machiavelli
Schopenhauer
Stirner
Steiner
Heidegger
Spengler+Guenon+Evola
I'm reading his shit on the Hermetic Tradition. It's pretty out there. Newton believed in all this stuff, too.
Because who the fuck is land?
Philosophy is struggling to come to grips exactly how alike it is to art, such that just like no one cares about postmodern academic art (lol I shit on canvas), no one cares about postmodern academic philosophy. My point is just as art is expected to be socialised (socially patronized) and open for the layman, so too is philosophy which is why not all Molyneux' audience have philosophy degrees.
Meanwhile, Molyneux' show is engaging, he does have experience as an actor after all, and Alain de Button uses his platform to its fullest extent, despite being a troll (fyi that's the only reason he supports Marxism and Marxists). They're doing it right as philosophers in this day and age should.
My impression of decent is actually who can make an impact, the age of philosophers making their points through fiction (like Nick Land, Sartre and Camus) is over, the standard format today is video. Just make your point, have some nice animations and we will listen.
Neoclassicist as fuck.
Oh well you're still infinitely better than a postmodernist.
st. Thomas Aquinas
St. Augustine
JS Milll
Paine
Bentham
Hobbes
Locke
Plato
Aristotle
Kierkegaard
Adam Smith
Ludwig von Mises
Hume
Bacon
Cardinal Newman
Cicero
René Descartes
Nice
Yeah, my area of focus is the ancients. Bound to happen.
I read both from time to time. Fortunately, there is no law requiring a man to pick a single philosopher to read for the rest of his life.
Kerry Wendell Thornley, KSC, JFK Assassin, Bull Goose of Limbo, Recreational Director of the Wilhelm Reich Athletic Club, Assistant Philosopher, President of the Universal Successionist Association (USA), Chairperson of the Kronstadt Vengeance Committee, Poet Laureate of the Randolph Bourne Association for Revolutionary Violets, Minister in the Church of Universal Life, Trustee for the Center for Mythographic Arts, Correspondent for the Desperate Imperialist News Service (DIN), Vice President of the Generic Graffiti Council of the Americas, CEO of the Umbrella Corporation and of the Spare Change Investment Corporation, Treasurer of the Commercial Erisian Orthodox Tabernacle, Assistant Treasurer of the John-Dillinger-Died-For-You Society, Public Relations Director of Precision Psychedelics, Managing Editor of The Decadent Worker, Public Security Committee Chief of the Revolutionary Surrealist Vandal Party (RSVP), Advisor to the Niccolo Machiavelli University of Jesuit Ethics, Instructor of the Mullah Nasrudin Sufi Mime Troupe, Dean of Bodhisattvas of the 12 Famous Buddha Mind School, Mail Clerk of Junk Mail Associates, Chaplaim ofthe Erotic Terrorism Committee of the Fucking Communist Conspiracy (FCC, etc.), Deputy Counsel of the International Brotherhood of Doom Prophets, Local 666, Alleged Founder of the Zenarchist Affinity Group (ZAG) and the Zenarchist Insurgency Group (ZIG), Co-Founder of the Discordian Society, Grand Master ofthe Legion of Dynamic Discord, Saint 2nd Class in the Industrial Church of the SubGenius, CEO of the Brooklyn Bridge Holding Company, Executive Vice President of the Bank of Hell, Chief Engineer of the Southern Fascist Railway (``Our Trains Run On Time!''), Inspector for the Political Correctness Division of the Marta Batista Cola Company, and Satanist Quaker
Given your statement on Molyneux in this post, I'm curious as to your opinion on Sam Harris given how different they are politically but how similar they are in terms of communicating with the public and being public intellectuals. To me Harris is sort of the midway point between Molyneux and Chomsky on the spectrum between populist (or "approachable", if you prefer) philosophy and more formally academic philosophy in the public sphere. All three have pretty significant fanbases.
Read "After Virtue"
>Molyneux and Chomsky
Pair of talentless populist whale ego cunts.
Is there anyone post Mises that you like?
It's a common contemporarist (what I'm calling this new era) thing.
Basically, it's a reaction to the anti intellectualism of postmodernism. You feel like you've been denied understanding the greats of the past, because you have. Postmodernism has tried too hard to be unique and is too critical of everything except of what actually matters, being critical to itself.
It's very obvious and understandable that you, as well as Molyneux, would be attracted to the past. Just wait until this sentiment leaks into music, suddenly 4 chords and the truth simply isn't enough anymore.
I enjoyed Chomsky when I was younger, but I recognise a lot of fallacious thinking in his work.
Sam Harris is insufferable.
My interest in Molyneux is that I can see and have seen him shape the state of philosophy for younger, less well known, less refined philosophers. I could watch a live stream with "rationalists" (please don't call yourselves this) and hear arguments that came directly from Molyneux.
Believing populism is a bad thing is trademark postmodernism.
>My interest in Molyneux is that I can see and have seen him shape the state of philosophy for younger, less well known, less refined philosophers
I agree, but I think something very similar could be said about Harris and Chomsky, hence my line of questioning comparing the three. Specifically why you would perceive value in Molyneux's presentation but not necessarily the other two as seems to be the case.
Stirner is the best out of all philosophers.
Check 'em.
Perhaps deconstruction is just another spook?
I don't really care about philosophy, but I liked reading:
>Jonathan Haidt
>Nassim Taleb (highly highly recommended to everyone here)
>Donald J Trump
>all the old school self help books (power of positive thinking especially, written by Trump's pastor)
>William James
>Ralph Waldo Emerson
>Aldous Huxley
I feel like reading these people can actually get you RESULTS and a really grounded view of the world and human nature. We can add stoicism (I liked Epictetus) to this list, but I feel it encourages people to become dispassionate, which is a mistake. I realized after listening to a lot of philosophy lectures and Youtube videos that in the end what matters is what the ideas can DO for you. For this reason I'm also drawn to occultism (Jung has some cool ideas too, but I haven't read him).
I guess that makes me a pragmatist? People like me don't think in strict categories, we think in broad strokes and according to our instincts and feelings. Not everything needs to be put into words, or strictly rational, or even true. If it gets you to where you want to go, it's "true" as far as you're concerned. I wish more people on our side would adopt this mindset instead of becoming obsessed with categorization and purity and Truth. We'd get a lot more done.
This is why academic people hate Donald Trump btw, they're not results oriented. They're nitpicking intellectual fags who focus too much on the specifics. "BUT HE SAID"
Lol u r all plebs
Didn't he unravel his own world view by the end of his career?
Friendly reminder that virtue ethics is the only redpill ethics and deontology, consequentialism, and any meta-ethical stance that implies relativism or nihilism are literal jew tricks
Any good readings or explanations of the dark renissance you know of? I am listening to a robotic version but it is annoying to listen to.. I really don't want to read the entire thing.
Evola is love, Evola is life.
Fuck off
You're all wrong.