Is it possible to read philosophy without forming a political opinion?

No. The only philosophy worth reading is political. The rest is just intellectual puzzles for people with too much time on their hands

Just stick to topics like metaphysics and other stuff as far away as possible from everyday life

Read Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, iamblachus, corpus hermeticum, Euclid etc, Hindu/Buddhist philosophy.

Don't bother with christcucks. If you must read moderns, then read Kant, Schelling, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Husserl, heidegger

retard

Christcuck detected.

So this life is bad?

>you won't form a political opinion if you read philosophy the right way
>read Plato

user...

>blame others for my problems
But that's a political position. You choose to ignore the fact that you don't live in a vacuum and that whatever it is you're experiencing is in no way related to events in your state or the world at large. If you don't want to have this view challenged then you can't expect to get much from reading philosophy.

What political opinion will he form?

zizek

reading philosophy won't make you angry and blame others for your problems, drinking and doing drugs does that. reading philosophy will help you better recognize that most people are attached to the hip to some vice or another, drugs, drink, 'medication,' and guide you towards your goals without being distracted by every desperate person surrounding you in your life

It don't really real.

Totally. Phil of math, metaphysics, and epistemology all have political consequences, but none of them would wind up drastically changing what you already believe about politics.

Attached: 36426833_1804434902971151_6574065685595422720_n.jpg (960x655, 60K)

The state is meant to ensure justice

If you don't form a political opinion you will be nothing but a passive receptacle for the wills of other men.

>i just don't want to be angry all the time and blame others for my problems

user, the world is not such a kind place. I hope you survive for another year.

Attached: TheSadStoryOfHenry52 (1).png (706x530, 966K)

I'm a centrist.

its almost impossible to be objective but if you read a variety of perspectives by different authors n stuff it should help

that's why politics is annoying. You know you'll never have the objective truth so it's not even worth getting into

No. Read Epicurus.

I stopped caring about politics after reading philosophy

But even that is a political stance.

In the realm of politics, centrism means little to nothing.

>Hindu budist good
>Christian bad

Attached: 1539689593718.jpg (408x431, 12K)

>But even that is a political stance.
nigga what?

Attached: 1554142979016.jpg (1200x596, 82K)

Compliance with the status quo is a political stance. You can’t back out of it.

Being apolitical doesn't mean you're compliant to the status quo. I just don't want to blame others for my problems and be angry at certain politicians all the time.

Attached: 1551823573055.jpg (536x486, 51K)

Well you could say everything is political. But then it's impossible to be unpolitical, and the question does reading philosophy make you form a political stance a useless question, as you can't be not political.
I don't care about status quo either. Governments come and go, either by elections or sometimes by revolutions or invasions. I just have come to appreciate arts and traditional values.

>i just don't want to be angry all the time and blame others for my problems
Sounds like a job for stoicism

Set theory is the most autistic shit god damn

It absolutely does. Having a political opinion doesn’t mean you blame this or that, it isn’t necessarily an action at all.

>I just don't want to be angry all the time and blame others for my problems

then get into political philosophy

Attached: leo strauss.jpg (650x433, 167K)

>Having a political opinion doesn’t mean you blame this or that
Name me one position (maybe besides centrism) that doesn't have some sort of bogeymen or some entity to place blame on.

Libertarian Right: Government, Communists
Libertarian Left: Capitalism, Government
Authoritarian Right: Jews, Immigrants, Communists
Authoritarian Left: Capitalism, America

Attached: 220px-Political_chart.svg.png (220x239, 5K)

terrible taste
>maybe besides centrism
centrism also has a bogeyman, and his name is extremism

set theory is the basis for almost all of modern mathematics

The “apolitical” compliant live in a cushy world of ____ and leave the fuss to their leaders. That’s all I mean

Post'em

Attached: political_compass.png (480x400, 17K)

Would you call an Orthodox Christian philosopher living in Russia under the USSR a communist philosopher?

>if you don’t stand for something, you stand for nothing
Butterfly.... say it isn’t so. Say you’re trolling right now :3

How is being apolitical being compliant with the status quo?

I wouldn’t.

If you don’t want to stand for something, you stand with whatever it currently is.
Disagree? Well now you’re starting to form an opinion
L8r

Just read analytics who are not engaged in value theory and you're good to go.

Do you mean analytic philosophy?

So if I don't agree or disagree with X that's means I stand with X?

you're missing her point; if you don't agree or disagree with X then you stand with not agreeing or disagreeing with X. it's pretty simple

>her
lmao
>if you don't agree or disagree with X then you stand with not agreeing or disagreeing with X.
So you're saying that I think no one is allowed to agree or disagree on X just because I don't have an opinion on X?

That makes no sense
Butterfly let me give an analogy. Analogies, like Plato’s cave, help us see reality for what it really is.

Two people, say A and B, are involved in shit flinging. A stands for your rights, while B does not. Do you really support A, or do you decline to consider the issue because of how low it is? Wouldn’t you look at the predicament with disdain and rather ask why they are flinging shit, as opposed to siding with A no matter the circumstance? Isn’t that a more rational position?

Reminder, I am :3.

Good joke.

Then what do you mean by analytic?

The butterfly shit ruined another thread

see >That makes no sense
I am aware, but it seems to be what she's getting at here

if you are seeing it as people flinging shit, it's because you have never witnessed a proper political discussion

The world does not have to be viewed through the lense of politics. Politics is a little game among the millions of other little games we can decide to play.

For the people who play this game it is in their best interest to make sure that others believe their game is serious. It is good strategy on their part to convince you that their game is important and that you should be playing it.

But you dont have to.

Am I missing something here? Isn't the tranny just saying it doesn't matter what your opinion is, because as an apolitical you are most likely compliant with your actions? You either attempt to change it or not. And if not, you are compliant no matter your conceptions.

>Epiclueless
Yawn

These days? No, it’s just pointless meandering around pre-chosen sides.

No real genuine discussion :3

who knows what the tranny butterfag means

By non-value theory stuff like Kripke, Lewis, Wright, Strawson, Nagel, so forth.

By value theory stuff like Rawls, Cohen, Korsgaard, Foot, Anscombe and so on.

>genuine discussion
>in politics

also, I didn't want to say it, but it seemed that with "discussion" you meant youtube comments

You can label people all you want. The label is in your head, not theirs. If you don't play a game you can't be considered a player.

Kripke sounds based
>On how his religious views influenced his philosophical views, he has said: "I don't have the prejudices many have today. I don't believe in a naturalist worldview. I don't base my thinking on prejudices or a worldview and do not believe in materialism."

you know what, thank you user, this post just made me realize how little I actually care about politics and how much I interact with it only because of course I'm supposed to have an opinion about orange man of some kind. I'll try to disconnect myself from it from now on

No, if you talk to anyone about politics you will hear the same things uttered by other individuals. Which is absolutely frightening.

yes, including your words

Being apolitical is a meme pulled by the neoliberal establisment. Have fun licking up cyber Hillary's fecal matter in the trans humanist dystopian future that awaits us.

I just believe in what I believe regardless of its political connotations.

I don't try to answer 'political' questions by referring to the opinions of others, generally speaking. I don't label myself or my ideas.

In all honestly surface-level left v. right politics is an utter farce, unequivocally. The answers to most of the 'questions' are not simply black or white statements, but an amalgamation of ideas from both sides that we are supposed to be coalescing into action, not endless divisive debate.

To OP, I tell you to read philosophy with the idea that you are going to go with what YOU think is right, regardless of what others say. You are learning so that you can grow your own viewpoint, NOT so you can subscribe to someone else's.

Attached: 1550534430372.jpg (850x400, 61K)

>Being apolitical is what [insert buzzword/bogeyman here] want to to be instead of actually adopting the views

Attached: 1550785563316.png (1000x432, 165K)

That actually is the case though

Politics aren't philosophy. Essentially

Muh politics is a meme pulled by the neoliberal establishment. Have fun not knowing what the fuck is actually happening, and being trained to be autistically obsessed with some minor social issue or word usage for validation as the real world churns on. I hope one of two things happens: our technology kicks out all of you retards and shows you even just a pinch of how things actually work, or this piece of shit system collapses and we can go back to natural societies.