10 Philosophical Works You'd Bring To A Desert Island

1. Your
2. Mothers Panties
3. Sisters Panties
4. Aunts Panties
5. Girl cousins panties
6. So
7. I
8. Can
9.Sniff
10. Them

based

He's not secretive about being a Christian.

Has he ever gone in depth about his theological views? I know he certainly isn't a creationist and said he thinks it's cool that Christianity was influenced by Paganism and Zoroastrianism.

It's probably just traditional Catholic views. Considering he published a book for a Catholic university, wrote his thesis on a Catholic philosopher, taught at private Catholic university, and lists Catholic books as his favorite, I might assume he's Catholic.

Attached: 414mh1lsHML._AC_SL1500_.jpg (333x500, 18K)

tip of the fedora to you kind sir

Plato's complete works
Augustine's Confessions
Machiavelli's Complete writings
The world as will and representation
Homo Sacer
Montaigne's Essays
Thus spoke Zarathustra
Giordano Bruno's Philosophycal writings
Baghavad Gita
Daodejing

>sucking e-celeb dick

>e-celeb

Dude routinely gets less than 1000 views per video.

A professor who makes YouTube videos is not an e-celeb.

>philosophers after plato just expand on what he already addressed.
That's like saying a building expands from it's floor you fucking idiot

Genuine question:
If this guy actually understands all those books but still lives a life completely indistinguishable from the most average of normies - then what is the point to have read them at all?

Weird, innit?

Since the Greeks, I struggle to find a single philosopher who seems influenced by (his) philosophy in the slightest. It's very confusing to me.

That first sentence is perhaps the most pseudo-intellectual thing I've seen on this board yet, and I've been here for 4 years. Congratulations, user. You are among the ignorant elite of this board

>indistinguishable from normies
He's a professor of philosophy. Average IQ of uni professors is 130. Average IQ of population is 100.
>why study
Because it's in his nature to be curious and search for truth. There doesn't need to be a cause outside yourself for you to do things. Read stirner.

His point is that the guy seems bland, impossibly bland for somebody who has gathered that much knowledge and experience. The guy would not ever burn down a fucking building, or shoot smack or do anything out of the ordinary. And that is really fucking weird. He seems impotent, useless. I am not saying he is supposed to behave like a rockstar, but this guy possesses the capability of boring You to death in a conversation, although he contains that much knowledge, experience. It is weird.

He also wears a different hairstyle than most other people. That's obviously not what I meant by indistinguishable.
I mean it seems to have no effect on his every day life, his decisions, barely on his views, the things he comments on or thinks about, the things he enjoys for fun and entertainment, the way he talks to people, the way he tries to influence or ignore the world. All of that and it's still "Sophie's World" level self-help stuff, Twitter engagement and the like.
Granted, not the average population, but let's say the average grad student who never touched any philosophy.

The other part of your post is precisely my question: Is that really all we get out of it - like someone who reads up on a machine just so he knows how it works, out of curiosity, without ever building machines himself or operating one or leading a different life because of that knowledge?
Is his life no different from how it would be had he spent the same amount reading up on insects out of the same curiosity?
He seems to have found knowledge, not truth. Or at least no truth that sets him free or alters him in any meaningful way.

Not a personal attack, genuine question like I said.
Also read Stirner by the way, which only makes the question more pressing for me - you've allegedly found truth, looked behind every curtain, and then your life still consists of exactly the same steps as if you never did at all.

Thanks, that's much closer to it.
I think someone who really found truth would get more than 1000 views on YouTube, even in a world where Avengers may get a billion.
I think someone who came closer to what our reality really is than almost anyone else would tweet more insightful things than "Fuck Drumpf" (not a matter of politics for me).
If he knows and understands all that, why is what he spreads stuff like "How to be a modern stoic and live like a really cool emperor"?
You understand Time and Being and you've pondered The Republic but you're still concerned with who dies on Game of Thrones?
You have absolutely no interest in changing the world whatsoever; but you are also not detached from the world, you're simply exactly like everybody else.

Buildings don't expand from their floors.

>theology is not philosophy

Attached: xgorxiy1z4s11.png (500x500, 61K)

Based.

Attached: times.jpg (427x334, 53K)

Doubtful, some of the most brilliant people in history were either ignored or suppressed in their time. And we live in an age of anti-intellectualism where recuperation of dangerous ideas is a specialized science.

Not the one You are replying to, but what has he actually done?

literally /ourguy/

Not saying this guy is a genius, just arguing against the idea that a genius would be popular on youtube, or even in books.

Oh come on.
You're telling me he is using his YouTube channel for being bland on purpose, just so the Deep State doesn't suppress his actual dangerous ideas?
Nothing is being suppressed today apart from the political and the criminal; certainly nothing in the cluster of reality, morality, purpose, meaning.
He's not ignored either - he chooses to talk about the things he does instead of other things.

Look at Zizek. Adored by millions, known to millions, actually dangerous (as much as a 'philosopher' can be), terrible persona. Of course a lot of that comes from being political but still, there's clearly an opening to still be heard.

Agreed, the future is usually the one that declares You a genius. But those guy's other points still stand. Still seems pretty fucking weird.

How do you expect him to be different. He lives far more rationally than your average fucktard so I would say he's different in that way.

>>>reddit

1. Zarathustra
2. Fear and trembling
3. The freedom of the will by Schopenhauer
4. Ethics by Spinoza
5. The Rebel by Junger
6. Twilight of the idols by Nietzsche
7. Marco aurelio "thoughts" (?)
8. Being and time by Heidegger
9. Freedom and necessity by Hobbes
10. The Gay science

Sorry bros but I don't know all the name in English, just in my own language

I change The Gay Science with The Prince by Machiavelli.

Of course he is different from your average fucktard, but he's not different from your average "now let's think this through rationally and with common sense" 115-130 IQ person who hasn't read any book at all.

Someone here wrote he did it "to find truth". I would like to know what truth that is. What he has found. How it makes him any different to the rational person he already was before.
There's the saying about truth setting you free. I can't see any sign of that.
He doesn't have to go full Pyrrhon or Diogenes or Seneca but it all having absolutely zero impact?

I am still with You man. The guy seems like an NPC.

It really just sounds like he's not radical or cool enough for you. Do you dislike him because he makes fun of Trump on Twitter?

WHOAH MAMA we've got a real BIG one here!

I bet you're the guy who got in a fight with him over the Action Francais/ Steve Bannon Tweet.

way to make yourself look like a complete idiot, Sadler is not a "e-celeb", he's a professor of philosophy

this is the stupidest fucking shit I've read in weeks, go off yourself scum

Do you want him to grow a messy beard and stand near statues prophesying to the masses while wearing a tunic? Do you want him to live in a barrel like Diogenes and yell silly aphorisms that BTFO his contemporary philosophers? Do you want him to be like Peterson and make magical gesticulations while talking in a stern voice?
Philosophy is no longer a strange art performed by idiosyncratic wisemen who live in barrels and shit on the streets. It is an academic discipline requiring serious study and your expectation for philosophers to be like these mystical figures shows that you do not take it seriously.

Also your game of thrones comment is hilarious. "He likes this highly regarded TV show I don't like; what a normie!"
No, it's just that you're a contrarian who hates everything popular because you were bullied in school and feel you have to compensate by reckoning yourself smarter than everyone else.

No, if I was American, I'd be independent/"opposed to both parties" as well.
It's the fact that he engages with things like that at all - I'd expect him to either be above those things, or to engage with concepts instead of personalities, or that he'd try to actually make a change. I don't expect one of the most learned and insightful men to just do stuff like retweeting "x is bad", no matter from what side.

Maybe political stuff was a bad example because people focus on it. Take the books he's advertising. It's low-brow, intellectually dishonest convenient store philosophy. That doesn't make sense to me.

But most of all, I don't even WANT him to be different, I am just asking: If he IS NOT different, if all this insight does not change who we are, then what is the point apart from "idk just my inclination"?

>Philosophy is no longer a strange art performed by idiosyncratic wisemen who live in barrels and shit on the streets. It is an academic discipline requiring serious study and your expectation for philosophers to be like these mystical figures shows that you do not take it seriously.

Brb, just gonna go buy myself that sweet diploma so I can apply myself to serious study, lmao. When the institution finally says that I can think, I can finally think! Oh, boy!

So he's just a regular person with the credentials to regurgitate old material?

He should be doing at least one cool thing or it's all just a hermetic circle jerk.

Apply yourself

Same for you - I started out wording it very differently, I've just been forced into meaningless exaggerated examples to get my point across. It's not about a specific show, politician, anything. I specifically said he doesn't have to be like the people I mentioned.
I think you make it easy for yourself to dodge my question by just painting me in a silly light by exaggerating my already exaggerated examples.
There's nothing wrong with e.g. asking why, if he does care about politics, he does not go the Seneca route instead of just retweeting stuff.

I also don't know if it's really a sign of not taking philosophy seriously to expect it to be more than confined within the doors of academia as something to just be studied. Not just because for thousands of years, the entire point of it was to influence our actions but also because there were enough smart men before me questioning that view of academic speculation and metaphysical folly.

tl;dr Don't project so much. I don't consider myself smarter than the guy, I don't actually care what tv he watches, I really just wanted an answer to the question of "Does all that insight and knowledge end up not even (majorly) affecting how we live and see life?"

So if he's intelligent he has to be above it and can't discuss or mock political figures? Also what about him is "intellectually dishonest?" It sounds like your problems with him are more about Stoicism as a philosophy rather than him as an individual. I really don't get your problems with him other than him just being too bland/ not cool enough for you. Not every individual is going to be a funny Nick land or Slavoj Zizek who discusses and/ or retweets hip memes and whatnot.

The retards just dont understand what You are aiming at or are just triggered by You spotting something weird with their "underground idol".

Give up.

>"Does all that insight and knowledge end up not even (majorly) affecting how we live and see life?"
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgmsmZAHZOP2foF8TzYve_J

Outside of their historical significance, is there any reason to read Aquinas and Augustine as an atheist?

I rather bring fiction than dry philosophy that has no application on a deserted island

This comment is pearls before swine

I think this website has really clouded your ability to think.

I do NOT have a problem with the guy. Not everything has to be a personal attack or a matter of praise or hate.
All I wondered was more along the lines of "Almost no one understands phenomenology and almost no one has the knowledge of thousands of years of Western philosophy - but apparently even if you do, this has (almost) zero effect on your life, that's weird".

I also didn't call HIM intellectually dishonest, just books he advertised like this "Think like an Emperor!" stoicism-for-dummies one.
I also have zero problems with stoicism. It does seem to me though as if this man, who sells it wherever he can, does not apply stoic principles particularly strictly. Which I don't judge, it just surprises me.

But yes, if a very high IQ and knowledge of almost the entire Western tradition still amounts to little more than lazily mocking a personality on Twitter, I'm a bit disappointed. I think that's fair?

Great comprehension skills buddy. Philosophy has to be studied seriously = the only way to study philosophy is through academic institutions. Nailed it.

What would Sadler have to do convince you he succeeded in being angry less frequently ever since he started studying the philosophers discussing anger, whom he in turn teaches and makes a living off?

You are the one who has problem with reading comprehension. Look at how much You are trying to make an absurd point out of the guy post who claims that this type of behaviour seems pretty weird. You are a sad manlet.

Where the hell is The World as Will and Idea?

He's not an irrationalist like Schopie, hence the Catholics.

The Minotaur is catholic?

Irrationalist? How is Transcendental Idealism irrational? Nietzsche is the one who made the jump into irrationalism.

maybe that's this guy's problem

The Will is not rational. "Irrationalism" here is not some insult to one's intelligence.

Fair, but it's outside the principle of sufficient reason. It's not that it rejects reason, but reason is its consequence

>t. hasn't seen the 10,000 videos on Augustine, St. Anselm, and 1930s christian philosophy

Mindless, aimless, irrational, which is the opposite of the Christian Logos, the intelligent order out of which comes all creation. Hence Schopenhauer not believing in God as opposed to, say, a Leibniz or Aquinas who see order and reason as foundational.

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

No, that is a legitimate answer and one that is satisfactory to me to some extent. I'll say though that I made my first comment precisely because I saw those lectures and read through one of them and found it to be on the level of self-help books, below the quality of clinical works. However, I really appreciate that approach and I'll watch a few more of these.

The part of me that is not fully satisfied is the one that concerns everything that isn't the stoa - since the stoa makes it very easy and already is closer to clinical practical life lessons than any of the books in OP's list (which is also the shortcoming I feel, since to me none of what Marcus Aurelius wrote seemed to ultimately work without his belief in the Gods).

So while I can easily see the impact of the stoa on his life (although I think he was not THAT different before), I wonder whether there is anything similar for the works listed - especially Hegel, Heidegger, Descartes, Pascal but also the likes of Wittgenstein.
Do you feel these have an impact as well?

Thanks for your serious and meaningful answer, by the way.

He was adopted by Catholic foster parents.

Maybe it's better if we let the man speak for himself:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIhMF0NquJdqqGNYFrE06aIb

1. Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung
2. Philosophische Untersuchungen
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

You seem like those small children who act surprised when they find out their teachers have their own parents and personal lives.

Can you not just take Plato and Aristotle's complete works and count them as 3 books?

Thank you, I didn't know there was a playlist of these. I'll watch.

Why are personal attacks the only category you can think in?
It's not iconoclasm to ask whether understanding Hegel and Heidegger gives you a different outlook on life, why someone praising the stoa ignores its political aspects, why you don't feel like saying more than "person x sucks" after you have read hundreds of pages about whether totalitarianism isn't a better answer to human needs.

I don't mind that he doesn't act like a rockstar and that he's modest, level-headed and a bit bland, I like it and him. Only wondered whether these works transform a human who was already smart and rational to begin with and add a meaningful layer or whether it merely ends up in being a little bit more learned.

>Take the books he's advertising. It's low-brow, intellectually dishonest convenient store philosophy.
Hegel is low-brow?

1: the Bible
2: the Gita with abhinavagupta’s commentary
3: the Tantraloka
4: phenomenology of spirit
5: being and time
6:the Baopuzi or some other translation of Ge hong’s Work
7: sepher yetzirah
8: sha’are orah
9: dragon book of Essex
10:collected writings of Luis borges

>How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius
>A few years ago, when my daughter Poppy was four, she began asking me to tell her stories. I didn’t know any children’s stories, so I told her what came to mind: stories about Greek myths, heroes, and philosophers.
>I told Poppy that most people believe there are lots of good things—nice food, clothes, houses, money, etc.—and lots of bad things in life, but Socrates said perhaps they’re all wrong. He wondered if there was perhaps only one good thing, and if it was inside of us rather than outside. Maybe it was something like wisdom or bravery. Poppy thought for a minute, then, to my surprise, she shook her head, saying, “That’s not true, Daddy!” which made me smile.

I was maybe a bit harsh but I don't see how someone needs to put their own name above the Meditations and sell it with some "you too can be a Roman emperor" clickbait instead of just telling people to get the copyright-free text for free with free annotations.

based

I mean, it seems like Sadler is living his life differently from the "average" individual. For one, he is spending inordinate amounts of time to share his knowledge with the public. This project - to introduce academic philosophy to the public - is only a few years old, and certainly hasn't yet matured to a point where we can judge it successful or not. I doubt he has delusions of grandeur about being a genius and changing the world forever with his ideas, but he does at least see that he can make a pathway for others to do so.

A Consolation of Philosophy
Republic - Plato
Metaphysics, Physics - Aristotle
On Moral Ends - Cicero
The Discourses of Epictetus
Letters from a Stoic - Seneca
Scholastic Metaphysics - Edward Feser
War and Peace - Fuck you it counts as philosophy
The History of Rome - Livy, and so does this.

When I read the title of that book I get the impression that it's a commentary on the Meditations. Where do you get the idea that it's telling you that "you can be a Roman emperor?"

Your diction and syntax is too well-chosen not to be bait. Well done.

>but still lives a life completely indistinguishable from the most average of normies
LMFAO

I mean the word is dilettante but I guess if by 'we' you're referring to fellow 4channers then the word is Redditcuck

>>Plato
>>Hegel

but who was philosophy??

get bent

>martin heidegger's Being and Time
>on a deserted island
L - O - L

these are literally all the books I've read for college. Really can't see myself bringing any of them to a deserted island, with the exception of Zarathustra, gay science, or aurelio. (unless you really like useless jargon and being force fed contrived semantic arguments in the form of embarassingly long run-on sentences)

1) Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat
2) Plato's Republic
3) Something by Sartre, maybe nothingness, maybe nausea (jargony, but I just like how he writes)
4) The Way of the Bodhisattva (it's fun! it would make me feel very one with everything)
5) Logico Loco Tractico Philosophiculo
6) Does Aasimov count...?
7) Does Hamlet count ?...
8) Waiting for Godot...
9) Beauvoir's the second sex cuz ... fuck y'all I like that book it taught me shit I'd never get from anyone else (I'm just pre-empting the hate)
10) Darwin's Descent of Man

It's a bit wonky and not very philosophic-y, but I cannot imagine myself stuck on a deserted island without anything "fun" to read.
"
Additionally, I'd love to bring Finnegan's Wake or Mrs. Daloway, just to go ham on them. Or a la recherche du temps perdu cuz... it'd be fitting I'd finally have the time to read it.

You're obsessed with the body.

bitch if I was on a desert island I would bring porno magazines and warhammer 40k lore

That is the aura I feel he exudes.

So this?

Attached: 68C8962A-B282-4226-8510-D968BFE80183.jpg (1029x1159, 332K)

>Nothing is being suppressed today apart from the political and the criminal; certainly nothing in the cluster of reality, morality, purpose, meaning.
Are you retarded? Do you know what recuperation means?
And
>Zizek is actually dangerous
lmao

That's overly verbose to be a nice quote. Should have dropped the first line

Goddamn I hate wh*Tehead