Who's the most interesting philosopher that doesn't get talked about a lot?

Zapffe, for as much as names like Ligotti and Nietzsche gets mentioned, I haven't seen much mention if this guy. He writes about pessimistic existentialism through an evolutionary lens. His works are short reads, and I feel like philosophy in his vein is becoming increasingly popular and relevant.

Lol we should just kill ourselves rofl is not philosophy, it's a cult

Based

George Berkeley from the empiricist tradition. For some reason Locke and Hume are talked about a lot more.

It's peirce.

For me it’s CRUSHER

Attached: BD467445-5134-4035-9254-8180941B7EAB.jpg (225x225, 11K)

Ben Shapiro

Roger Bacon.

Zapffe doesn't get talked about because none of his works other than The Last Messiah (which is just a short article) have been translated from Norwegian.
>His works are short reads
And this is not true. His primary work, On the Tragic, is over 600 pages. But again, it isn't translated.

Vico. Blumenberg. Damascius. Eriugena. Merton. Solovyov. Berdyaev. Gregory of Nyssa. Gadamer. Dick' Exegesis. Deneen. Suhrawardi. De Jasay. Cowper Powys. Schmitt. Burke (here). Marcel.

Shakespeare was the greatest philosopher to have ever lived. He is only talked about in terms of literature on this board, but nobody has the will nor courage to fully engage with this brilliant mind in fear of nothing else comparing.

Shakespeare was actually Francis Bacon

Tell me one philosophical opinion that you know Shakespeare had.

Anthony "Icycalm" Zyrmpas

Pascal, because he's the ultimate contrarian. He eschews both cartesian stemlords and speculative metaphysics of pseuds.
His statements are typically highly self-contained in their own right, with no need to build elaborate metaphysics around it.
He argues for spirituality, but making it not sound like ravings of a bible-thumper trying to justify their faith.

Attached: p.jpg (300x314, 10K)

What's his argument for spirituality?

He called it 'point fixe'. The beauty of his argument is that it's mostly framed in cartesian terms, only for it to take unexpected turn towards spirituality when the emerging virtue from the (initially irrational) serves a social function which shouldn't be even possible according to atheists. Simply put, religion can have good outcomes, and it's precisely those good outcomes proving that "God exists". In more modern formal terms of game theory, this effect is called a Schelling point, where certain outcomes are possible only with blind faith.

Sounds like a shit argument to me

Skepticism

>making it not sound like ravings of a bible-thumper trying to justify their faith.
Hmmmmmmm...

Attached: voltaire.jpg (664x750, 76K)

Isn't that an elaborated form of Kierkegaard's leap of faith argument?

>leap of faith
Yes, it can be viewed as a more generalized form of pascal's wager. Neither of these formulations are new though, fe. story of oedipus illustrates the very same principle of self-fulfilling prophecy, and how the principle enjoys spiritual treatment.

Simone Weil

René Schérer

Maybe because he's such a cynical, prickly character. But I've been working in Advertising Tech for a year now and it's unreal how prescient some of his stuff was

Attached: download (1).jpg (225x225, 10K)

Proclus.

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
— To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

Enzo Paci and Eric Voegelin

Attached: 198384.jpg (171x266, 12K)

Kero Kero Bonito fans are barely one rung on the moral ladder above pedophiles

Sarah Perry is less famous for her philosophical musings "Pocket Crocodile" and "Babies are so Strange" than for her praxis of wholesome content in a world of degeneracy.

My man. Berkeley is by far the most interest of the three

I guarantee I'm more patrician in you in every single way.

Except spelling

alisdair macintyre

highly recommend that anybody interested in ethics, political social philosophy, intellectual history, critical theory, etc. read "after virtue"

one of the few philosophy works that changed the way i think about philosophy, life, the world, etc.

t. philosophy grad student

I really enjoyed Gene Gebser's (different from the one you are thinking about) The Ever Present Origin. Really interesting take on ideological disputes in the culture.

William James got almost everything right.

bolzano

Darwin.

Ludwig Klages

Julius Bahnsen

Kazantzakis

Gustav Fechner

Literally everyone discovering virtue ethics for the first time reads After Virtue. What's your next out there rec, some Philippa Foot? Please don't get too crazy and suggest some John Gray.

Attached: 8796545454.jpg (1000x548, 47K)

In what ways ?

Attached: 220px-Nb_pinacoteca_stieler_friedrich_wilhelm_joseph_von_schelling.jpg (220x272, 14K)

Mentally ill.

lol

Really the precession of simulacra couldn't be on Fuller display than in advertising.
Brands have such far reaching associations that they want to build in their audiences, they even speak in terms like they "sell a story" or "sell a lifestyle" rather than a product. They're very explicitly aware of how they're positioning themselves in a system of objects, and that concern for position almost explicitly overrides all else.
Furthermore, advertising isn't really a product that works in an intuitive way, companies often pay well over what they hope an ad campaign could make back in additional sales, for the simple reason that name recognition is ultimately what keeps so many of them afloat. Direct monetary efficiency be damned, you can't afford NOT to play this game.
Brands are essentially building their own models sold entirely in terms of other models. It creates this really creepy situation where, by speaking only in terms of things like cost per thousand ads, "Impression" and "Engagement", very friendly and sociable people can cheerfully talk to you about some truly dystopian mass-manipulation schemes without the concrete reality of the product, the customer or even the money(up to a point obviously), entering into it.
It strikes me that no matter who you added or removed from this system or what their goals were, its internal logic would just keep on ticking, consolidating and maximizing "engagement"

Probably the Kant of CPR. Always overshadowed by the morality bullshit.

>what is theory of moral sentiments
You guys really dont read, do you?

Buddy, let me let you in on a little secret: Harold Bloom hasn’t read half of what he says he has and isn’t nearly as smart as you think. He’s a specialist in LITERATURE which necessarily precludes proper literacy in other disciplines, like philosophy. Don’t be fooled by the based jew.

Was way more popular on here a few years back. Guenonfag keeping the dream alive.

Then you haven’t taken Hume seriously.

Talked about all the time. Lurk more faggot.

Locke was retarded, hurf durf primitive accumulation of capital makes slaves of the proletariat, Hume and Berkeley are irrelevant. Sarah Perry is much more relevant and truthful.

Shakespeare was a faggot who wrote gay love poetry. Sarah Perry doesn't, despite being of the weaker sex.

>unironically thinking Shakespeare doesn't have a brilliant mind
>let's call him a faggot

m-o-n-g-a-l-o-i-d

Attached: kek.png (521x454, 564K)

does it get any better than this?

> hurf durf material things are impermanent
not stupid, a deranged pervert, which is a moral failing, made inexcusable by his intelligence

Veblen

Based French slut for dead Jew cock

Me

Lamarck.

most philosophers that are only known in their own country
witkacy and gombrowicz

Me

Berkeley was the grandfather of quantum physics

Careful now that'll piss people off

we get it you have HIV

I want to cum inside Hana

this

He was the start of many /ethics/ general threads in the past. Someone needs to honestly start another one soon.

Pretty much from the conception of the board.

Probably Jeremy Bentham.

Feliks Koneczny divided civilizations into about twenty types, of which seven types still exist. Four are ancient: "Brahmin," "Jewish," "Chinese," and "Turanian". Three are medieval: "Latin," "Byzantine," and "Arab." The differences between civilizations are based on their attitude to law and ethics.

For example, Koneczny claimed that in the Latin civilization, ethics is the source of law. If some laws are not ethical, then they are changed. Government is judged on the basis of its adherence to ethics. The law is of dual nature, divided into public and private spheres. Religion is autonomous, independent and separated from the state. Individuality, self-rule and decentralization are highly valued. Knowledge is empirical.

In the Byzantine civilization, organized religion is dependent on the state. In this type of civilization all means are justified to achieve political goals. Politicians follow ethics in private life, but in public they are judged by their skills, not by ethics. The legal government has absolute authority and its orders are not doubted. Germany under Bismarck was an example of that type of civilization.

In the Turanian civilization, the government is the source of law and ethics and stands above the law and ethics. The ruler cannot be doubted. Koneczny considered Russia under the Tsars an example of this type of civilization.

The Jewish civilization considers the law most important. The law is the source of ethics. The law cannot be changed. However, the same law can be differently interpreted, which leads to ethical relativism. Similarly to the Brahmin or Hindu civilization, it is sacral, with religion playing a central role. According to Koneczny, one of the elements of Jewish civilization is a belief in the superior role of one nation or race. Communist states, despite their atheism, are also products of Jewish civilization.

Koneczny claimed that civilizations cannot mix, and any "synthesis" of several civilizations leads to the victory of one over the other, lower moral standards, or to a state of "un-civilization."

According to Koneczny, Europe in his time was a battlefield between three types of civilization: Latin, Turan and Jewish. He argued that Byzantine type of civilization had already lost the battle and was in deep crisis.

Attached: Felix koneczny.jpg (918x528, 33K)

Attached: 1556414248885.jpg (250x238, 10K)

It's always people who have barely studied history that makes these autistic systems and categorizations of 'civilizations'. I'll put him in the trash with Spengler

atheism is a dead end. Sarah Perry sings about what it's like to be pure in an atheist's world.

>Quigley barely studied history

wait how
have you even listened to their most recent album

Sounds similar to Toynbee.

Attached: 1565719296745.jpg (3672x3024, 3.85M)

Based, altough I wouldn't call him a philosopher

I fucking hate 2019, all downhill from here.

I never believed STEM would move away from meritocracy, but here we are.

Me but unironically
I have arrived at the truth, I have surpassed Plato, Nietzsche, Kant, all of them. And I did so without forcing the reader into submission via autistic vacuous verbosity

Mengzi. His naturalistic description of virtuous tendencies as "sprouts" that we should seek to grow and help flourish is the best account of virtue ethics I've heard and matches what we know about human nature and the importance of upbringing
>The heart of compassion is the germ of benevolence; the heart of shame, of dutifulness; the heart of courtesy and modesty, of observance of the rites; the heart of right and wrong, of wisdom. Man has these four germs just as he has four limbs. For a man possessing these four germs to deny his own potentialities is for him to cripple himself

Attached: Half_Portraits_of_the_Great_Sage_and_Virtuous_Men_of_Old_-_Meng_Ke_(孟軻).jpg (1178x1595, 1.83M)

HEY YEAH ITS KKB

Pyrrho, he's like bossmode stirner

>meditation on the all encompassing violent consumption carried out by time
>meditation on death and being
>meditation on language
>nihilist meditation on the fragility of life
>meditation on transcendental emotions

Okay, retard

Attached: 42B069EC-B1F1-4462-B66B-39D5AAD83633.jpg (544x781, 176K)

Shakespeare’s relativism, skepticism, existentialism and pessimism are all exquisite

Kierkegaard and Foucault

Zapffe has already been mentioned, but another Norwegian pessimist philosopher is Herman Tonnessen (I prefer him over zapffe desu). Also, Miguel de Unamuno is fantastic, the Tragic Sense of Life is almost like a more rigorous, religous Cioran. Frederic Jameson I have also not often seen mentioned. Of feminist philosophers, Andrea Dworkin is worth reading, as unhinged she is (all sex is rape because of the power-balance between men and women). And, although he is not strickly a philosopher Mircea Eliade should be more talked about (he exchanged letters with both Evola and Cioran)

Stalin.

Attached: stalinondm.png (1779x904, 118K)

Basically all the 14th century scholastics who were rejecting straight up Aristotle worship, like Scotus, Ockham, Buridan, Oresme, the oxford calculators, etc but were not yet from the historical point were good formal logic would get thrown out for 400 years.

Fritz Perls