Which philosophers influenced your world view the most?

Me and also myself

>epicurus
>stirner
Thanks for proving to me that you are a retard butterfly.
I like Stirner views about kikes and niggers though, he was based in that race realist aspect.

Clearly you’ve misunderstood and inflated a tiny portion here. No wonder you’re having trouble processing the idea that the three complement each other

Early Plotinus sure

>the three complement each other
Damn buttefly, you are making even a bigger fool of yourself. Nietzsche was a huge critic of both stoicism and Stirner.
>imagine reading second sources
I am going to need you to off yourself Butterfly

Aristotle, Aquinas, Frege, Russell

No wonder you're so insufferable.

0/10 Nietzsche never let on that he even read Stirner out jealousy and/or reapect
>Stoicism
OH! You think Epicurus is Epictetus. Are you even trying or just trying to get me to respond?
Get a life

Attached: 27E3C878-098D-4197-ADCF-1C2FFE546C1C.png (363x330, 70K)

>reapect
*respect

Stop impersonating me and have sex incel.

Hey newfriend impersonator, you can delete your own messages, you know?

>no metaphysics in sight
>muh fee fee
into the trash it goes

>no metaphysics
>Nietzsche
Have sex incel

Althusser

Based

Michael Kirkbride

Quite a few. Johannes de Silentio, Anti-Climacus, Victor Eremita; I could go on.

Attached: kierkegaard_eyes.jpg (162x54, 4K)

Sell me some metaphysic, user.

Attached: CB4C8C0F-5158-49A2-8EB4-ABBB9C04160E.jpg (750x804, 164K)

Nietzsche and Jesus Christ

Based

Laozi, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Homer

I saw that

Attached: E10B996D-5EFC-497C-BC21-D12C13648557.jpg (310x315, 41K)

moldbug

Attached: 1557253698181.jpg (774x809, 117K)

Heraclitus of Ephesus
Lao Tzu

Jung and... Watts...

Daddy Marx

Attached: Karl_Marx_001.jpg (1263x1600, 1.23M)

Philosopher I agree with the most is Camus
Philosopher I enjoy reading the most is Michel De Montaigne

Ludwig Erhard. "Wohlstand für alle" has solid theroies which have also been proven to work in the real work.

He should have added the disclaimer "doesnt work with spinless politicans" becuase thats how his system got destroyed and bloated in Germany over the years

This is true in quite a lot of corners.

Full-res image:
drunksandlampposts.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/philprettyv4.png

Attached: philprettyv4_small.png (2000x2000, 3.24M)

Kierkegaard is such a beautiful soul

Jay Z and Kendrick

This as well.
I have not read much philosophy but every word from The Stranger, The Myth of Sisiphus and The Plague fits perfectly my outlook of life.

Nerd much? lets go, party rock is in the kitchen tonite..... e,verybody just have a fruit time....and we gon make you lose your mind,. every bod y just have a fruit time.....

>the most

Read Meister Eckhart

Nietzsche and Stirner tried illuminating the same ideal mindset

Probably a tie between Nietzsche and Wittgenstein

Peirce

Is imitating this picture as an arthoe the equivalent of visiting the Mecca as a muslim?

Nietzsche
> Happiness is dangerous, rage and get mad instead. Cool dude.

Whitehead
> His logical way of thinking is worth learning.

Aristotle
> Still one of the best psychologists of all time. The first one to experiment with Artificial Intelligence too.

Plato
> This guy knows what's up. Most philosophers are just wanna be Platos.

Watts
> Based eastern philosopher, unlike those uber pretentious monks that are too far away from reality.

Plato, Epictetus and Guenon

Adolf hitler

Wittgenstein, Weber, Adorno and McLuhan. I have always seemingly agreed with Kant so I can't say he did much shaping.

boobs

Lucie wilde

mainlander. i am also unironically considering doing it at 34

user, you're embarrassing yourself.

Kek

Robert Anton Wilson, he is not a philosopher per se, but he took many many mysticism and translated it to the common man, I get the whole dialectics thing before reading anything by Hegel or Marx thanks to him. Early Wittgenstein is pretty cool too, also Uncle Ted, he made me realize how stupid my behaviour was regarding politics, I was pretty much his leftist archetype, he did to me what Peterson never could.

Stirner

plato, spengler, gentile, hitler, linkola, yockey, aquinas

Not necessarily philosophers:
>Kierkegaard
>Augustine
>Boehme
>Tomberg
>Heidegger
>Ellul

ur pretty much anti human then arent you user

DMT entities, biggest mindfuck in my life. human philosophers are meh, brainlets all of them

>entheogen kiddie
come back in another year when your pseudo-spiritual afterglow has worn off and we'll see how you feel

Wtf is wrong with her eyes is she coked out

YOU FORGAWT DAWSTEROOSKY

>pseudo-spiritual afterglow
lmao I am a regular user of many years, Ironically only pseuds think entheogens are not a valid way, you probably haven't taken enough or never did. most people never go beyond a small tab of LSD, and LSD is nothing but boring noise.
Tell me, is there a better tool for literal transcendental experiences and revelations? or are you denying that this is what they do? and if it's not a valid way to metaphysical truth in your face what is there then? meditation (relatively ok but slow)? reading some retard like Deleuze or Kant? science? religious practices? all bullshit.
of course it's not for everyone, and not every person can actually dive deep, observe and take it in, contemplate and integrate but your arrogance and thinking that you are "past and outgrew entheogens" is laughable.

jordan peterson, when i binge his videos im more productive towards my goals

>How malicious philosophers can be! I know of nothing more venomous than the joke Epicurus permitted himself against Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes. That means literally—and this is the foreground meaning—"flatterers of Dionysius," in other words, tyrant's baggage and lickspittles; but in addition to this he also wants to say, "they are all actors, there is nothing genuine about them" (for Dionysokolax was a popular name for an actor).1 And the latter is really the malice that Epicurus aimed at Plato: he was peeved by the grandiose manner, the mis en scène2 at which Plato and his disciples were so expert—at which Epicurus was not an expert—he, that old schoolmaster from Samos, who sat, hidden away, in his little garden at Athens and wrote three hundred books—who knows? perhaps from rage and ambition against Plato?

>It took a hundred years until Greece found out who this garden god, Epicurus, had been.—Did they found out?
neech on epicurius being a resentful fuck who didn't understand philosophy

What you're doing is just chasing experiences, there is 0 worthwhile knowledge for you or other people in there. No different from most philosophers as well es meditative practitioners either though, to be fair. Whether you're building metaphysical systems or cultivating formless dhyanas doesn't matter much, it's all the same waste of time, as is talking to the aliens in your mind, be they real or not.

How is Stirner influential?

Attached: 71OsS+ePZFL.jpg (1400x2132, 238K)

>what you're doing is just chasing experiences
I was, because I was highly curious and adventurous, that's correct, but now I'm simply enjoying it for what it is.
>there is 0 worthwhile knowledge for you or other people in there.
There is always something new to learn from these experiences, you are being very myopic with this statement.
Please tell me, what is then a "worthwhile knowledge" and how do I get it?

>ctrl f

> Spinoza 0/0

I am dissapoint

all zoomers look like that

based CHIMbro

My cock

Attached: 1540751220548.jpg (682x545, 59K)

I’ve seen you posting about having sex and now you post about someone not understanding something when you clearly didn’t understand Epicurus. You’re just a hedonist who uses epicurus to cope with being poor.

It's not a contest, but, for what it's worth, I've smoked DMT, done 4g mushroom trips, tried 500ug LSD, 5-meo-DMT, 2C-B, mescaline, etc, etc. All of them feel different, DMT the strangest of them all, but they produce the same results. Like what the other poster said, it's experienced and feels substantial, yet it rarely, if ever, gets converted in praxis, save the first handful of trips and the user already going in with the strict intent of altering themselves (notice how burnt-out retards never "find God" on 5 tabs).

Albert Camus
>dude just fuck mad brown pussy brah

Taleb, Spengler and Ellul
(I am serious tbqh)

Attached: 1567022048803.jpg (3035x5260, 713K)

used to be a generic conservative who became more libertarian over time
then i found out about (neo)marxism and it turned me into more of a theocracy midned authoritarian ironically enough, people like marx and foucault helped me break the liberal conditioning

Definitely Spengler.

>Marx
>Stirner
>Land

what does molyneux have to do with it

Well did they find out?

He influences me

Looked into it. Not too sold on it. Not really judging it, but it does nothing for me.

Kierkegaard & Cioran

Attached: The Dog.jpg (3024x2220, 476K)

i have trouble feeling can,t help but be highly callous

There's nothing more effeminate then philosophy, except maybe for poetry.

He's the anti-philosopher. He refreshed thoughts on Logic that have been swept away since the Sophists arrived and misunderstood logos. If you want to get straight on Logic, read him.

Heidegger because I've already experienced Angst when I was a kid, the first part and history got me immensely interested but I finally lost to the Hegel chapter, can't wait to read it again and go deeper into his thoughts. Kant got me interested in philosophy and I am enjoying reading Hegel so far
reading philosophy is becoming less and less of a hassle, I'm starting to love the journey

Spengler. Hands down.

hiegel

Spengler is the new cool kid answer I guess. If you pick Neechee, you're too basic. If you pick Stirner, you're le edgee meem man. King of the dilettantes. Go read Weber, you'll get a lot more out of it and you'll get the first eight chapters of DTW in two chapters and written far less Byzantine. I feel like Spengler was the Jordan Peterson of the fucking l'belle epoque.

Nasty little noreaders.

I thought this too. Also, what about Berkley? I know no one here is an actual immaterialist, but he drew the line between subjective and objective reality better than anyone before or since.

>There's nothing more effeminate then philosophy, except maybe for poetry.

Clearly one isn't born without a biological mother, then the rib taken from man could be transfiguratively philosophy and poetry could be a form of art that life imitates.

The one that is resonating with me the most has been Michel Foucault.

>Neet, Sartre, Jung, Whitehead, Kierky
I have a lot more to read desu

>Nietzsche, Sartre, Jung, Whitehead, Kierkegaard
I have a lot more to read desu

What is that?

What is that?

You have the high res one with a white background?

>Aristotle, Aquinas, Frege,
Holy based and redp-
>Russell
OK that was bait.

>Damn buttefly, you are making even a bigger fool of yourself. Nietzsche was a huge critic of both stoicism and Stirner.
Nietzsche may have criticized stoicism for making stuff up on the "living according to nature" and epircurus for coping about plato, but his philosophy is literally a more in depth version of Stirner and had his works in his library and in his "recommended reading".
Shitting down on Stirner and praising Nietzsche is literally impossible since Nietzsche simply makes a more indepth look at his ideas, adds some psychology, expanding the "I" and the "ego" into a multitude of wills and tries to apply it to aristocratic society instead of calling for a union of egoists society, since the plebe is all about wanting to serve.

Influenced Nietzsche and a whole lot of other philosophers.

Attached: 1552221242434.png (242x334, 20K)

Popper camus schumpeter levy-strauss

buddha, zizek, kierkegaard & buber

Schopenhauer
Cioran
Zapffe
Kaczynski

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 136K)

Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Anselm, Kant, Adi Shankara

Epicurus, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, Hume, Kant, Mill, Hobhouse, Rawls, Harry G. Frankfurt, and Philip Pettit.

Stefan Molyneux

Aristotle, Nietzsche and Heidegger

The Heidegger part is both a blessing and a cursing as I can't really think outside of his framework in most philosophical issues

i read Weber you fucking imbecile. its just that Spengler is much more accurate than Weber, Nietzsche and many others and his texts are more practical than Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Kant and many other philosophers.
Also his writing style is godlike, learn to read German, fat amerimut.

Attached: 1565446441596.jpg (768x1024, 66K)

Dawg you save images of k-pop creatures do you even know what human beings behave like?

Laozi

based sharkman

Novalis

Attached: 1480196594937.jpg (230x302, 15K)

This. Read Kissinger's Dissertation.

Christ, St. Paul, Justin Martyr, Origen, Plato, Plotinus, Augustine, Kierkegaard, Aquinas, Eckhart

... wow, just wow

Can't quite say, but probable Stirner.

With a little indirection, maybe Marx is a better answer. (Basically, anybody with a major impact on society as a whole has huge indirect influence.) And btw. this is not to say I support Marx ideas (nor does it say the opposite), I strictly speak of influence

Instead of claiming any one philosopher as my main influence, I will use a few important concepts that my worldview is founded upon:
1. Neither human reason nor judgement can explain everything about the world.
2. Truth is that which is tautological and self-evident.
3. Total difference and total sameness do not exist.
4. Realizing moral good is more praiseworthy than great, heroic actions
5. Accepting one premise is not equal to accepting an entire argument.
6. In regards to the universe, one may desire to seek objective truth, but in regards to society, one may only find intersubjective truths.

Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Dogen, UG Krishnamurti and Wittgenstein.

>picks Watts over Jung
Are you fucking retarded? Watts just follows basic Jungianism to its basic conclusions in areas Jung himself never specifically mentioned - that is when he is writing something 'unique' and not just rephrasing the exact past thoughts of Jung.

>Looked into it. Not too sold on it. Not really judging it, but it does nothing for me.
Typical 'woman'.

mfw people think Stirner was an atheist
mfw they think his "the unique one" refers to the individual when actually it can only be God

Attached: damn.jpg (700x702, 71K)

Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Weber was an optimist, and he failed to predict the increasing abstraction of money as Spengler did. Their economic views are in opposition, Weber thought capitalism was rational, Spengler thought it was irrational, and that Western currency would eventually be forced to drop the gold standard in the typically Faustian irrational pursuit of abstraction in the economic realm, not to mention the appearance of Bitcoin. The global economic depressions that have not only become commonplace but are seen as a necessary counterpart of the current economic system (which will eventually climax and destroy itself) prove Weber wrong and Spengler right.

i don't read philosophy: i have intuited on my own whatever knowledge across which i have come

Tifa is much more fit than this.

None of them, philosophers are all full of bullshit.

Ameri-mutt troll posting.

Camus in high school; Aristotle, Kant, Carroll and Sibley in college.

Wonderful times...

Preach

My parents. They taught me and demonstrated to me right from wrong from their actions and their inactions. Inactions being the observed state of what they did not do, what they coped, and what, I decided, would not do myself in response to such a situation. To state any more than that would be an insane mode of being compelled by forces internal that which have no consistency nor bearing such that it give the authority to sway my opinions and thoughts in such a way that it might influence my decision making calculus. My thoughts are mine alone, and the ones developed based on my parents and the functions of such. I have paid no mind as to who else echoed such thoughts, for I haven't read them, and therefore, they haven't influenced me, but rather, exist as islands through which the innate global consciousness known as the primordial soup through which all knowledge and morals might be connected would be my influence. If there were a point at which I might have a defined philosophical moment to which brought a most errant schism between the ideas and knowledge of my parents and that of myself, then it would be boiled to the prospect of work. While toiling in an occupation I had the least fondness for, my mother, in her high hopes of curing my dower mood, thought to consider my work as work unto the Lord. I was utterly disgusted. To think the culmination to which I might deliver onto some godless mechanical beast that ate up the invaluable resource of time and gave only the the slightly more than worthless resource meant to sustain living was at all an extension of my passion and love for what my be considered totally supernatural and incomparable to anything on this plane of existence created by man, was a total betrayal of anything I thought to be divine and to be holy. It seemed to ring of the lives of the countless individuals met through life who endlessly justify their poor iterations of life through saying it might be delivered into it a better chance to simply create a better future for their children or for the Lord, rather than a better reality for themselves.

Jung is a pretentious Freud wannabe retard who believes in superpowers.

Wow you sure can list people

Meh

Is Boehme hard to read? Is it a case of understanding and knowing the symbolism he references or is the prose itself difficult?

>Kant, a retard
Stay taking your drugs brainlet, leave the philosophising to the big boys. I've both done high doses of hallucinogenics, and read Kant, and I assure you the latter is much more impactful on anyone with an IQ north of 120.