Philosopher who was right about everything

Hume, sadly.

he thought causality doesn’t real. pretty stupid. he was right about is-ought problem though

I did, but i will not share my works with you.

fuck you!

Hegel. But he was also wrong about everything.

>Buddhist monk (enraged):

Nietzsche rendered all previous and future philosophy useless.

What language are you even speaking? Greek? No.

Attached: FDBDA381-D422-4956-B677-85DEF4BFE999.jpg (1379x689, 312K)

eternal recurrence is stupid. what proof is there that everything happens exactly the same way infinity times?

ive read all three of those already and i wasn’t impressed

How the fuck can you reconcile Epicurus and Nietzsche? I mean come on, they arrive at completely different destinations about meaning and happiness

>bro u must agree with everything a philosopher says u shouldnt be inspired by their ideas and come to a conclusion urself thats dumb

"she" just likes them, that doesn't mean though that she understands them

What is "inspiring" about Epicurus and Stirner works?

Nietzsche saw a therapeutic value in Epicureanism that could be useful under certain conditions of ill health (physically and “spiritually”), but not something appropriate to states of overflowing and abundant health

He didnt say 'everything' is an illusion, he said that the phenomenal world is an illusion superimposed upon the omnipresent reality of God. It's Buddhists who say "everything" is an illusion. If you actually took the time to read him you'd find that he solves the problem of the many and the one better than anyone else. Nobody even really disputes that he had infallible logic or that his writings display a rare brilliance; when people try to argue against him they typically will tacitly concede this and instead try to argue he got his wonderful ideas from somewhere else other than the Upanishads that he cites in support of them.

the world isn't an illusion so that's dumb, and there isn't such a thing as "the problem of the many and the one" except in the mind of autistic neets who live in metaphysical woo woo land

>What is "inspiring" about Epicurus and Stirner works?
your trip rings true

that's not a trip, newfag

what are you talking about. read his works about the pre-socratics written between 1867 and 1869, he wasn't just an epicurean, he was also a democritean and an empedoclean.
epicurus never said you must free yourself from desire and achieve apathy, like a buddhist or a stoic.

i thought i saw a code next to his name nvm

hes still a brainlet

>he can't provide an argument for his claim

i actually dont even know what you want. your original statement was beyond retarded. obviously i meant "Inspired" as in to take influence from.

so what kind of information have you been influenced by?
can you point to any of the ideas that you have found valuable in their works?

Gautama Buddha
Kant
Wittgenstein

kant's morality is dumb, buddha preached asceticism which is stupid. not sure about wittgenstein

>It's Buddhists who say "everything" is an illusion
Source? As far as I know, they say the everyday world is "like an illusion" but not a total illusion

Unironically schopenhauer was right about everything.
> Inb4 no he wasnt.
Name on thing he got wrong

Nietzsche already criticized him rightfully for placing a value on life. This is intellectually dishonest since none of us has a standpoint outside of life where we could judge it from as a whole. Both optimism and pessimism are fake and gay, and so is Nietzsche so don't think I'm condoning him as a whole

he believed in racial equality for example.
or goethe's retarded theory of colours.

Idk I'm not butterfly. I'm more of a Kierkegaard/Plato/Kant guy.

Attached: Just One.jpg (1366x768, 153K)

Hey, I'm the one asking that question here, alright pal? Get your own turf, buddy boy. This place is already claimed, you dig? I ain't gonna take no lip from the likes of you. Now tell me which philosopher was right about the whole shebang or I'm gonna give you a knuckle sandwich

What was he wrong about, dumbass?

alright, one knuckle sandwich comin' up! *winds up arm*

Muhammad.

J. L. Mackie

No human being can live without giving some for of evaluation to life.
> Racial equality
Not philosphy
> Theory of colours
Not philosophy

Me desu

It doesn't make the evaluation correct. It's just a reflex.

James and Peirce.
If you want people who say "true" stuff, you should be reading scientific texts instead of philosophy.

ok, op here, im actually very sympathetic to pragmatists, so you might have won the thread. id like to hear some criticisms from people who oppose it though

yes they are philosophy in a schopenhauerian meaning of the word. anyway, he believed in the identity between voluntas and noumenon, which is not only false, but also an unschopenhauerianly rough idea.

Guenon btfo pragmatism, it can be safely ignored

The only time I've ever heard Pragmatism being criticized was by a Philosophy professor of mine who intentionally mixed up Pragmatism and Utilitarianism before an audience that was only barely acquainted with the basics of Philosophy.

He thought that casuality was real, but that it wasn't a logical necessity.

Max Stirner

guenon is a less worthy read than jordan peterson and im not joking.

please kindly tell me what the monkey man said about pragmatism, and don't say "just read x book"

You'll have to wait until after I die, that's when I suspect my writings will be noticed

dostoevsky

you're more of a "I don't read books" guy, fucking poser

>I’m not impressed with reality
‘Kay

Besides some of the other fine answers already given, I do discard what I can’t use from any philosopher freely. Epicurus seems too passive, especially for our times, whiles Nietzsche too cold and individualistic, to the point of being what I call a fragmentist. They balance each other in a yin/yang sort of way. I also think of some of the things Robert Anton Wilson has said. I reconcile them all by being greater.

Attached: C985345F-192F-4231-8FCF-EEEE20C47D49.jpg (800x800, 147K)

Buddhism teaches the principle of Maya as well, but unlike Vedanta they dont really have an answer for what causes it

Vedanta doesn't either

Attached: its-maya.jpg (720x478, 112K)

This

Hegel and Zizek

Stirner for sure.

Attached: d5724e5670ce576f7775f0b1e53f6f0dc08cd28a.jpg (960x600, 106K)

Singer

Ludwig Wittgenstein finished philosophy user

Vedanta actually does, I dont know where you got the misconception that it was otherwise. Based on the Upanishad passages which say so Advaita Vedanta says that maya is a power of Brahman, which is a completely different answer with totally different implications than to not give an answer (or to not have one) as to the origin of maya like Buddhism does. That maya is a power of the Lord sufficiently explains how it could exist and continue to exist. The Buddhist has no answer for what causes maya or ignorance, how they can arise without being caused by something like Brahman etc, how maya could cause such intricate order if its some abstract independently-existing illusion, why maya exists at all instead of nothing; the Buddhist position on this is total garbage. Advaita doesn't consider it very fruitful to spend a lot of time investigating *why* Brahman causes maya but they still did so anyways in Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika where he points out how the unfeasibility of other options indicates that to exercise the power of maya is the svabhava or self-nature of Brahman.

Heidegger

Luciano Floridi is in the process of finishing it. Give him time.

Attached: Luciano Floridi 1.jpg (720x540, 65K)

>lol just be a slut and enjoy your life
of course modern women are drawn to individualistic nihilism

For me, the most important philosophers and the ones who were “most right” are the Greeks and Heidegger.

no clue what you're talking about. needlessly rude

Aquinas

Can you give me more background on this man? An overview of his philosophy? Is it mostly epistemology (just judging from the book titles)?

>Nietzsche is a nihilist
>Union of egoist, hu?

Attached: Ghostbusters 2.jpg (700x700, 106K)

>"I'm a fag" - the quote

based

he sounds like one of those mega-boomers who thinks that the internet will change the world and the way humans relate to one another (even though he doesn't realize that most of the internet's true potential is in the spread of shitty dank memes and pantu-wearing astolfo fanart).
I don't know why, but I've kinda gotten the feeling that the average social scientist or philosopher who dedicates himself to "studying" "cybernetics" or the online world has never spent anywhere near 30 min. on reddit or Yea Forums, and just speculates upon what they'd get to see in science fiction movies.

It is mostly ethics, actually. He takes a Kantian approach to the ethics of AI and robotics such as when he criticises how politicians and marketers are using us interfaces to take our votes and money, not as actual ends in ourselves. He also takes a formal epistemic view, where justified true belief is replaced by useful information. He also writes a lot of social theory based on his conceptions of inforgs, onlife, and hyperhistory. You should watch his debates and lectures on his youtube channel.

Cioran was correct about literally everything.

Attached: 1564488497092.jpg (500x311, 37K)

Seneca

It's impossible, read Gadamer. We will only interpret truth by way of cultural, racial linguistic method, and all true difference. Hence reality and truth is an aesthetic realisation.

youtube.com/watch?v=7mvbRe5JOWk

Attached: Goethe.jpg (1080x1440, 408K)

You haven't read Jung, therapy - though helping people - priority was to develop the psyche. At least that is its historic priority. Just read Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.

Attached: Picture of Noam 1960s.jpg (529x765, 103K)

hah ironic!

The way he talks makes me feel as if he is a midwit but he's a very likeable guy anyhow.

That thread was funny

Read the Catholic Catechism and convert.

this desu

It's silly to say that truth is relative to arbitrary social goals of "usefulness" or whatever, when in stating that you're implicitly smuggling in some idea of how the world really is. The simple observation that human knowledge is tentative and open to revision doesn't justify a complete jettison of external truth. Extra silly for people like Rorty who add in historical and social analysis which itself relies on a smuggled in notion of historical truth.

Also if the intention is to council humility and respect for eg religious experience or pre-modern modes of thought, or as a criticism of certain western dogmatic ways of thinking, there are better ways to do that than to just attack the fundamentals of rational discourse in the first place. And again all those criticisms take place within a framework of how the world really is.

>"is it because Westerners have come to lose their intellectuality through over-developing their capacity for action that they console themselves by inventing theories which set action above everything, and even go so far, as in the case of pragmatism, as to deny that there exists anything of value beyond action; or is the contrary true, that it is the acceptance of this point of view that has led to the intellectual atrophy we see today?"
- rene guenon

Attached: Guénon.jpg (400x400, 44K)

Pragmatism made no presumption for action, rather is based solely upon interpretation. As such Guenon is a fucking retard

My diary desu

fpbp

Loooool does this user rly think causation reals? Lolololol

Jesus

Easy.

Attached: 11554488877000.jpg (515x542, 38K)

Aristotle would probably be the best one to read/research. Much of Psychology and the good parts of Freud/Jung's work is based upon some of his philosophy.

Sounds interesting, what are the recommended starting points?

thread should've ended here

How has nobody mentioned Kant?
Kant forever btfo'd philosophy

>btfo's all meaningless optimism

Attached: Spengler.jpg (763x1152, 111K)

(I'm retarded and didnt notice people mentioning kant)
(Kant is still the best tho and cannot be refuted)

Will you ever publish your reconciliation?

>it came from a god
How can this be proved, though? All I see is conjecture.

Kant couldn't even btfo Hume without making a bunch of shit up to prove him wrong.

exactly, he rails against Buddhism for having “no explanation for why maya/avidya is there in the first place” meanwhile Vedanta just slapped a label on it and called it a day. So much better of an answer.

Going at it this way is missing the point.

>inb4 wall of text

It's impossible to trully, perfectly accurately reconstruct the past except by the means of records of the past, so there's no revision except in interpretations of the past by people who have even less contact with a specific fragment of time. There's no universal truth, only observations and interpretations of a specific piece of space (or "thing") throughout portions of time.

t. hasn't read any of them

Btw the only true philosopher was Diogenes (even if he didn't exist)

I recommend beginning with his shorter Upanishad commentaries, which can be read below
estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

Understanding his works presupposes having some familiarity already with Hindu philosophical/metaphysical terminology, if you don't have that and are struggling to make sense of him than read one or several of these books on Hindu philosophy/Vedanta below and then when you return to his writings they will make sense. Pic related for example is his commentary on the second canto of chapter 2 of the Katha Upanishad.
archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.506393/page/n3
archive.org/details/VedantaHeartOfHinduismHansTorwesten/page/n7
archive.org/stream/reneguenon/1925 - Man and His Becoming according to the Vedânta#mode/2up

Vedanta is completely unconcerned with proving itself to atheist/carvaka skeptics and doesn't premise its legitimacy on being able to do so, their main focus is on the correct exegesis of the Upanishads and on stating where the other Hindu schools diverge from what they consider to be the true import of the texts. Shankara's writings are really addressed to people who already accept the existence of the Divine or immutable metaphysical truths in principle. Vedanta was content to instead just point out in their writings why the various alternative explanations other than the Vedantic position are all logically inconsistent; there is an interesting ontological argument in the Mandukya Karika that talks about how Advaita can be established on logic, but this is ultimately just using logic to support a position that they already accept on the authority of scripture.

Attached: 452458457134.png (2369x1889, 1.74M)

it's a logical necessity

they're not even remotely compatible you clown

You fucking brainlet

The point is to make an educated guess, retard.

>There's no universal truth, only observations and interpretations of a specific piece of space (or "thing") throughout portions of time.
You're taking a lot for granted in this statement. You're assuming things like "observations", "interpretations", "space" and "time" exist to even frame it. That "truth is just an interpretation" implicitly makes the distinction between our experiences and the world as it really is, and is itself a statement of external truth. The most you can commit to is the weaker claim that we could be mistaken about reality or that we are biased by the particular historical moment we inhabit.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John

no.

Attached: RAGE.jpg (250x247, 5K)

yike's

Schopenhauer

He was wrong about women, although I will say his essay on women is pretty accurate for describing a lot of Western women but not all of them. Also men are dumb as fuck too.

Zyzz the wise

Hermes Thrice Great

read this

Attached: 220px-CartesianLinguistics.jpg (220x320, 11K)

Im waiting

>woo
Dillate

Guénon completely crushed modern philosophers.
It should tell you something about modern philosophy when all these useless hacks don't "think" nowadays but teach and want to sell their books instead of leading towards a Truth.
Modern philosophy is more concerned about striving further away from Truth and real Intelligence (transcendance) than anything else.
Philosophy has become a market of ideas that anyone can choose from, that should feat their own sensibility since metaphysics has been moved away by the spirit of Scientism and the so-called Enlightement.

Instead of all the namedrops on this thread, look more into your personal intention into the meaning of the definition of right, then applied to everything versus everyone

>market of ideas

ghastly

The one I use.

t. Ben Burgis

>The most you can commit to is the weaker claim that we could be mistaken about reality or that we are biased by the particular historical moment we inhabit
Accepting some kind of historical, varying defying of "the truth" the way Gadamer puts it establishes people within a set historical narrative or progression, and not every being and every moment as its own central point. It draws away from intra-subjectivity and towards intersubjectivty, giving no place, properly speaking, to objectivity or monadism. If you saw the Shankara against a Buddhist priest dialogue that was posted a few weeks ago, you could think of the interpretation of Shankara stated there as being similar to (yet exactly the opposite) the kind of Parmeniedianism-disguised-Heracliteanism that historicists tend to promote with their idea of history and a historical narrative.

Taking bits and pieces from everyone only leaves you more lost than you were before. In my experience really understanding a philosophy from the ground up helps decide whether or not there is something to be learned. Find the one that you agree with the most and just stick with it, but don't dismiss someone's ideas until you're sure you have understood the full context of them and all that is implied.

Marzipan Maddox ;)

Most philosophers are pretentious, lofty, douchebags full of airs. I'm just a simple asshole full of spite. Who would tell you the truth, a lofty douchebag or a genuine asshole?

You know his name, user

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

Ask me some sort of philosophical question. I can't think of one. I don't understand the appeal or respect for philosophy, it seems like profound schizo bullshit, full of delusion and fantasy, made-up meanings, just trying to paint reality with a thick coat of fiction, narcissism, egotism, self-worship, and bullshit. I say this, when I myself am a schizo.

The meaning of life? Go outside, what does life do? It just tries to survive indefinitely. Just work to survive, reproduce, and die. That's it. You're life in the same sense that any other tree or animal is life. They just work to survive, fuck, and die. Logically life is just fire, literally just fire optimized to consume glucose instead of hydrocarbons. Nearly identical. You can even derive the meaning of life from fire, which is just to burn, to reduce potential energy. That's why life exists, that's why you exist, and that's the only justification for life. If you need a personal purpose, then your purpose is to maximize the reduction of potential energy induced by humans/life within the universe. Unironically, this just means to survive indefinitely, spread as much as possible, as long as possible, ideally until head death prevents humans from living. returning to the same basic strategy of work, fuck, die.

Ironically, AI and robots would qualify as legit life if they were programmed to perpetuate their existence indefinitely in order to maximize the reduction of potential energy in the universe. Meaning, to reduce as much potential energy as possible over the lifespan of the universe. No rapid-burnout shit, it's about indefinite yields which implies the indefinite survival of humans/robots, which can't happen if you waste prerequisite energy and cripple your capacity to do these things. Basically, legitimacy, it's about total amount of reduction produced by the race at the end of the universe, not about any sort of temporal gains, like burning reducing all of the potential energy on earth as fast as possible, which would cripple the ability of humans to expand indefinitely.

Might get distracted though. I'll try to remember to come back or whatever.

Attached: cellularrespiration.png (503x312, 160K)

What is it that draws you to the statements of these people? Quote one of these bastards. Drop some quotes for your guy.

God damn. What the fuck? "Parmeniedianism-disguised-Heracliteanism" is really the most efficient way to say this?

Having read the couple sentence description of both of these philosophies. I would consider myself the expert in this field.

(1) everything is constantly changing and (2) opposite things are identical, so that (3) everything is and is not at the same time.

I'll give this man some points, for no reason other than to play the devil's advocate about what is inherently nonsensical.

Everything is constantly changing. This is true, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, at least so long as the progression of time remains stable. If nothing else changes, the time changes, and time is a variable that can be used to reflect and define things.

Opposite things being identical. This is fair enough, because extremes tend to relate to one another, provide similar results. Think of heat and cold, both produce the same result at extremes, death. Hunger/eating, both produce death at the extremes. Even in politics, where far right and far left ideologies produce nearly identical outcomes. When the result is the same, one can argue that whatever produces the result is irrelevant. Things have resulted, been finalized, thus the process is no longer relevant, the process exists only in history not in reality, which largely functions no different than fantasy, just a story, imagination, with no affirmation in the present. If some part of history still existed, say runs, then that is not part of history but part of the present, part of reality, an extant entity, whereas people fighting some war, that is history, you can't go out and see people fighting these wars, you won't get hit the bullets they shot.

How this is relevant today, this is largely because facts are harmful to people in power. Heracliteanism creates this sense of paradox in the human mind, you can get them to be incredibly hypocritical, when lies are truths and facts are lies, it's easy to just condition and indoctrinate people in they way you want. The people no longer need objective metrics and proper logic to guide their actions, they no longer depend on reasoning, and when this is true, it is much easier to convince them of anything. When logical or factual accuracy is no longer a constraint, you can indoctrinate and condition people much more readily.

I'd argue this results from the degree of self-worship in Western society, things like humanism, idealism, ethicism, that put the human being on a pedestal. Especially in a democracy, when people are told that their ideas and their thoughts are always legitimate, that it is their duty to advocate for these things they think, this is essentially Heracliteanism. You are paradoxically teaching all sides that they individually are always right, and that their opponents are always wrong. ~Doublethink.

"he argues that "subjectivity is truth" and "truth is subjectivity." Kierkegaard conveys that most essentially, truth is not just a matter of discovering objective facts. While objective facts are important, there is a second and more crucial element of truth, which involves how one relates oneself to those matters of fact. Since how one acts is, from the ethical perspective, more important than any matter of fact, truth is to be found in subjectivity rather than objectivity."

Logically, this is nonsense. The human is an animal, just a life form. The individual human and their subjective experience is no more valid or significant than that of any raccoon, any bird, any housefly. Subjectivity is completely irrelevant next to objectivity, subjective reality is functionally non-existent unless it produces hard objective reactions, meaning that the only validity of the subjective human experience is the extent that it produces legitimate physical actions.

The individual itself is and always will be functionally irrelevant, save lest it somehow creates significant change within the species. Think of a house fly, think of individual sperm, is their individual existence relevant? No. It's only relevant as the collective to the point that it serves a purpose. Giving singificance to an individual human is no different than saying an individual housefly or raccoon is significant in some sort of meaningful way. These things are only significant with respect to the extent that they further the indefinite survival of their species by ensuring their own survival and reproduction. These are purely objective results, and the subjective experience is entirely irrelevant so long as they produce these results. These are the natural metrics of success and legitimacy, and without these, there would be nothing to provide substantiation enough to provide for the existence of subjectivity to begin with. Things would not survive and there would be no subjective reality.

When objective reality basically functions as God that has the power to control the fate of subjective reality, whether or not subjective reality continues to exist, I don't understand the fixation with narcissistic self-worship of one's own thoughts and experience. Seeing the complete powerlessness subjectivity has next to reality, seeing the subjective capacity for tolerating and respecting incredible discord between one's thoughts and reality, its' ludicrous to think that the individual subjective experience of the human mind somehow wields any degree of legitimacy or significance next to objective facts. It doesn't, you can't survive through thoughts and fantasies, it requires hard physical action. The entire universe, in all of its greatness, every lifeform, has always been defined and validated by the purely objective results of their actions, their subjective experience is simply a means the end of objective success, and in humans, this means is often flawed and dysfunctional.

Which is greater, a subject or an object?
So which is greater, subjectivity or objectivity?
You say "subjectivity is completely irrelevant." How can subjectivity be irrelevant when relevance is a category within subjectivity? You contradict yourself, user.
You say the individual is irrelevant. Irrelevant to whom? How can the individual be irrelevant to itself? How can relevancy, in the category of subjectivity, exist outside the individual? How could a blank universe have the notion of relevancy?
There is no "self-worship of one's own thoughts and experiences," just a continuance of the Greek observation that "man is the measure of all things." He is the measure, inasmuch as he defines the measure. Measure is a human category pertaining to subjectivity, and thus a priori man is the measure.
Stop being dumb :)

This guy is on point, sort of, it's idealistic though. You shouldn't have anybody to think for you. Understand the difference between thinking and knowing. You can think something, but why would you think something if you can know something? Do you want to think you're physically attractive, or know you're physically attractive? There's a profound difference between the two, and this is why putting faith in anyone else's thoughts is likely going to be disastrous.

Rather than think things, try to realize things based upon what you know. When somebody thinks something, see how this relates explicitly to what you know. Do facts you know support this conjecture, or do they refute this conjecture?

Free, wild, unsubstantiated thought is a ludicrous thing to put faith in. Thought exists in order to provide analysis of reality. The less rooted your arguments are in the hard objective reality that surrounds you, the further these stray from being actual thoughts and the closer they become to delusions, to dreams, to fantasy.

The extent to which people parrot shit they hear in books because they can't think for themselves is asinine. They parrot these bastards like they're popular songs. The issue is that the popularity these people attained is likely far more dependent upon irrelevant non-real factors like subjective agreeability rather than empirical validity. Sure, they can make agreeable statements, but does that make the statement valid?

"Wouldn't it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn't have to wait so long?" You're not older, that's an irrelevant fucking fantasy, stop thinking about that. Today is today, live in the moment, actions are the only thing that are relevant.

"the definition of right". This is an important concept. A definition implies irrefutable and objective accuracy and validity. Something that is defined is not something that can be debated, at least not in any sense that is vulnerable to subjective criticisms such as opinionation, feelings, ethics, or other non-real metrics that philosophers respect for some reason.

A definition of "right" would be as reliable as any analysis of aerodynamics. The proof is in the pudding. Valid aerodynamics and structural engineering allow a plane to fly. The definition of "right" would invariably produce quantifiable objective results in the same exact manner. It would be equally as calculable and equally as stable as the science of aerodynamics. Objectively the pudding of rightness is the indefinite perpetuation of the species, as is defined by nature. Subjectively people want to argue that it is cocaine, blowjobs, and electric lights. Clearly that's nonsense, but people are very sick psychologically, and this prevents them from reflecting upon what they are, animal life, and acting accordingly. Nature says, "This is the process that has allowed live to thrive indefinitely", humans say "No, give me cocaine."

Diogenes

Kojima

Aristotle.

There's really only one or two. But it depends on how you frame the question. I'd say these two guys have works that don't bother fiddling with logic games, but instead tackle the greater question and come out with systematic approaches that are actually flexible enough to be cohesive answers the question of being and death.

These two are Arthur Schopenhauer and Albert Camus.

Attached: arthur-schopenhauer-1024x768.jpg (1024x768, 149K)

I guess William James too is cohesive, but that can be said about most of the pragmatists. he's just the one who went least off the deep end.

Attached: William_James_b1842c.jpg (527x675, 173K)

hablo español

>Diogenes

This man is about as legitimate of a philosopher as you can find. Humanity is shit. Look at all of the philosophers in this thread, what has their philosophy amounted to? Despite popularity, despite being accepted and respected as valid vessels of the truth? What was the result? The downfall of the west, their subversion and destruction by the hands of foreign agents exploiting the fact that due to philosophy, Westerners were so indoctrinated and misled by their delusions and fantasies that they could not defend themselves from objective threats to their existence.

What greatness have these works amounted to? More people who sit in the darkness and think, imagine, fantasize that somehow thoughts have any real applicability in reality. They don't, the only applicability is using thoughts as a means to and end to produce action. Beyond that, Western philosophy has proven itself to be an incredibly flawed "recipe" for thought, so to speak, considering the immense crippling of the West both in terms of national soverignty and economic stability. You chase pipe dreams due to idealism, you waste resources endlessly to protect the pitiful comforts provided by the fantasy, the illusion of ethics and morality existing within your society.

Diogenes knew that to exert effort trying to accomplish something, to amount to something, to waste time doing anything, any sort of pro-social activity such as work is not only pointless, but also completely irrational. You are working to defend and perpetuate something that is inherently flawed, you are allowing a cancer upon the earth to grow and become more so cancerous as humanity devolves further, becoming more and more enthralled by their delusions and fantasies. More and more enthralled by their worship of themselves, of their assertion of their own hallucinatory subjective reality above literally God, the hard objective reality that functions as the giver and taker of life, the sole force capable of judging truth from lies.

Rather than respect this, humans instead defend their own delusions and fantasies, despite endless instances where objective reality palpably and blatantly confirms the dysfunctional invalidity of those thoughts. Rather than acknowledge they are wrong, they double down on their folly, and insist that the reason the pursuit of their dysfunctional delusions failed is because there was not enough effort. There was not enough effort meant in trying to make pigs fly, impossible things things like making people indefinitely happy and contented, just like giving heroin addicts enough heroin to never jones. It's impossible. Impossible things like making a perfect society, sacrificing functionality and stability in order to pursue hedonism, to pursue some relief of the unpleasant formication of vestigial hallucinations, things like innate morality, which is completely dysfunctional outside of the wild where it was designed to function.

No wise man consents to degeneracy.

here's the fucking attention you want you tripfag cunt
here you go, you've got the attention you're seeking so hard by trying to be noticed on an anonymous platform with your shitty opinions
maybe think a bit about why you're making this board a little bit worst with every single post you do
fuck you

Aristotle. That is all you need.

THIS

it reminds me of that ren and stimpy skit where a senile old man says "if you want to be a genius, it's easy. all you have to say is everything stinks. then you're never wrong!"

exactly what cioran did, and it fucking worked

That's not what the word subjective means...

A subject, in the sense of a school subject, is an object. Call this a swath, a field of study, whatever you want. Completely different than subjectivity.

Subjectivity means being defined entirely by human perception. Subjective things are things like opinions, feelings, sensations, the sort of shit you feel but doesn't have any real objective significance beyond the fact that you feel it.

Say there are two motherfuckers shooting guns at each other. One of them is having opinions and emotions that have no influence on his actions. Those opinions and emotions don't do a god damn thing to change the reality of the situation, do they?

The subjective experience is basically the hallucination of being alive. Objective things are things like rocks, things that function completely independently from your subjective experience. That rock is going to be a rock regardless of what you think, feel, or opine. Which one of these bashes harder? Do brains bash out rocks with thoughts? Or do rocks bash out brains? In a fight between thoughts and rocks, it's clear that rocks are the winner. Don't say you do some bullshit with your hands, that's not a thought, that's an action, and actions are again objective, they influence the physical world, thoughts independent of resulting action do not.

The individual is irrelevant just like the rat shit in your cereal is irrelevant. Sure, it's there, but the cereal still functions as rat shit instead of cereal. The individual is statistically negligible, that's the point. For the individual to be relevant, that cereal would have to function as rat shit due to the existence of rat shit, which it doesn't. The whole, the collective, the cereal is what is relevant. Granted, if the cereal is profoundly laden with rat shit, it stops functioning as cereal and starts functioning as rat shit. Still, the rat shit has become the collective due to statistical density, not due to any individual within that group.

Subjectivity does not exist outside of the individual, and as the individual is functionally irrelevant, statistically irrelevant, subjectivity is thusly irrelevant due to this fact.

Relevant meaning, having a significant influence upon the physical world, upon reality. Of course the universe enforces this, it's called physics. Mass is relevant to physical calculations, whereas opinions are not. That's how relevancy works.

Man isn't the measure of a god damn thing. He's just a fucking animal. Measurement exists without man existing, and again, this is an example of human self-worship.

If measure did not exist without man, the universe would not operate according to physical law before man existed, clearly it did, it did so in accordance with measurable physical law. Measure is purely objective, beyond that it is subjective opinionated. A Tree is 6 feet. This is the measurement. Is the tree tall or short? This is the subjective "measurement", the opinionated.

You misunderstand me completely. I used the word subject in the same sense you do, not in the sense of a subject or topic of study. You’re an idiot who ignores my clear arguments though. I’ll repeat: it is a contradiction for you to assert that subjectivity is irrelevant or meaningless when such judgments are subjective in nature.

I'm off, but thanks for the reply. I apologize for the tardiness, it always seems futile when people lack the capacity to read an argument and reply appropriately. It's always decent for somebody to actually reply to something I said. Most people just say "TLDR" or otherwise call me a nigger or some other name, a 14 year old, whatever.

You can find me on leddit if you want, not that I go there much any more. the 3k character count here is frustrating, and beyond that, the lack of email style, reply at any time is not particularly useful.

Still, this place you can be a lot more vicious and mean than on reddit, and I tend to be incredibly critical. I can do pleasant respectful talking just fine, but I still enjoy vicious, scathing, vulgar criticism.

People don't want to think I'm a real philosopher because I don't put on airs. Honestly. It should be clear. Think of school, think a pretentious douchebag kid, a know-it-all, a smart ass nerd looking kid, thinks he's smart, always has some smart ass comments about how he knows shit. That's philosophy, smart-ass kids who became pretentious adults.

Then there's me. I'm a genuine asshole. I'm a bit like a verbally abusive wife. I will do my damndest to accurately and viciously criticize you. When I want to condemn you, clearly I want to condemn you for your actual faults, your actual shortcomings, your actual failures. I want my verbal abuse to hurt you, to make you feel like shit, to piss you off. I'm not trying to be your friend, I'm not trying to make you happy, to give you pleasant thoughts.

Why would you trust the smart-ass kid trying to be a sycophant to tell you the truth? He wants you to like what he says, because when you like him, you stroke his ego, that's the thing he wants most.

Look at me, a genuine asshole, who has no interest in making you happy, but interest in providing the most valid, scathing criticisms possible. Logically, which of these two people can be more trusted to tell you the truth? Anyone trying to sugarcoat shit, trying to be agreeable, trying to be popular, is gauranteed to be adulterating facts in order to make them marketable, so to speak, to provide you with things you want to hear so you will in turn consume more of what they want to tell you.

Even the original philosophers, they were comparably as driven by public support and approval of their opinions as they were by telling you the truth. The knew they would have no audience, get no respect. Beyond that, I have a decent context of scientific common knowledge in the 21st century, and I operate on objecitve surface level analysis, devoid of any sort of subjective, imaginary prescribed meaning or significance. The verbal abuse of assholes is going to be far closer to validity, to science, to correctness than the sycophantry of smart-ass egotists.

Seeking out agreeable, interesting, or otherwise emotionally harmonious philosophies is futile, because this is hallucinatory adulteration of reality.

Attached: thanks.jpg (970x727, 44K)

Schopenhauer

Fpbp

>checked
White people should be required to memorize Plato like the Chinese have to memorize Confucius.

Thomas Ligotti

Unironically Aleister Crowley

Attached: crowley-hat.jpg (800x422, 39K)

I would argue we have two major divisions of thought going on today. One is the action takers that narrow down their scope to a ridiculous measure(for most it's going to fixed job back and forth; or in Yea Forums's case trying to write at least single page on your shitty novel today). The other is over intellectualized infinite outward spiral type of thinking where your life flows from vague idea to vague idea and it always(and I mean A L W A Y S) results in zero action(shitposting on Yea Forums is one example, but there are a lot more).

I also wouldn't go as far to separate it in groups of people. That is most westerners experience both and often switch between it like a pendulum depending on the time of day.

The reasons for this are pretty complex, but I also think our societies are grotesquely overly complex for socio-economic reasons that might stem in some biological or other reasons(e.g. rat experiment yada yada yada). Here I would wholeheartedly agree with Guenon - the society he moved to was right on target in terms of complexity and it is a huge problem in the West.

I think we're really missing actual action takers today, e.g. actual Romans/Stoics. Not the ones that will make a few deals here and there to get by up until they get comfortable and sit back and watch the time pass by. Rather the type that will actively shun comfort and build societies around it, the kind that would initiate building of Notre-Dame tier cathedrals, build roads, whatever and lift people up, and not think about his own comfort - or in other words hero energy, you know, the thing that actually built the West.

you're not going to like it, but Bishop Butler

Camus is all you really need

All philosophers are charlatans that waste their time indulging in linguistic proliferations that have nothing to do with reality as it actually is.

Is philosophy to you what Christianity is to its individual branches? You just throw away the things that make you sad or confused and mix and match things that make you happy?

Heidegger nd wittgenstein

The two final conclusions of philosophy
1- science is a better shot at understanding the world than philosophy
2- even science can't explain the world satisfyinly enough.

Now imagine reading 40+ books to come to this

icycalm

That it may be, but it's a moot point in every way. Something which has happened necessarily has to happen again because it's physically possible for it to happen. Yeah. So what? That may be right but it's a building block at best, and treating it as anything more is one of the dumbest things i've ever fucking heard

It's the first, hands down. When great minds are bored they eventually out of necessity start inventing convoluted and logicaly disasterous ways of interpreting the world, such as claiming the world is comprised of "forms" or that psychological archetypes are anything but a subjective label of objective actions. It's the boredom combined with an increase in actually empirically correct information that causes 140 iq brainlets to invent new and exciting ways to be wrong even more than the ancient witch-doctors and religions - because god knows religions have swallowed up some damn intelligent people.

The world of forms.

Seconding this.

this

you're egging her on

Max Stirner

Wittgenstein was right inside his own spectrum of thinking, he pretty much knocked out centuries of continental cucks, be aware philosophy doesn't "end" with him though but this is the answer I think it fits for you OP, his stuff is an scaffold to avoid drowning in an ocean of contie autism.