What are some Jow Forums approved non-political philosophers?

Freud was Jewish, but what part of his teachings did you find yourselves disagreeing with? I want to see if you have actually read his material or you are just knee jerk reacting.

youtube.com/watch?v=PXS_V5tQCJI&t=736s

Attached: 1492960573499.jpg (3264x2448, 1.05M)

Pic related had drinking and eating problem.

Hmm. He's pretty individualist AND Optimistic, so if he is, he certainly isn't like other comminists maybe socialist at best, but i'm pretty certain there's no concrete answer. Besides, the point of this thread is to discuss philosophers non-political teachings in an environment drenched in political philosphies. I just wanted to see if anyone had philosphical guidance other than political that could sway their opinions.

well yeah, he did all sorts of drugs, he never preached against alcohol
He also left his son pretty young but not like a nig
youtube.com/watch?v=0TYh_zS2uKQ

Orwell was antifa. He suffered a serious injury which led to his death when fighting for Socialism against Franco in Spain.

So yes, Orwell was awesome. Not Jow Forums approved, though.

Good one there.
I recommend Frederic Bastiat as well. And Graham Hancock.

>Loved the Iron Guard and obsessed with death

Attached: MV5BNGRjZGE3MjAtYjVmYy00Mzg4LTkyOWEtYzRhNzBiN2M1NmE4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,14 (1488x1000, 290K)

no no hes not a communist ( i dont think anyway) i was just saying hes a taoist and that i do know buddhist communists ... but they were all commie hippies before they decided they were budhist.

Plado

>Favorite philosophers
>Graham Hancock

lol

I know orwell was a socialist, but you got to give the guy credit he predicted the future 70 years ago. just about everything he has said is what we are living in today.

>Best ethical system bar none
>Triggers empiricists
>Triggers rationalists
>Triggers Christians
>Triggers Atheists
>Really fucking triggers post modernists
Can take or leave anything of his that isn't ethics, but his conception of time is interesting.

Attached: Kant.jpg (400x577, 40K)

How is Schopenhauer Jow Forums approved? He hated nationalism and thought animals should have equal rights and shit.

Antifa today isn't like the antifa Orwell joined. Read the second half of The Road to Wigan Pier and you can see how much he'd hate modern antifa.

>“One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.”

wittgenstein

What's good about Kant's ethical system exactly?

Eric Hoffer

He's different. He asks questions that are important today, especially relating to archaeology and anthropology. He's not perfect. Who is? The fact that he managed to get a talk banned from TED says something about his ruminatin'.

Evola

I enjoy Spinoza

Most interesting to me have been the Pyrrhonism philosophers, David Hume, George Berkeley and Carl Gustav Hempel.

he ran around calling everyone fascist and beating up trash cans?

>Triggers Christians AND Atheists
How does that work?

Is there any way in which the CI is flawed?

how are they politically incorrect approved values?

And he explicitly argued that the weird people Socialism attracts is a bad reason to reject Socialism. In that very same book, no less. Something most people on Jow Forums could learn from.

He would have disliked certain elements in modern Antifa, but most Anti-Fascist organizations in the US don't engage in the stupidity of the black bloc guys. He would have approved of modern Antifa, for the most part, and rejected Jow Forums.

His conception of duty bound morality and criticism of worship methodology pissed off Christians. Atheists dislike him because of their knee jerk reaction to denigrate anybody who isn't an atheist, Russell's denigration of him springs to mind. His criticism of the shortcomings of empiricism are also taken in a vacuum, which leads people to believe that he denied the value of sense data for some reason. Ironically the CI is entirely compatible with being atheistic.

Max Stirner of course

Attached: (JPEG Image, 218 × 231 pixels).jpg (218x231, 12K)

Any American who does not know CS Pierce needs to study his works. Easily the most important philosopher America has ever produced. (For the uninitiated his name is pronounced like purse)

Attached: 200px-Charles_Sanders_Peirce.jpg (200x243, 9K)

>>Watt's
>>The jewish founder of psychoanalysis
ok then brainlet.
but to answer your question, Seneca, Evola, Machiavelli, obviously Uncle Adolf.

It's a platitude that doesn't reflect the reality of human experience. Why prescribe an inhuman moral system to humans?

Why are you repeating the question that I asked?

It's true that he argued that it's a bad reason to reject socialism, but he also acknowledged that people will reject socialism for this reason, and socialists ought to do something about it. In fact, he said he wished all these weirdos would fuck off and do their yoga exercises quietly in private. I agree with everything else you said though, I was just defending my man Orwell because he isn't some thoughtless retard who ran around being inflammatory for no reason. He hated bourgeois baiting.

William Lane Craig
Hermes Trismegistus
Ann Coulter

Houellebecq (part literature) Christopher lasch, Malcolm macdonald, George bataille. Gilles deleuze. Nick land. Reza negerstani

No one takes you fucks seriously because you don’t have the chops to back up what you’re saying. Read more, pol. Impressed someone said Wittgenstein tho

Orwell did not predict the future. He was talking about Stalinism in his own time.

Huxley did a much better job of predicting the future in Brave New World. And it's a future that has no need for Jow Forums--the Powers that Be are likely to use organizations like Jow Forums to advance eugenics--not in the way that most people here would approve of, but as a reason to crush dissenting thought, as an argument that we need to breed out these kinds of racialist and fascist ideas.

Orwell was good. Because he was a socialist. But he didn't predict circumstances today. Nor was he trying.

Why would angry Nazi LARPers read anything? They're too busy playing videogames and watching anime and pretending their lives are shit because a sinister outside force, who won't date them, is out to get them.

I play video games, watch anime, AND read philosophy.
But I'm not a National Socialist/Fiscally Moderate Authoritarian, so what do you care?

You could make the case that every system of ethics is contrary to humans. You're making an appeal to nature, and it relies on the presupposition that ethics are meant to merely be pragmatic. It is necessarily not inhuman if a human can conceive of it, and practice it. What you've said fundamentally amounts to complaining that it's difficult to adhere to. Can I assume you're an advocate for socialism?

Im gonna plug CS Pierce here again cause he is the father of Pragmatics

>and it relies on the presupposition that ethics are meant to merely be pragmatic
Okay, ethics are not meant to be pragmatic then. I think everyone should make the best ethical choice they could possibly make in every situation. This follows on from Kant's system, because I'd only like to act in the best way all the time, and I'd only like other people to act in the best way all the time.

>What you've said fundamentally amounts to complaining that it's difficult to adhere to
Yes, it's retarded because it's not realistic.
>Can I assume you're an advocate for socialism?
Yes.

The average male doesn't lust after his mother for starters. Freud was a degenerate and projected his degenerate ways into his teachings.

MFW the Kantian scores the satan get.

Attached: 1522233415963.jpg (235x413, 11K)

he was wrecked off cocaine constantly too lol.
some of his stuff was definitely ironically written in a psychosis.

>He would have approved of modern Antifa, for the most part, and rejected Jow Forums.
No he wouldn't. Antifa fights against freedom of speech and in favour of the ethnic replacement of Europeans. George Orwell would oppose both strongly. "Antifa" as it's known today would be disowned.

He would support Jow Forums for being a free speech platform.

The way I see it, although ethics are contrary to humans on an animalistic point of view, they are beneficial for the growth of our complexities as the dominant species on this planet and beyond, and it is this drive to break away from that which makes us "human", and to evolve into something greater for either ourselves or the world around us that lays the basic tools that shape our modern concept of spirituality.
While it can be difficult to acheive on our own, it is necessary if we want any actual growth and change in our society, beyond what we've already established in the past.

What kind of memes do you think Orwell would make?

Alan Watts is one of my favorites.

A couple others I've been getting into are the classic Confucius and Sun Yat-Sen, a lesser known philosopher inspired by the Founding Fathers, and made a Three Principles of the People inspired by the notions of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

>Hard Mode:
hegel science of logic

>I'd only like to act in the best way all the time, and I'd only like other people to act in the best way all the time.
>Yes, it's retarded because it's not realistic.
How is this not contradictory? Again, the purpose is not that it is realistic, or that it can be executed with ease. Why would a system of ethics, which only serve to limit permissible behavior have a low standard? The fact of the matter is that the CI doesn't actually impose great positive obligation onto a person. That you find it retarded is not a failing of the system, but a failing of people.
Also, if you advocate for socialism, then how could you not apply the very same criticism of
>It's a platitude that doesn't reflect the reality of human experience.
Do you think that you should abandon your socialist views because of the logistic failings of socialism? Has it occurred to you that practice of the CI would remove the need for a monetary redistributive system? Or does it simply threaten you that the implications of socialism cannot be universally willed?

>How is this not contradictory?
It's not contradictory because it was sarcastic mockery.
>Why would a system of ethics, which only serve to limit permissible behavior have a low standard?
So that it's actually useful and people give a shit about it.
>The fact of the matter is that the CI doesn't actually impose great positive obligation onto a person. That you find it retarded is not a failing of the system, but a failing of people.
No, it's a failing of the CI, because the CI is intended for people, but it isn't designed for people very well.
>Do you think that you should abandon your socialist views because of the logistic failings of socialism?
Yes.

>The way I see it, although ethics are contrary to humans on an animalistic point of view
I would never make the case that they aren't. OP said no Diogenes, but I'll bring him up anyway. The Cynic conception of eliminating pretense from humans is one that I think would benefit a lot of people. But it's a mistake to assume that just because we are animals, that we are beasts as well. But as you pointed out yourself, our rational capacities are what give us the ability to advance as we do, they are the same capacities that give us the ability to conceive of morality as well.

It was poor mockery. Can you actually quantify what it is that makes it difficult for people to follow?
>Yes
Then why advocate for it, or expect anyone to give a shit about what you have to say?

>It was poor mockery. Can you actually quantify what it is that makes it difficult for people to follow?
Humans are lazy and self-interested. They don't want to give as much as they take. That's why they don't.
>Then why advocate for it, or expect anyone to give a shit about what you have to say?
I abandoned my socialist views because of what you said, so I don't advocate for it.

Heraclitus.

>Freud
a jew that ripped off Nietzsche

Attached: heraclitus2.jpg (460x568, 37K)

>Humans are lazy and self-interested. They don't want to give as much as they take. That's why they don't.
Again, you're rehashing that it's difficult to live by, but that's not a criticism that has teeth in the realm of objective morality. It's difficult to do all kinds of things, that doesn't diminish the endeavor or make it wrong. Should we eliminate all standards that every person cannot live up to?

Goddammit how could I forget pic related
>“Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness, you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman, you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself, you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is the essence of all philosophy.”

Attached: Kierkegaard.png (160x232, 63K)

>Again, you're rehashing that it's difficult to live by, but that's not a criticism that has teeth in the realm of objective morality.
Objective morality does not exist.

>Should we eliminate all standards that every person cannot live up to?
No, we should acknowledge that unrealistically high standards are not very useful.

Scruton, Heidegger, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard

erm, freud - pedo. not approved you filthy sex offender hiding behind a meme flag

Already mention, but Heidegger for sure. So fucking cool

>Objective morality does not exist.
If this were the case you could make no judgement value on anything. Unless your behavior lacks all reason or rationale, your action belies your words.
>No, we should acknowledge that unrealistically high standards are not very useful.
You don't believe in a standard, so this means nothing.

Evola

Watts drank to mitigate severe anxiety. He also did philosophy to mitigate severe anxiety. His best book was "The Wisdom of Insecurity." What made him drink is also what made him awesome. You've got to know the monster you're fighting. For Watts it was anxiety. Now for Peterson, it's depression.

I an no Nazi larper, and I spend two hours or more a day reading philosophy and sometimes history.
>commie intellectuals

watts was a fraud

>Hey Jow Forums how can I end my thirst?
>Hard Mode: No liquids and no kms.
wew

>Objective morality does not exist.
"This is the right thing to do because it does in fact increase the total happiness in the world"

Gay kike

Philip K Dick, I think if he were still alive he'd shitpost here pretty regularly
>in touch with the Logos
>ancient greek vocabulary lessons in his sleep
>discovers an undiagnosed birth defect in his son through a dream
>spend 8 years writing 8000 pages of multifaceted religious and gnostic research
>friends feel obligated to spend decades compiling and editing it
>still write highly predictive scifi novels the whole time
>acknowledges Marxist influence in the world
>Shits up the FBIs man hours with tons of conspiracy theories

What most people who try and study philosophy don't get about it, is that you need to start from the beginning, with Plato. Then read up about the pre-Socratics and sophists, and then move onto Aristotle. Then Hermes, and after him Plotinus, and so on. If you only read philosophy which you subscribe to or generally like, you will never understand it as a whole. Reading it in a chronological order is the very best thing you can do. Don't start with any post-Aristotelian philosophers for God's sakes.
t. Platonist

Or you could skip to Nietzsche and be set. He solved philosophy after all.

Aristotele. Been reading his work nad he is right especally when he says that Democracy fall into tiranny.

That is the very worst thing you can do. You'd have absolutely no clue what he's talking about in regards to seemingly simple concepts like good and evil, but you think you would. Those who think they know something, but really know nothing are far worse than those who admit that they know nothing.

Ice T

youtu.be/C9vSXxAzK_4

Serbitch is right this time.

Saint Augustin.

Nick Land
>jacobitemag.com/2017/05/25/a-quick-and-dirty-introduction-to-accelerationism/

Well, in non-third world countries we study Plato in HS, fren. Skipping to Nietzsche you avoid pseudo-moralists ranting about ethics and esoteric witchcraft-tier shit and christian mumbo jumbo. I don't see the problem.

I don't live in a third world country.
You don't study shit for philosophy here when you're in high school, you'd have to go to college for that. I never connected my studies of philosophy with any sort of school I was going to, I always have and still do it on my own time for my own personal reasons. Hell, I'm not even doing any sort of degree related to it, I'm studying Law. And do you really think that there is no value in the teachings of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas? Do you really think they are just pseudo-moralists?

these are all pleb answers

vilfredo pareto, carl schmitt, gaetano mosca, lotka-volttera

>no value in the teachings of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas
Slight variations of original platonism, let's not fool ourselves, medieval philosophers pretty much plagiarized classical greek ones with applied to christianity.

You "can" study them. I just don't deem it "necessary".

The white man's philosophy books should be: Plato (In case you really don't know anything about him and you never studied his works in school), Cynics, Stoics and Nietzsche. In that order. Yes, I know I said to just skip to Nietzsche, because it's pretty much the final destination anyway. But the philosophies I mention are enriching to men. In my opinion, the Übermensch is stoic in nature and tempered, as Marcus Aurelius, isn't afraid of having low status should he travel those paths and even takes pride in it, as Diogenes. And understands what life is really about with a will to power, to build above yourself and not be dragged down by slave morality, like Nietzsche taught. And there is room for a bit of subjective platonism too, should the autism require it.

They are similar, yes, but the bible certainly shows its influence throughout their writings, and it is undoubtedly true that they had much influence on their readers, students and philosophical successors, and thus the entirety of Western civilization. I like to say that the Christians stole Socrates's martyr story and applied it to Jesus, so I would agree that early Christianity adopted many of its ideas from Platonism, but it is no reason to disregard it.
Don't you think that the philosophy of Nietzsche is almost entirely opposed to Platonic philosophy? I don't see the Socrates of the Phaedo or Apology ever agreeing with the übermensch will to power mentality, and the "rejection" of absolute good and evil that Nietzsche applies to his works? My main issue is that sort of might makes right mentality, in my opinion it goes against the higher and divine concept of virtue.

>dude freud was a weird coked out sex jew lmao

mollybot, peterson

That was not my point, even if he was. It's a critique of his way of drawing conclusions.

At first glance it may seem contradictory, but the übermensch creates a new system of values by trashing some, preserving some he deems valuable, and creating new ones. I call this subjective platonism, because, while not adhering to the thought that there exist an absolute and universal system of values, as did Plato, he makes one of his own and judges things based on it.
>that sort of might makes right mentality, in my opinion it goes against the higher and divine concept of virtue.
It could be argued that the christian domestication of man (which played a huge role in white genocide) is abhorrent and has created the cuckolds of today, it has weakened entire peoples over time. And this was and is done by men who are self-proclaimedly full of virtue.

Virtue is the opposite of christianity. Virtue comes from virtus, which comes from vir: Man. He that is manly is virtuous, classical european masculinity is virtue: loyalty, fearlessness, honor, respect, etc.
Turning the other cheek, no matter how "divine" is, is not a virtue. It belongs to the weak.

It's not so much as "might makes right" at face value. It's about "I make right, my tribe makes right", no slave morality to tame you, it's about living life the way it's intended, accepting your humanity, the good and the bad, with no "cuckification". The Übermensch is both capable of vicious murder and of passionate loving. He is a fanatic, a fanatic of life.

Nick Bostrom

Attached: 1514068995130.jpg (589x539, 57K)

Subjective Platonism, funny. Quite the paradox, wouldn't you say?
The fact that the very very Christian West was just fine up until the rise of atheism and the disappearance of Christian morals shows otherwise, I think.
Virtue is hard to define, but most that know the word understand its meaning, at least I like to think.
If what you say is true, that virtue is the opposite of Christianity, then you are implying that our barbarian and pagan ancestors were far more virtuous than what followed - that being a code of chivalry and the whole Christian idea of sins vs virtues, such as gluttony and temperance, for example. While it may be true that the Ancient Greeks practiced these ideas way before the Christians did, it is most definitely true that the majority of Europe did not, as they were called barbarians by Greeks and Romans alike. To sum up, I cannot agree with you on the notion that barbarian pre-feudal Europe was more virtuous than its later Christian counter-part.
I don't think fanaticism is something to strive for, nor do I think that we should create subjective systems of morality. I believe that we should follow the perfect divine notions of virtue and morality as well as we possibly can. And before you ask, I do not follow any religion, but I am a theist.