Post your favorite philosopher

Post your favorite philosopher

Attached: Sartre.jpg (674x506, 90K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/#F!ZAoVjbQB!iGfDqfBDpgr0GC-NHg7KFQ
youtube.com/watch?v=LcJm1pOswfM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Attached: 1200px-Plato_Silanion_Musei_Capitolini_MC1377.jpg (1200x1800, 466K)

Favourite*

American English > English English

Attached: Alfred_Rosenberg.jpg (526x798, 143K)

Attached: 1492503825175.jpg (1600x1400, 325K)

This is a Celine board, eat shit.

a thread died for this

posting based fat man because why not

Attached: doggo.jpg (600x765, 40K)

Attached: 1519601650662.jpg (620x803, 64K)

not ok to make fun of someones disability

Attached: images.jpg (227x222, 4K)

pls no meme answers

marshall mcluhan

Attached: oscar_gamble_philosopher.jpg (450x618, 51K)

>philosophy

Sorry all the STEM fields were too demanding for you.

Attached: philosophy what i expected.jpg (958x568, 106K)

t. richard dawkins

Attached: Skärmavbild 2018-05-26 kl. 09.48.52.png (380x390, 217K)

"We say: 'I am.' One can speak of this sort of Being only in reference to oneself: my Being. What does it consist of, and where is it situated? It would seem that this should be what we can most easily bring to light, for there is no being to which we are closer that the one that we ourselves are. All other beings we ourselves are not. It seems that we cannot be as close to any other being as we are to the being that we ourselves are. Actually, we cannot even say that we are close to the being that we ourselves in each case are, since after all we ourselves are this being. Here we must admit that everyone is the furthest from himself, as far as the 'I' from the 'you' in 'you are'."

- Martin Heidegger

Attached: Heidegger1955.jpg (484x578, 40K)

I don't get this does it make me stupid?

Not at all, I don't get it either I have spent two years trying to figure that book out. He writes too fucking crazy for me to handle

Jim Rohn.

Attached: BE3EA6FC-B195-45D2-B94D-AFFAE991BCCF.jpg (582x424, 154K)

Why is STEM important?

Attached: r1806404_28740222.jpg (700x394, 47K)

"The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others"

Attached: hitler1.jpg (300x345, 33K)

Hiedegger is hard-tier, Being and Time is not sometihng you can just lift quotes from or read independently as a guide to phenomenology. You need to base it on early humanist philosophy and even Nietzsche's attempt at closing metaphysics.

Learn some of the lingo, figure out what Dasein is before talking about the One or Being (capitalised)

You can't really understand Heidegger without reading Nietzsche and you can't understand Nietzsche without reading Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer and so on.
Best just start at the ancients and work your way up.

Well then what the hell does it mean

nietzsche didn't read kierkegaard lol

I pity existentialists like you, it's not even a philosophy just a bunch of pretty words that mean nothing.
>Oh the anguish of living
>Oh to not choose is a choice
>Oh the impossibility of of my actions
Grow balls, fag, and read someone who has ideals and is willing to die for it like Kierkegaard, or accept that that existentialism is better treated on literature than philosophy: Kafka is years above Camus or Sartre or any of those pretentious assholes and he doesn't even write essays.

As for favorite philosopher:
>Pic related has the balls to name (((them))) and to go against the prejudice that platonic-socratic views put on philosophy
>Inb4 he writes in catch phrases, it doesn't even make sense
Fight me you illiterate faggots

Attached: images-4.jpg (250x339, 16K)

>sartre

0/10

unironically Wittgenstein.

Attached: tractatus.jpg (590x354, 52K)

Actually I was just baiting with Sartre because he was a jew degenerate so I hoped Jow Forums would tell me to fuck off but it didn't work

>Pic related has the balls to name (((them)))
no he didn't
>and to go against the prejudice that platonic-socratic views put on philosophy
already done like 500 years earlier

>unironically reading NEETzsche past 15
>anything other than babby's first edgy belief

Attached: 1527108653390.png (680x618, 620K)

David Hume, no one has solved his guillotine

>thinks pol is still that based.

Attached: 5eb.jpg (680x491, 52K)

Yeah I don't really come here often anymore, too many cringy autists.

this guy got me on the right path with Jesus.

>Sartre

commie narcistic trash

t. petersonian java programmer brainlet

/ourguy/, Nietzsche was an existentialist. dont get it twisted.

Attached: Kierkegaard1.jpg (1600x900, 106K)

Attached: oswaldfuckingspengler_baldtrump_makeprussiagreatagain.png (633x791, 410K)

>cringey
>autists

Waiiiittt...Who are you working for. Only bots are using that 'cringey' shit right now

Attached: 1466359067568.jpg (1716x1710, 1M)

overrated, he stole most of his ideas from russian historiosophy

Spinoza or Freud, unironically.

If it's Sartre the retard it is.

I'm a normie

is Kierk the most intellectualy honest philosopher that ever lived?

Attached: kierkegaard bears.jpg (640x960, 129K)

STEM is asking HOW?
Philosophy is asking WHY?

Only knowing HOW and WHY something works will bring you the full picture.

Philosophy major here.

The Heidegger quote you posted is in reference to the metaphysical question of what constitutes personal identity. I.e, what it actually is 'you' as a person. He is actually not saying a great deal about it in the quote, he is essentially just saying that it is a confusion and difficult to understand what we are. He starts by stating that on the face of it, we should quite easily be able to understand personal identity, as it is within our very essence a question of what we are. And so it should be the most fundamental thing we understand. But then goes on to say that if you think about it more, it is actually more difficult to rationalise what we are, as it is not so close to our fundamental understanding due to the fact that it is an internal question about ourselves as opposed to an external one. He is making the assumption that external questions are easier to answer as we can physically examine them, whereas we find it harder to examine ourselves. So in short, all he is really saying is that: "on the face of it, understanding personal identity seems easy as we are the very thing we need to understand, but actually its pretty difficult because its harder to examine ourselves".

Read the first dissertation of the Genealogy of Moral, it isn't even 100 pages. He talks about the Jew influence on anything bad since the Roman empire and the cristalization of Christianity as a cuck religion.

Has to be that Nietzsche guy.

>no he didn't

Attached: nietzsche jews.jpg (1074x532, 62K)

>Christianity as a cuck religion

I never understood his position on christianity. Cuckism is a punishment from God as explained in Jeremiah and curses and blessings in Deuteronomy, not the result of doing Gods will.

Kierkegaard is top tier

Why does he say it in such a strange and confusing way? It is difficult to even follow the quote.

I'm pretty sure he was against Christian virtues instead of Christianity or Christian values

I really like his Theory of Freedom of Expression - deontological and audience-centric.

Attached: Thomas Scanlon.png (391x641, 105K)

Ive read almost everything from N, he criticizes post-christianity, more than he criticized christianity.

>inb4 not true scotsman

look it up, his critique is strong critique of egalitarian post-christianity, when he deals with "real" christianity his critiques become pleb Varg tier every time

Attached: nietzsche1412816340333.png (1595x529, 330K)

>Why does he say it in such a strange and confusing way?
Taking quotes from great thinkers out of context and making memes of them for easy digestion is the only way to get normies to pay any attention to them at all. To truly understand what an author is trying to say you have to read their work in question, probably several and several other authors they reference. It seems confusing because there is no context and you have not followed his line of thought from start to finish.

I believe he understand the value of Christianity as a way for men to transcend, but nonetheless, it still is a Jew poison made to corrupt men's will. Compassion and empathy are just ways of negating life and killing yourself - and that's just what Christianity pushes, love your enemy even if he wants to kill you. Then a see a postumous letter of Nietzsche saying how Dostoievski's representation of Jesus was so valid: "to get from Jesus, the opposite of a hero, a hero". My final project on University is a analysis of Dostoievski's idiot and how it relates to Nietzsche's Moral representation of the Übermensch.
>Why in the hell would the author of the Antichrist praise an orthodox writer?

Attached: O.jpg (784x417, 47K)

>Compassion and empathy are just ways of negating life and killing yourself

it is...if you dont channel it correctly they bite you in the ass. compassion and universalism are the core of the Faustian spirit. That is why Nietzsche consistently criticized post-christianity, insted of making a good case that christiantiy leads to loss of virtue.

>My final project on University is a analysis of Dostoievski's idiot and how it relates to Nietzsche's Moral representation of the Übermensch.

I want to hear more about this.

I don't see why this guy wasn't pro Christianity since he wanted someone or something to be a guide for the masses. Instead of shitting on Christianity he could have advocated for medieval, fundamentalist Christianity.

It seems I have a lot to read

See pic related. Christianity can be interpreted and used in multiple ways.

Attached: 9090.jpg (1920x711, 179K)

Look up the Great Books of Western Civ. You can find all of them online. Start with the Greeks and keep reading. Here's an archive to get you started, as well as everyone else ITT.

mega.nz/#F!ZAoVjbQB!iGfDqfBDpgr0GC-NHg7KFQ

Attached: books.jpg (800x534, 67K)

one for you Finn
what does your country think of him?

Attached: Linkola.jpg (439x293, 20K)

Thanks bro. Gonna take a look at them.

Most people don't know anything about him. I've never heard anyone talk about him except on imageboards. On Ylilauta he is viewed positively but I don't think anyone has actually read his work

Attached: linkola.jpg (212x238, 6K)

>Most people don't know anything about him.

give us a tl dr on him

He is in the crossfire right now. He recently stated that worlds population must be reduced (naturally) because of climate change. This was taken as a racist comment. But the attack was not massive you know because this guy basicly formed finnish green party. Kinda untouchable. But I guess he dies soon because of some kind of disease. He knows that too.

That's absolute ideology

The morale and systems are always defined by the struggle of collective development versus individual instinctive fulfillment. Capitalism is the best and closest form to collective development in harmony with independent happiness.

Stupids/weaks fall for indoctrination and end up basing the fundament.
Strong people use the system to their advantage.
Intelligent people get to the top of the hierarchy.

The ones complaining are either weak or stupid. They are the ones pleading for socialism/communism to get an equal lifestyle while having less capabilities - basically trying to take advantage of naturally superior people

pic related.
This dude nailed absolutely everything by not point exactly how the things are done, BUT! pointing on processes who "do the things", from a "human point of "view". In other words, he showed why he cannot understand, and how he can't understand.

Attached: aristoteles.jpg (192x263, 7K)

Environmental activist, buys and protects forests, wants to reduce the human population by any means necessary and to return to living in societies based on agriculture, supports terrorism and serial killers because they reduce the amount of humans on the planet.

Attached: linkola-1.jpg (500x503, 59K)

Capitalist faggots like you are the worst. You didn't even address Evola's commentary beyond "ideology lmao". What do you have to say about the spiritual inelegance of pure capitalism, profiteering? Nothing, because you are spiritually devoid.

oh, and also this guy, he tried to be more concrete

Attached: рупуд.jpg (452x572, 181K)

So you believe the stupid and the weak deserve their misery because it is their own fault?

Because philosophy is not just about explaining, but motivating the reader/listener to understand ones mindset and actually examine the questions oneself

youtube.com/watch?v=LcJm1pOswfM

see

>racist
>sexist
>bants in every essay
how can one philosopher be so based?

Attached: davidstove.jpg (291x367, 25K)

No they deserve the same things as those who work hard and succeed. Gib fruits of labor now

Life is meaningless - so make your own meaning.
>been trying for over a decade and it's so fucking hard.

Attached: Camus.jpg (727x487, 47K)

>Nothing, because you are spiritually devoid.

as was the degenerate snob Evola.

>also this guy

evil of Hegel cannont be overestimated.

>poseur camus

still better and more honest than sartre. find Jesus.

Nietzsche studied theology and understood it as the philosophical metaphors they are. The general way christianity was praised at this time was limited to the church misinterpreting and majority taking the bible in a literal sense

'God is dead' describes that their modern christianity is completely different from the original teachings. He went insane for being intellectually far superior to his peers, whom nietzsche couldn't stop from their own self-destruction, but even foretold their destiny

Ah I see.

They deserve to be helped so that they can become smarter and so that their children can have better opportunities. They shouldn't just be taken advantage of like some sort of animals

Try something different. A career change, a wife, a dog, a hobby.

2 scoops
> the only true way of life

Attached: richp7.jpg (1536x2048, 407K)

philosophy is pseudo intellectual masturbation, with no answers ever

Attached: theholyscripture.jpg (493x493, 222K)

This nigga is a walking poltarded stereotype
Not one original bone in his body

And he thinks he's white to boot

Wittgenstein. Analytics are the true patrician answer.

I cringe at you snob ass faggots trying to find your brand, your favorite "philosopher" so fucking pathetic.

You're worse than bitches finding their favorite lipstick or faggots showing their favorite beard balm on instagram #gentleman #dapper

All you fucks look for in philosophy is confirmation bias. Philosophy is long gone, jewish perverted mean of control.

I'm above it because I'm above you fucks. Ever since I was a kid I cringed at philosophy, sociology, psychology, and 20 yrs ago there was no fuckin /pol.

You either are or you aren't. Sadly for most of you anglo idiots from US, britbongstan and other jew infested nations, I guess it's a kind of remedy once you've been awaken to who rules over you, so you seek for some "witty words" from "a philosopher" (oh how sophisticated are thee) that will soothe your grim jew controlled reality.

I haven't read one complete book in my life yet I'm more "woke" to the shit and the talmudic subversions than 90% of you.

One thing I do kinda envy is leisure time you "Boomer Lite" imbeciles have, while the muslims and jews run your life you spend your time flicking muh philosophy books prepping yourself to engage in semantic warfare.

Well Akshually brigade. KYS.

t. pic related

Attached: christcuck.jpg (634x634, 102K)

>can't philosophy
migrant detected

On the idiot Dostoievski tells the journey of prince Michkin, an idealized being, living in the Russian aristocratic society in the 19th century. Michkin is basically a non-sacro Jesus, elevating Christian moral to the maximum, thus being an idiot for anyone other than himself.
>An beautifully moral man in a corrupt world is an idiot by default
Nietzsche uses the Übermensch to exemplify how an ideal being must destroy existing morals to transcend itself. Acting so differently from anyone else, negating its evaluation system, will make you an outcast, or how Dostoievski puts, an idiot.
This is my starting point but I'm on it's initial phase, needing to elaborate more. The objective is to find a parallel between them.

t. basedboy

Attached: 48526118822.png (399x614, 406K)

Philosophy offers different ways of thinking and it is a tool to expand your mind
Also, why the picture of the Bible?

>I haven't read one complete book in my life yet I'm more "woke" to the shit and the talmudic subversions than 90% of you.
Heh. I thought this was a pasta at first but I couldn't find anything

wow im done with this shilly fucking site.. S O Y BOY

I cant wait to laugh at you across the great expanse

>Life is meaningless so make your own meaning

That’s retarded, if life is all ou have and there’s no meaning to it then whatever you do is all meaningless if you can’t see pass this life

>((Einstein)))
>(((Bohr)))
>(((Nobel Prize)))

It is natures way of evolving; sorting out the unfit. These people must find a way to survive in the system or die, just like any animal on this planet that ever lived had to find a way to survive

I did, but you seem not to be able to draw simple conclusions. Mentally strong people don't fall victim to the material corruption - weak people do and these will be sorted out by the system in the long run.

No thanks user i dont want to dox m yself ;)

>You're worse than bitches finding their favorite lipstick or faggots showing their favorite beard balm on instagram #gentleman #dapper
>All you fucks look for in philosophy is confirmation bias. Philosophy is long gone, jewish perverted mean of control.

you have no idea what you are talking about ante. you tool.

>On the idiot Dostoievski tells the journey of prince Michkin, an idealized being, living in the Russian aristocratic society in the 19th century. Michkin is basically a non-sacro Jesus, elevating Christian moral to the maximum, thus being an idiot for anyone other than himself.

but Mishkin wasnt an uber by Nietzschean standard in my interpretation. more like the bad end of Beyond good and evil.

Attached: 9ca48581.jpg (505x480, 28K)