/lit/ - Literature

>>17568613
Plato

>>17568622
fpbp

>>17568613
Cioran and UG Krishnamurti.

>>17568622
I don't have the time to read the complete works, what are the most important things to read?
Also if Plato really is exit-tier why did he lay the foundations for two thousand years of further philosophical inquiry?

>>17568641
Isn't Cioran just another antinatalist who hated life yet didn't kill himself?

>>17568664
Cioran was a complicated thinker. You can dismiss any philosopher by this logic.
But I have one for you who lived and died by his philosophy, Philip Mainländer who killed himself because he preached that nonexistence is superior to existence.

>>17568613
Jed McKenna

>>17568613
mr wittgenstein

Cioran. I can't believe how many years I spent thinking Camus was peak black pill.

>>17568613
Jesus Christ

>>17568613
Me desu

>>17568613
Alexis de Tocqueville and his "Democracy in America ". This book changed my life.

>>17568613
Wittgenstein

>>17568613
Taleb

>>17568613
Deleuze
Baudrillard
Spinoza
Nietzsche
Judge Schreber

>>17569055
Nietzsche is another great choice.

>>17569023
Kripke too, I guess, if you’re into that sort of thing. Almost more /sci/ than /lit/ tho

>>17569082
I forget to mention Bergson, he’s a properly exit tier thinker. Read his big 4 and you can leave.

>>17568622
Plato is literally the Alpha and Omega

>>17568622
/thread

>>17569055
hehe. i remember this comic.

>>17569329
How so?

Every answer in this thread is a meme, you can tell who is an exist tier philosopher by the reaction of the average anon from this board. If they respond positively or not at all, the philosopher and their thought is a giant cope machine. If they respond negatively, full of spite, then that philosopher is truly a dangerous thinker. Notice the average response to anyone saying they like Lacan on this board for instance.

>>17568652
because he's both the entry and the exit

>>17568613
Marx.

>>17569308
She cute. Is that the one who called out the Js?

>>17569487

>>17569498
>he's bad cuz muh reasons
Cope more chud. Marx is the most influential modern philosopher.

>>17569014
Why?

>>17569505
Whatever you say tranny

>>17569055
The fuck? Also: checked

Unironically Nietzsche.

>>17569505
Most influential to pseud academics perhaps.

>>17569510
>tranny
Projection.

>>17569493
Sí

>>17568613
The Bible.

Philosophy is thought but man is more than thought. The Bible is the only book that speaks to man in the appropriate manner, as man. All the other stuff is just specialization in one thing or another and cannot arrive at the meaning of man. The last important philosophers we Wittgenstein and Heidegger both understood this.

>>17569533
She cute desu. Based Spanish women

>>17569505
>not Heidegger
Lol you’ve never actually read more than Wikipedia have you?

>>17568622
Based as hell

>>17569542
>Heidegger
Influenced by Marx. Again he's the most modern influential philosopher.

>>17569552
Shut the fuck up Marx.

>>17569537
most spanish women are angry ugly feminists though

>>17568613
Kingsnorth/Wendell Berry

>>17569552
>Marx
Influenced by Hegel. Hegel is the most influential modern philosopher

>>17569552
What are Marx' influences on Heidegger?

>>17569587
Nothing

>>17569586
>Hegel
Influenced by Kant, who was influenced by Hume. See, Marx is at heart, a Humean. Hume has no influences, he was the only true individual. Therefore, all philosophy is jist a cope against Hume and Marx.

>>17568936
>Camus
>black pill
Camus is the final whitepill

>>17569608
This is why the only correct answer is >>17568622

>>17569609
Spengler is the ultimate clearpill.

>>17569505
>>17569487
>>17569552
Marx is not a philosopher chuds back to tranny pol

>>17569612
Like I said, Hume had no influences, he was the first and only true individual.

>>17569609
This. If you think Camus was blackpill you didn’t understand what he was getting at.

>>17569620
>Look I did the funny onions meme!!
Go back to Twitter you zoomer faggot.

Plato
Plotinus
Damascius

>>17569626
Hume went to college at 13 with his brother, Hume had a ton of influences including being blessed by god

>>17569646
no

>>17569657

>>17569458
>Notice the average response to anyone saying they like Lacan on this board for instance.
Lacan isn't a philosopher.

>>17568613

>>17569458
the contrarian cries out as he copes to you

>>17569691
Correct, but his psychoanalysis, as well as the psychoanalysis of Freud and Jung, have apparent philosophical implications.
>>17569708
Proving my thesis.

>>17568923
>>17569023

This might be true, Wittgenstein is hard to come back from. Even if you go in a different direction, you still take him with you.

>>17568941
Also true

>>17569534
Very based post.

My answers would be Hegel, Heidegger, or Wittgenstein. Aquinas too, if you do it right. These are thinkers who will consume you and make it hard to ever go back to the way your thinking was before, if you even want to. If you ever meet someone who specializes in Locke or Russell, you'll find them to be dabblers and dilettantes. They read the text and write on it but it doesn't grip them to their core. Speak to a committed Wittgensteinian or a Thomist, very different experience. Some of the most brilliant people I've encountered have been Thomists, their argumentative skills are virtually unsurpassed, especially in quick verbal sparring. Intimidatingly efficient at getting to the core of your argument and their own.

>>17569746
>have apparent philosophical implications.
There’s a way to argue Lacan is a philosopher but that’s not it.
his views of the unconscious are distinctly post structuralist and he regularly engages with Heidegger, Kant, and Descartes; Hegel by way of kojeve was also massively influential on him. Not to mention his engagement with surrealism
Guattari is the best Lacanian

>>17569764
I mean you're right but saying his psychoanalysis has philosophical implications is true and a more succinct way of putting it.

>>17569795
It’s a meaningless fluff phrase, everything has “apparent philosophical implications”

>>17569458
>Lacan
shnifff shniff

>>17568613
Heidegger
Wittgenstein
Guenon (pbuh)

Thomas Ligotti, idk why people refuse to acknowledge his philosophical works.

Pic related

>>17568613
Deleuze and schopenhauer

>>17569609
>>17569628
You guys evidently don't understand Camus.

>>17570060
What was your interpretation, then?

>>17569609
HERRR HEERRRRRR BUT SISYPHUS IS HAPPY BECAUSE HE "OWNS HIS FATE" HERRR HERRR HERRR
t. midwit

>>17570086
that’s literally not remotely what he’s saying retard

>>17570076
You just don't understand him, bro.
See...two can play the pseud game.

>>17569985
Is he a niche philosopher?

>>17570100
You're wrong, retard.
You just don't get it.

>>17568613
Plato and Plotinus

>>17570101
>no argument given
Concession accepted.

>>17569458
What’s Lacan’s philosophy?

>>17570124
You already conceded.

>>17568613
jung

>>17570100
I can tell by your writing that you're too uneducated to understand what you're reading.

>>17570134
>someone gives interpretation of Camus
>you say WRONG LMAO
>asked to explain
>.....you’re just wrong okay?
I’ll let you get away with it this time anon, but next time don’t attempt to box with the heavyweights if you don’t have any gloves.

>>17570151
>someone gives interpretation of Camus
>you say WRONG LMAO
I'll demonstrate your low IQ for you: Point out the interpretation given to which I said "WRONG LMAO." I predict you won't.
>I’ll let you get away with it this time anon
Direct addresses take commas, you dumb fucking redneck (see?). Get off this board.

>>17570176
Halfwit BOILING. Thanks for the second concession.

>>17570186
No pointing out, as predicted. Low-IQ concession.

>>17568613
Adi Shankara

>>17570190
That’s...... 3 concessions now. I finna await your 4th.

>>17570186
Eh, it is /lit/. If you can't grasp the most fundamental punctuation rules, then what are you doing here?

>>17570209
>then what are you doing here?
your momma

>>17568613
zhaung tzu

>>17569761
Is Aquinas that based?

If you really get into his stuff there really is no coming back but you might end up wanting to go back into illusion like cipher in the matrix

What's exit-tier mean anon?

>>17568622
fpbp

>>17570535
This is wrong
t. got into it

>>17569962
I personally didn't bother with it after reading his awful poetry

>>17570086
you are your only enemy anon. it's all in your head. it's gonna be ok

>>17568941
>>17569761
What if I'm not a christian and not interested in it?

>>17569534
I read the NT and it was nice but I didn't feel anything special from it. Christianity doesn't interest me, I'm looking for philosophers, not religion
>>17569480
What about my first question, what are the must-read works?
>>17570535
I'm not looking for religion

>>17569761
>their argumentative skills are virtually unsurpassed, especially in quick verbal sparring. Intimidatingly efficient at getting to the core of your argument and their own.
Highly trained sophists with centuries to perfect their craft can do that, yes

pre socs

>>17570495
His systematic thinking and approach to Aristotelian logic is extremely interesting. It can be used effectively in a variety of situations which have little or nothing to do with explicit theology.

>>17570796
Then read it like you would any other text. I can read Islamic texts or Hindu thought without being a Muslim or a Hindu. Do your homework, find the social/literary/historical context of the work, and see whats going on in it. Worst case scenario is you still disagree but you get to be more grounded and articulate about it.

>>17570858
Any plans on backing this up?

>>17569458
So Ayn Rand, then.

>>17568664
Reminds me of Democritus:
> Fools, though they hate life, want to live from fear of Hades.

>>17570661
t. Cipher

>>17571090
Nope. I'm glad you found your thing but Buddhism is nothing special for me.

I read the Red Book and Valis back to back and as a result turned my back on all politics and all philosophy

>>17571118
What are your beliefs now?

>>17570535
Buddhism is just as unverifiable as any other religion. Also if rebirth is wrong, it collapses.

>>17570921
>read it like you would any other text.
Why is it so important to read the scholastics? It's memed on /lit/ a lot because there are a bunch of christians here but would I really be missing anything by skipping Aquinas?

It's Heidegger.
You can't go back to readingg any other philosopher if you dive deep enough with him. The only way forward after truly understanding him is poetry.

>>17571346
What's so special about Heidegger?

>>17571268
Well, this is a slightly different question than the one that was originally asked. The Scholastics in general were instrumental in interpreting political, metaphysical, and religious questions of the time using the new logical framework they inherited from the classics, even if they didn't always agree with the implications of it. Old arguments like Platonism vs Aristotelianism came to the fore while fairly modern ones were anticipated, like the surprisingly resilient Nominalism. Aquinas is the biggest and most well known of the Scholastics but theres also Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and the criminally underrated Suarez. If you have an interest in metaphysics, they are worth your while. I, personally, would never recommend someone reads the Scholastics for the purposes of theology unless they had a strong background in philosophy already. Its just not practically useful. Read Augustine, the desert fathers, the medieval mystics, anyone but the Scholastics. Nobody is ever going to read Ockham as an Atheist and walk away a Christian. So, as far as the implication that the only reason anyone is suggesting or reading the Scholastics is for religious reasons, I have to disagree.

>>17571346
Heidegger has a weird way of giving you access to thinkers that seem far apart before that. The Heidegger-Kuhn-Carnap pipeline is real, as is the Heidegger-theology track. It really is a game changer.

>>17571459
>and the criminally underrated Suarez
Incredibly based.
Everyone, listen to this man, he knows what he is talking about.

>>17568936
Bruh, Camus is the guy who found “within myself, an invincible summer.” He’s whitepilled as fuck

>>17568613
Jordan Peterson desu

>>17571861
Be serious

>>17568613
All of them

>>17571865
Would I be shitposting about the guy for a whole year straight if I didn't think he had something to say? If it suits your presumably esotericist sensibilities more, try Jung on for size.

>>17570535
This. All of philosophy becomes a meme born out of craving under Buddhadharma.
>>17570661
I got into it too.
>>17571154
Rebirth is moment to moment and is direct consequence of causality, otherwise Enlightenment is not reachable. Read Nanavira.

>>17572256
And Buddhism becomes a meme if viewed through the lens of another philosophical system.

Sextus Empiricus (PBUH). Behe*d all Dogmatists.

>>17572256
>Rebirth is moment to moment
Dodging the point. Depending on what happens after death, Buddhism becomes pointless.

I wonder how many people would praise Plato, had they not felt validated by their literature teacher in doing so.
Nothing I've ever read by Plato was beneficial, except some half-poetic shit on nature of being loved and loving. But even in that amateurs like C.S.Lewis outperformed him...

>>17572315
How can one man be so based?

>>17568613
>No meme answers please.
You asked a meme question, retard. Don’t be surprised by meme answers.
>>17568622
Based
>>17569055
Also based
>>17569487
>>17569505
The only think Marxist about modern “Marxists” is that both spend to much time caring about oppression. Modern “Marxists” have almost nothing in common with Marx, who was himself retarded.
>>17571865
Tragically that tripfaggot is being serious, he’s genuinely retarded enough to believe that, for the same reason that he uses a trip, because he has the soul of a Redditor.

>>17572279
You can practice Buddhism and after attaining Sotapanna it ceases to be a meme permanently. With other philosophies you'll relapse back to ordinary life after honeymoon period.
>>17572320
Only if you assume your current life is pointless.
I was going to stop at that, but lately I'm starting to understand that impossibility of rebirth in material Universe is a view born out of wrong view about self.

>>17572331
>read Sextus Empiricus
>read any other philosopher
>can't help but imagining Pyrrho beating the shit out of him in between his baseless axioms

>>17572450
>after you attain this particular state you won't have any doubts anymore, trust me
How do you know you're not just brainwashing yourself into believing in it? Sorry but the stream-entry thing does nothing for me.

>>17572328
Read the Timaeus

>>17572458
Philosophy should've just stopped with the skeptics, there was no reason for it to go on past that point

>>17572461
It's not for you then. Things like Three Characteristics and at least first two Noble Truths seemed self-evident to me from the start.

>>17572479
Ok I will, but just because it's you

>>17570825
>What about my first question, what are the must-read works?
all of them idiot

>>17572500
I understand the appeal, I got up to Madhyamaka literature (which I found way more interesting than the Theravada stuff) but at some point it struck me that even though it's better than most and makes a lot of sense intuitively, Buddhism is still a religion, with everything that implies.
Zen is absolutely based though.

>>17572461
Not him but I find Buddhist philosophies to be more plausible than the soteriologies. Even a life of preparation for death, whether Buddhistic or Platonic or what have you, is still a life to be lived in accordance with a worldview. We cannot have direct knowledge of a personal post-death, categorically, because we are living, unless we take it on faith or have a woo experience. Such experiences seem to exist but are rare and subject to wide interpretation. One may suspend judgment perhaps, and affirm there is some continuity or supramundane, but that the specifics are impossible.

>>17572570
Buddhist philosophy is interesting but not all that special as far as the entirety of metaphysics is concerned. The Heart sutra is definitely worth reading even for people who aren't interested in Buddhism though.
>a life of preparation for death [...] is still a life to be lived in accordance with a worldview
Suspension of judgment is possible, as you said.
As far as facing death is concerned, I think Daoist philosophy provides a very good take as well.

>>17572524
I started from 'Awakening' by De Mello and went through Dzogchen to Theravada 'Protestantism'. Its simplicity and straightforwardness appeal to me.
>Buddhism is still a religion, with everything that implies.
I'll stick with stuff that make sense, practice and see where It will take me. So far it works and it makes me excited about the future.

>>17572524
I started from 'Awakening' by De Mello and went through Dzogchen to Theravada 'Protestantism'. Its simplicity and straightforwardness appeals to me.
>Buddhism is still a religion, with everything that implies.
I'll stick with stuff that make sense, practice and see where It will take me. So far it works and it makes me excited about the future.

>>17572699
>So far it works and it makes me excited about the future.
Then good for you, unironically. If you found something that truly works for you there's no need to look elsewhere.

>>17572315
Is this guy really the "u cant know nuffin" meme you make him out to be or does he make an actual point?

>>17568613
The fucking state of Anglotards. Pragmatism, OP. So probably Dewey, William James or something. And fuck Plato. KEK

>>17572612
I have been meaning to look into Daoism but my impression is it would be similar to some Chinese Buddhist sects.
>>17572754
Maybe (You) can't know. I don't know what you can't know.

>>17572761
James is philosophy kino. Don't skip The Varieties of Religious Experience.

>>17572814
Daoist philosophy is similar in some ways to Chan/Zen because it influenced it, but it's still definitely worth looking into, especially if you like pyrrhonism.

>>17572831
Do we have a Tao chart?

>>17572741
Thanks. Have a fruitful journey too.

>>17572846
No, just read the Daodejing and Zhuangzi

>>17570535
This is kinda true and it bothered me for years, but it only holds if you subscribe to endless, meaningless rebirth, which in my opinion is also a kind of grasping for immortality, even a "bad" kind it, because you're still trapped but hey, at least "you" still exist, anatta notwithstanding. Buddhism is very much a religion, and it loses all of its power the moment you accept your own mortality.

>>17572256
>otherwise Enlightenment is not reachable
It's not. Altered states of consciousness and induced depersonalization/derealization don't imply anything about any outside reality.

>>17568613
Parmenides.

>>17572256
>Read Nanavira
That guy went legit insane and ended up hanging himself despite being a monk. I don't discount he might have valuable insights but by the time he wrote Notes on Dhamma he was suffering so bad from amebiasis and mental health issues that it reads like a big cope for justifying his suicide.

>>17573001
How? All we have are fragments, sometime little more than a word or two at a time. Very interesting fragments, but not much in the way of final destinations. Parmenides generates more questions than he answers, hence the constant mystery surrounding him and his influence.

>>17572989
True, but this is the reason why you should test any insight against reality. Mind tends to make wrong ones fade out, because it always tries to maintain coherent interpretation of reality, unless you're good at not being honest with yourself. It will hinder your progress in meditation if you try to do that though.

>>17573101
That our reality is mostly manufactured by the brain isn't debated by anyone nowadays afaik. That alone should make you skeptical that even altered states, even egoless or nondual ones have more validity than your normal perception, and this even goes hand in hand with two truths
>It will hinder your progress in meditation
I don't meditate anymore. I tried it for quite a bit, even got to go beyond pithi, but realized that while it might be useful for some things, it's all just a kind of induced low-level trip that leaves you feeling like you know something when you don't, and that seeps into people's daily lives, the most condescending, unpleasant people I've met in my life have been accomplished meditators. Plenty of things worked better to reduce stress and focus attention for me. Lastly, you speak of testing teachings against reality and I can see the shade of the Kalama sutra there. I'm no novice to the study of Buddhism, and let me tell you that passage is kind of dishonest, its subtext is that eventually you'll arrive at the objectively right, that is, Buddhist, interpretation of mental phenomena and their relation to reality, and worse, you'll be nudged along to to reach precisely that one by teachers who insist they're just helping you discover it ourselves. Well, I arrived at my own conclusions and as a result ended up leaving Buddhism.

Obviously.
Also Mainlander and Caraco (although I hate the latter with a passion).

Baudrillard

>>17569505
You will never be a woman.

Spengler. You may try to walk away and see him as a dark phase in your youth, but then his prescience arises again and again in your head.

>>17568613
it never ends

>>17573346
>That our reality is mostly manufactured by the brain isn't debated by anyone nowadays afaik.
I don't believe you can levitate or bend spoons after attaining 4th Jhana either.
>That alone should make you skeptical that even altered states, even egoless or nondual ones have more validity than your normal perception
On the other hand mind models reality (although Metzinger says it doesn't even do that) in a certain way based on sensory input and you cannot really say which one is correct, because they're just mind generated models, nothing more. You can judge which one is useful instead, and Buddhadharma claim is that enlightened ones generate much less suffering. I believe you can switch between these models with proper practice and if they penetrate deep enough and seem to be useful and coherent enough they will stick.
>it's all just a kind of induced low-level trip that leaves you feeling like you know something when you don't
I agree, and this is why checking if insights are self-consistent and if they agree with reality is that important.
>the most condescending, unpleasant people I've met in my life have been accomplished meditators
I'll take it as a warning. Also from what I gather, enlightened people seem to have their autobiographic memory impaired and this creates further friction with people who expect it to work normally.
>its subtext is that eventually you'll arrive at the objectively right, that is, Buddhist, interpretation of mental phenomena and their relation to reality
I liked Buddhism from the start. I'll try attaining Sotapanna first and see at what conclusions it will bring me then.

>>17569608
>Hume
Influenced by william of ockham.

>>17569458
>Notice the average response to anyone saying they like Lacan on this board for instance.
The average response to Lacan is completely solicited. Lacanians epitomize pseudointellectualism, actually, let me reiterate, anyone who takes psychoanalysis seriously does, especially those who try to reconcile the latter with philosophy. The field is comedic.
>>17568613
>Immanuel Kant
>Arthur Schopenhauer
>Von Schelling

>>17569626
>first and only true individual
There is no such thing. We all think like Plato

>>17574633
First of all, I'm glad you've read Metzinger, it was his writings that first started making me seriously doubt Buddhism. In his words, the brain is an ontological engine, and as long as it's not detrimental to survival, any of the models it creates of an external world or itself aren't intrinsically superior or more correct. He lowkey implies a state with a dampened sense of self might be better than our standard ego-centered experience precisely because we'd suffer less, but I sincerely doubt it unless it is for specific tasks or situations. What's the merit of blond physical survival or a simulated sense of community if there's no agent, regardless if it's intrinsically real or constructed to enjoy its fruits or understand how he got there?
>enlightened people seem to have their autobiographic memory impaired
This is 100% true and is part of the reason I don't buy it. A truly enlightened person would become either a philosophical zombie, like UG Krishnamurti claimed to be, only responding to stimuli with no internal experience under the hood, or else something closer to a vegetable. I do believe a selfless state is possible, but it's only desirable if you've already convinced yourself at a conscious level that it is. Look up the case of Suzanne Segal who achieved what many would consider waking enlightenment and ended up dying of a brain tumor two years later.

>>17568613
My great grandfather's memoirs.

>>17569014
Quick rundown?

>>17568613
All of these answers are a meme. It comes down to analytical philosophy. My hat goes off to Alfred North

>>17570117
Retroactively refuted by Heraclitus and Chrysippus.

>>17576578
Whitehead really is a trip you can't go back from, but in a good way.

>>17568664
>>17571005
>antinatalism means you hate life
Thinking life is not worth being born to =/= hating life, there's a middle ground

>>17576633
This. Just because my parents bought me to this world, doesn't mean I have to copy them. Having kids is more of a trophy thing than a spiritual practice

>>17569569
wtf happened

>>17571154
>Also if rebirth is wrong, it collapses.
T. has not understood Buddhism in the slightest. Buddha specifically says not to think about any possible rebirths in his doctrine. Rebirth may as well not exist for the initiate.

>>17576678
>Rebirth may as well not exist for the initiate
Come on, anon.

Don't believe the memes. He literally is too difficult for most people

>>17570535
>Siddhartha is pampered his whole life and shielded from poverty
>Sees poverty and its resulting illness and death when he comes of age
>horrified
>thinks on how this suffering can be stopped
>Rather than consider ways to improve the standing of the common people or tune the disparity between the poor and an ultrarich like himself, he just tells the poor people that its normal for them to suffer because that's Just How It Is, man, life is suffering
Buddha was refuted by Marx.

>>17576856
It's endless rebirth that makes even helping the poor and sick worthless and teaching them the Dharma the only real help. In Buddhism giving a robe to a monk advanced on the path to enlightenment is infinitely more meritorious than donating a kidney or saving a child's life.

>>17569534
Nietzsche, some of the “postmodernists” who also completed philosophy, UG Krishamurti

>>17576739
What? The Dalai Lama just gives platitudes to the masses (not to mention they are a modified Tibetan form). His statements have nothing to do with the Buddha's actual doctrine, which has nothing to do with belief.

>>17576856
Sounds based though, how did Marx refute him?

>>17576930
I suggest you look into how the tulku system works.

>>17576936
No, because we're speaking about Buddha here. There are undeniably exoteric aspects of Buddhism which are necessary for appeasement of the masses who do not have the potential for liberation. These are not relevant to the Buddha's doctrine.

>>17576940
Fine then, let's stick to Theravada. What's the goal of the practice if not the end of suffering and rebirth?

Laughing at all the Buddhists who never studied Christianity, it’s the same thing but they can’t tell because they never seriously studied Christianity due to their autism or being a Western asian.

>Epistemology
Kant
>Ontology
Heidegger
>Metaphysics and aesthetics
Schopenhauer
>Ethics
Stirner
They all happen to be Germans.

>>17576944
The goal is universal sovereignty and independence, just as the Buddha proclaimed himself, but this doesn't really make sense to the average person. Desiring total extinction (non-being) is ultimately just as detrimental as desiring eternal life (being), because both desires rely on an adherence to one state of being (the person is constrained to, and identifies with, one mode of being). Desiring to escape "suffering" (which is actually better translated as "becoming" or "unsatisfactory" from original Pali) is one of the major pitfalls of initiates. The person who is pained by life and scorns life (see Christianity/certain Gnostic traditions) is not suitable for the Noble Eightfold Path. It has to be an inability to identify with anything which appears to be the self, due to the inherent lack of satisfaction in such an identification, not a rejection of life. Thus, one could state that the aim of Buddhism is an ultimate identification and self-discovery, even though one will hear many Buddhists state the opposite, that identification itself is a source of dissatisfaction, which is true, but it's more complicated than this.

>>17576977
>The goal is universal sovereignty and independence
Is it not achieved trough the cessation of birth and becoming?

>>17573346
I have a similar take to yours after studying Buddhism for a while, do you mind telling me what methods you're now using instead of meditation, and how accomplished you were at the time (reach any jhanas, etc)? Which specific conclusions made you leave Buddhism?

>>17576678
Then there's absolutely no reason to get into Buddhism

>>17576580
>best philosopher
>strg: f heraclitus
1 post.
i think it is time for me to go to the mountains and live of herbs. fuck this shitty fuck

>>17576945
>it’s the same thing but they can’t tell
Could you explain?

>>17576988
>And what, monks, is the Nibbana element with residue remaining? Here, a monk is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, one completely liberated through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable, still feels pleasure and pain. It is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana element with residue remaining.

>And what, monks, is the Nibbana element without residue remaining? Here, a monk is an arahant ... one completely liberated through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here. That, monks, is called the Nibbana element without residue remaining.

This is a quote from the original teachings that I just stole from wikipedia to demonstrate my point here.
There is no clear reason to think rebirth as such is extinguished according to the teaching. After all, the Buddha died and yet something, us, still experiences rebirth. Anatta asserts human consciousness is nothing but a composite of matter which gives rise to it, Buddha's personal consciousness was erased upon death just like ours will be, yet others will still be born. Buddha did not possess a soul, and ergo there is little that can be exempted from rebirth, when his consciousness, originally, was a composite of matter.

>>17568613
Simone Weil is your only hope, incel. Skip the quasi-Nieztschean fascism and read Gravity and Grace for the next stage.

>>17576977
Someone read Evola

>>17576678
Why not just euthanize people then?

>>17577094
Nirvana isn't death.

>>17577116
Why aim for Nirvana?

>>17568622
He was the only philosopher to ever exist, the others were physicists, logicians or counsellors.

>>17576977
>>17577061
>>17577116
If there is effectively no rebirth from a subjective standpoint then Nirvana is absolutely useless.
Not to mention, I'm skeptical of the idea that secluding yourself from all stimulation and dwelling in meditative absorption will lead to anything else than becoming some kind of vegetable, as >>17576455 said.

>>17577094
Because someone needs to pay for the monks' food and shelter

>>17577209
>If there is effectively no rebirth from a subjective standpoint then Nirvana is absolutely useless.
Nirvana is not useful to everyone, Buddha explicitly states this. People who are content with their lives should be left alone, they are not meant for the Noble Path. If you believe the only possible value of a discipline is to "escape" rebirth, then Buddhism is not for you. Additionally, Buddhism never states there is "no" rebirth, it just states that it's effectively irrelevant from a doctrinal standpoint.

>>17577236
Yeah I get it it's not for the plebs and whatnot, but what is the appeal, concretely?
>If you believe
I don't believe in rebirth and I don't think life is to be escaped from, which is why I'm not interested in Buddhism.

>>17577236
>it's effectively irrelevant from a doctrinal standpoint.
Why?

Frank Herbert

>>17568613
>>17568622
Entry?
Stirner
Exit?
Plato

bump

>>17578466
This but the opposite

>>17573030
It all begins and ends with well-rounded alethia, my dude.

>>17568652
Alkibiades I, Politeia, Phaidon, Timaios. But you should have a teacher.

>>17581168
When you put it that way, I agree with you, but I would argue that we owe Heidegger a greater debt than anyone for rescuing Parmenides from his legacy in Plato.

>>17581192
Who the fuck has a philosophy teacher
I'm not nobility

Do a bachelor in Physics, get fucking weird ideas thanks to determinism thanks to differential equation theories and algebra but in applied form as opposed to the theory only mathfags.
Have a mental breakdown.
Change to philosophy, fall in love with Plato and Kant, "peak" with Hegel and Marx, have another breakdown.
Get into the Ethics doctorates/faculty and teach classes on grammar and basic literature (uni, not HS of course).
Retire and each time you have a breakdown just write a book on local fauna, your hometown history of politics, or something like that.

Literally what my grandfather did, he said Ethics is what will consume you in the end and keep you interested. He also said that universities suck and education != academics, he has a problem with institutions, believes that humanity will peak when it becomes conscious as a whole group, thinks teachers, farmers, and workers in the basic industries are peak humans.

So basically a richfag that got into Marx, but I'm smoothbrained and he's smart so I don't know how to refute him or find faults in his arguments. Also I'm a simple engineer.

>>17581281
>go to (or email) local college with philosophy courses
>go talk to the faculty and see who's open to answer questions once in a while through email or over dinner/drinks
You'll do most of the reading and work yourself, you'll only ask basic questions when you're stuck or have doubt over a reading of some text.

>>17571582
> The Stranger
> whitepilled as fuck
> The Plague
> whitepilled as fuck
> Myth of Sisyphus: "The absurd has meaning only in so far as it is not agreed to."
> whitepilled as fuck
The truth is that you can find both blackpilled and whitepilled shit in Camus' works. For instance, the absurd -- the conflict between the human desire for meaning/unification and the world's lack of apparent meaning -- is pure blackpill. Finding some moral freedom/innocence in that might be called whitepilled, but some of Camus' character studies along those lines (e.g., Don Juan and the conqueror in Myth of Sisyphus, the protagonist in The Stranger) are blackpilled. Their freedom is moral nihilism.

>>17581786
> thinks teachers, farmers, and workers in the basic industries are peak humans
this is the meat of all 'political movements' doesnt matter what flavor of political party youre on, the paradox is this certain class doesnt need 'intellectualizing' in order to work as doing so actually meat grinders them into meme consumerism

>>17568613
Nick Land.