/lit/ - Literature

>>19548319
Esoteric Hitlerism

>>19548319
Greek

Which school of philosophy is the most chad?

Libertinism

>>19548319
Objectively absurdism. Camus was handsome and got more pussy than any of his contemporaries or predecessors, and his ideas reflected this fact

>>19548319
Anything aristocratic, elitest or neo-fascistic.

>>19548319
Austrian economics

>>19548319

Philosophical egoism with aristocratic political ideals.

It really has to be Marxism. No other school of thought has asserted itself so dominantly on the trajectory of world-historic events. Its most central work is a 1400 page treatise which is famously impenetrable (yet one of the most cited works in history) and so airtight that mainstream economists completely abandoned their most basic assumptions and introduced a paradigm shift in the field so as to escape Marx's conclusions. It took mainstream economists a full 70 years to articulate an alternative to one of Marx's theory of recessions. In fact, not only was the development of a bourgeois economic theory of economic crises stunted, but for most of that period the field was characterized by apologetics and outright denialism; they would deny the existence of any kind of business cycle even in the midst of catastrophic slowdowns in the economy. And that alternative theory (keynesianism) was only in vogue for about 30 years before being replaced with the neoclassical school, many of whose scholars still to this day believe that there are no built-in mechanisms in capitalist production which tend the economy to have recessions. Bourgeois economic theory is so weak that it can only grapple with a sanitized, abstracted, idealist conception of economic production. Marxian economic theory deals with capitalist production as it actually happens.

The biggest flaw in the field is actually a testament to just how fucking chad Marxism really is--it purports to be a theory of everything in material existence. Marxism presents such an embarrassment of riches that its practitioners are arrogant enough to try to articulate literally everything in its terms.

>>19549142
>It really has to be Marxism. No other school of thought has asserted itself so dominantly on the trajectory of world-historic events. Its most central work is a 1400 page treatise which is famously impenetrable (yet one of the most cited works in history) and so airtight that mainstream economists completely abandoned their most basic assumptions and introduced a paradigm shift in the field so as to escape Marx's conclusions. It took mainstream economists a full 70 years to articulate an alternative to one of Marx's theory of recessions. In fact, not only was the development of a bourgeois economic theory of economic crises stunted, but for most of that period the field was characterized by apologetics and outright denialism; they would deny the existence of any kind of business cycle even in the midst of catastrophic slowdowns in the economy. And that alternative theory (keynesianism) was only in vogue for about 30 years before being replaced with the neoclassical school, many of whose scholars still to this day believe that there are no built-in mechanisms in capitalist production which tend the economy to have recessions. Bourgeois economic theory is so weak that it can only grapple with a sanitized, abstracted, idealist conception of economic production. Marxian economic theory deals with capitalist production as it actually happens.
>The biggest flaw in the field is actually a testament to just how fucking chad Marxism really is--it purports to be a theory of everything in material existence. Marxism presents such an embarrassment of riches that its practitioners are arrogant enough to try to articulate literally everything in its terms.
what

>>19549142
>It really has to be Marxism. No other school of thought has asserted itself so dominantly on the trajectory of world-historic events. Its most central work is a 1400 page treatise which is famously impenetrable (yet one of the most cited works in history) and so airtight that mainstream economists completely abandoned their most basic assumptions and introduced a paradigm shift in the field so as to escape Marx's conclusions. It took mainstream economists a full 70 years to articulate an alternative to one of Marx's theory of recessions. In fact, not only was the development of a bourgeois economic theory of economic crises stunted, but for most of that period the field was characterized by apologetics and outright denialism; they would deny the existence of any kind of business cycle even in the midst of catastrophic slowdowns in the economy. And that alternative theory (keynesianism) was only in vogue for about 30 years before being replaced with the neoclassical school, many of whose scholars still to this day believe that there are no built-in mechanisms in capitalist production which tend the economy to have recessions. Bourgeois economic theory is so weak that it can only grapple with a sanitized, abstracted, idealist conception of economic production. Marxian economic theory deals with capitalist production as it actually happens.
true
>The biggest flaw in the field is actually a testament to just how fucking chad Marxism really is--it purports to be a theory of everything in material existence. Marxism presents such an embarrassment of riches that its practitioners are arrogant enough to try to articulate literally everything in its terms.
what

>>19549362
>what
Is there anything you need from me to clarify? My point is that most scientific theories are narrowly tailored, suited only for analysis of specific category of phenomena. Marxism, on the other hand, has so much bandwidth that Marxists find themselves applying the Marxian framework to phenomena as different as, say, the Haitian revolution of 1793 and the growing predominance of AI research in 21st century math departments. It's a testament to how robust Marx and co's ideas are, but also a bit problematic as it puts Marxism at odds with what's considered best scientific practices. To give an example of the latter, a lot of the reason why Chomsky won the generative semantics debate of the 1970s was he convincingly argued that his opponents' theory was too broad in scope to constitute science.

"philosophy is for virgins"
-A normy work colleague I tried getting deep with.

I mean, he's not wrong. People who are happy and well adjusted don't tend to have much need for philosophy.

>>19548319
Nihilism with longing for the other shore. Either that or Daoism.

>>19549142
*to the tune of The Lion Sleeps Tonight* dilate

>>19549470
it doesn't purport to be a theory of everything in material existence, i don't think

>>19549470
>>19549513
have you read anti-duhring?

>>19549534
admittedly no (or, well, not the entire thing--I've read socialism utopian and scientific), that's a pretty big blindspot for me. Is your comment meant to suggest that most Marxists don't take dialectical materialism to be a method of account for all material phenomena? I may very well be wrong; I haven't read very many works which explicitly center dialectical materialism

>>19549557
dialectical materialism is really just something made up by leninists/stalinists

>>19548319
Advaita Vedanta

>>19549588
you mean in Lenin's empirio book or whatever? How then would you characterize anti-duhring if not as dialectical materialism?

>>19548337
This picture is hopefuel when you’ve seen the after.

>>19549667
marx and engels were anti-systematic philosophy
in fact, duhring's (and many other contemporaries') critiques of marx was that his thought was too narrow and limited, in fact this critique still continues to this day as one of the biggest intellectual rebukes of marx

>>19549711
Ah that makes sense. I'm not sure if I've seen Marx characterized as too narrow but rather as too reductive i.e. Marx as nothing but a mechanical grubby materialist. I think that all scientific theories are a bit reductive, but Marx may not have personally been as much of an economic determinist as some suggest. In a letter Engels wrote "Marx and I are partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-a-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the oportunity to allow the other elements involved in the interaction to come into their rights."
Regardless of that, I still do think that the scope of Marxism--even if we nix "dialectical materialism"--is vastly greater than most if not all other sociological/economic paradigms, to the point where its still not quite in line with typical scientific practices.

>>19549710
Post it

my diaryanism

>>19549472
>people who are happy and well adjusted don't need philosophy
I have a brother who is a full on deano and he just distracts himself enough to not consider life deeply, read into this what you will but I think it's equally as cowardly a position

>>19548319
Scholasticism

>>19550004
IDK. Not necissarily. Is there a reason to consider life deeply apondicticly? Does it necidssarily produce anything of worth besides making constructs in your head you can be mad at?

>>19550020
I would consider the deano lifestyle to be a case of ignorance, you might call it 'absurdist materialism' or just rat-race shit, either way I think willingly avoiding the conversation beneath life when we are clearly intelligent beings is stupid. It's not like we have the benefit of being apes and returning to the forests. Now you have the worst of both worlds, you are living in ignorance in a cold urban shithole.

>>19549592
Satyameva Jayate

>>19550032
But I think there are levels to this. You dont have to ask questions you dont think are pertinent to you, or muse on things that seem all together abstract or otherwize. Not building an obilisk of knowledge does not make one an ape, You could simply be more contextual and fluid with your thought. At a certain point something seems semantical and all together unnecissary to look into with any seriousness. Not saying this is correct, but I wouldnt necissarily call it cowardly (of course it might if its done underfear rather than lack of care).

THat shopenhaur quote along the lines of “you can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want” kinda applies. Not everyone wants a structured explicit understanding of meaning. In fact, thats a difference in core ontology in itself.

>>19550069
Interesting effort post anon,
I understand there is somekind of rubber band to curiosity itself, however I find it unreasonable that life in this day and age is so well oiled that none of it requires much concern. I know myself that with drinking and smoking if one would, is sort of a shortcut to ending absurdist thinking and towards a weird kind of utilitarian medicine to cope with the cowardice en mass.
To enjoy the small things without a care is one thing, but I find no strength in the idea that this globohomo-for-lack-of-better-term is "just fine".
I would argue that the ideal philosophy depends on the age, in this case maybe Noah or Napoleon, but cannot think of a time when unseriousness has prevailed. Perhaps in the 90s in california in the rich areas untouched by aids.
I notice it in myself, giving up in your own home is the same philosophically as being ok with living in a shithole's culture.

>>19550158
While, that might be true, I feel that you took a first steep that kind of seperates where a thought process might go.
>however I find it unreasonable that life in this day and age is so well oiled that none of it requires much concern.
what if one at the beginning of that thought doesnt see life as unreasonable? DOesnt really take into consideration if its well oiled or not. there might be causes and effects in line with apparent causality, but applying meaning to them or trying to decipher them is an artistic effort to begin with, something done on a whim rather than structured. a happened then b. not exactly sure what a is or b is, but thats not unfair, there isnt a meaning besides some implicit sense of right or wrong contextually, there is no philosophy besides as an artistic medium to express grunge or smugness or whatever.

Its not enjoying the small things while ignoring the larger things, its not a dialectic. its simply this is what I am focusing on at the moment, its not coping with one thing against another, because that another is not seen as a distinct thing at all. just a bunch of causes and effects you can group in different ways.

Again, not that this is correct. concrete broader ideologies are also a method and are also “real” in a sense. I personally try to remember to take a compatablist aproach. Both engaging in deeper thought, but being aware that whatever I come to might itself be a glass castle that could be shattered or shifted with a new way of seeing things that replaces the old. But also being aware of those construct’s use for actually trying to understand the world. Copernican revolutions and all. Not saying there is any quantitative certainty or equality between positions, that itself would be synthetic, some I find more compelling than others.

THere was a paper on how muslims in west africa litterally drank the quran and I found it interesting in its ability to try and understand a different ontological position.

>>19550225
kinda rambled here as well.

A point being that I can understand, and sometimes im nonplused by deeper thought as well and feel it looses an implicit authenticity, but personally I do liker deeper stuff from time to time as well.

Im on ritalin now btw.

>>19548319
Pessimism.

>>19550225
>contextually, there is no philosophy besides as an artistic medium to express grunge or smugness or whatever.
excuse me if I'm taking this quote prematurely, have you read Houellebecq's essay Staying Alive? There is a kind of blackhole here, because like Camus who found himself unable to truly express his way out of pessimism, what communication is there besides merely repeating nihilisms? I myself believe that for one the place I live in is plebian, whether it is or isn't is almost besides the point, my philosophy however pessimistic it maybe is however still vital, more vital having read philosophy since I believe now, albeit in a crazed fascistic way that I hope resides in being aware of the changes that if they were to happen, were to turf over the mistakes of the now.
It is still as cowardly as the position of deano or normie however since there is no action taking place. Action which is bannable from the point of view of the country's lawmakings.
Those who live in Muslim countries have a power structure built into their civilian lifestyles, making it "less embarrasing" to live as civilians, in western countries being ignorant and just watching daytime telly is barely pleasurable to begin with and so isn't even hedonisitically good.

Just be yourself

>>19548337

>Which school of philosophy is the most chad?

>>19550468
> have you read Houellebecq's essay Staying Alive?
no. am vaguelly familiar with his attitudes though.
The part that you quoted was me trying to express how less serious people might wear philosophy more like a article of clothing from time to time as a means of expression rather than philosophy for itself. Its not a repeating nihilism if ideology isnt even really involved beforehand (at least not premeditated ideology). Laughing when something feels funny, snearing when something feels disgusting. Not trying to pin a word or construct to a feeling, but just being.

I do understand there is a vitality in a deeper dive into thought and process, and how it can be kind of isolating when others around you cant or dont want to actually converse about it analytically. I would agree that it is a brave act, but cowardlyness predicates on the cause. if they care or not. And there is a totalitarian power in that.

I would also agree that there is a more cohesive sense of meaning in the islamic s=civilization in general.

>>19550579
Based and try pilled.

Any philosophy that actually requires something of the participant in regards to enforcing some sort of lifestyle. The domination of natural inclinations, sex urges, sin, the cleansing of hatred. A genuine attempt to be something better than a mere human but to be a man, a man. Not a hedonist not a slave to oneself or others but a conscious being. All this while maintaining ones humility. In other words philosophy is useless become orthodox catholic.

>>19548319
Philosophical Pessimism, literally no other school make everyone seethe this hard. You win the game by not playing the game.

>>19548319
My own.

>>19551991
who's this d00d

>>19549472

Nah, philosophy isn't for self help. Thoughtless people are rabble

>>19552481
My great-grandfather's uncle.

>>19551991
No one cares about pessimism except pessimists, get over yourself.

>>19549142
5 star post

>>19550579
He can't get that haircut. His hair is too thin. You weren't paying attention. This is like telling a crippled mam to run. It can't happen.

>>19551991
>never have sex
>kills himself
pessimists only btfo themselves

>>19552481
Philipp Mainländer

>>19552630
They do care when shit hits the fan and realize how right they were.

>>19552832
You win the game by not playing it. First axiom of Pessimism is a long funereal sigh, it is irrefutable.

>>19548319

Nietzsche's striving for a self-determined 'better' -by determining and affirming your values and instincts, even the contradictory ones, with as much total self awareness, then extrapolating to distil their essence into the never ending goal of carving upon reality ever more grand, sublime, and nuanced expressions of them.

>>19552846
Pessimism is the (sub)conscious urge to self-sabotage to 'prove' some sort of comforting justification and validation of your own failures and resulting hopelessness.

>>19548337
Whatever Alexander the Great or Cyrus the Great prescribed to

>>19548319
Mine

>>19552884
Life is a death trap, a fall, a continuous degeneration, diseased flesh getting more diseased, a story told by a fool, a journey towards dusty death.

You win the game by not playing it.

>>19549484
Are there any good books on daoism?
Most I've found talk daoism and its influence but never really seem to focus on just daoism itself

>>19552937
You don't win shit, there's no 'not playing the game'. You are only handicapping yourself, castrated for good conscience, and afraid of failure.

>>19552962
Lao Ze wrote the book on it. James Legge's is the best English translation.

>>19552968
Failure is all there is within life. Life a doomed fight in which one is destined to lose. No ambition will save one from the blackness.

Pessimist is a player who takes no chances. You win the game by not playing it.

>>19552975
Thank you

>>19548319
My school

>>19548319
>Which school of philosophy is the most chad?

go back to watching fallout new vegas memes on youtube

Philosophy is a Chad's best friend

>>19552813
cope harder dude. its nobodies fault except your own that people hate you and find you repulsive :)

whatever the opposite of >>19552995 is

primary school

>>19549470
most "Marxists" are just hippies who hate working, or anything productive really. I'm not against that but cut the shit.
Capitalism may inspire men to become psychopaths to survive but Marxism falls apart on impact when you realise that the main drive of humanity (sex) is purely a capital function (attraction value).

>>19548319
Fundamentally, the answer is Metaphysical Solipsism
It adheres to the credence, or dogma of Chad. It doesn't even have to explain literally any factor of itself. It would be redundant.

>>19548458
Who cares about pussy you dumb fucking nigger

>>19548319
>midwits still think Stirner is a philosopher when all he did was academically deconstruct philosophy as a whole
Missing the point...

>>19554444
checked
>>19554145
I know it's edgy but I would argue it's something like Objectivism but with a splash of Kantianism.
Chads know how to move through material social structures that they acknowledge as definable groups of people with value hierarchies that must be adhered to, deciding their best route from then on but like Paul Walker they also bridge people together rather than using them and discarding them. I don't know but most chads I have known are natural schmoozers who inhabit the same bodies as intelligent guys, looks isn't a chad thing but those are, it goes a long way for a guy, thanks for reading my blogpost

>>19549870

>>19548319
hegelianism probably

>>19549513
it's probably one of those MLs that's into dialectics of nature type stuff
>>19549534
>cites engels
yep

>>19550014
DEFINITELY not this

>>19551991
second one is epicureanism

>>19554844
>it's probably one of those MLs that's into dialectics of nature type stuff
if you're referring to the poster who is the poster that the poster you're replying to is replying to, that's me. I'm not a ML. i'm a soft trotskyist. Anyways desu I think I overstated my original position and I want to clarify that I'm not really that invested in dialectics of nature, and I usually only engage with the dialectic as a way of understanding movements that happen in the social/poliitical/economic sphere.
>>cites engels
Also not me. I'm the one who first mentioned Marx in this thread, the person you're quoting is a different person.

>>19553872
It might look that way if you spend too much time on reddit or instagram. But I recommend closing your laptop reading into the history of the labor movement, both ancient and present. You'll find that virtually all working class labor militants in the last 150 years have been directly or indirectly influenced by Marx. And I want to reiterate that the influence of Marx among the labor and labor militants is not something that ended 4 or 5 decades ago; it's still present and has always been present, although admittedly in a much more diluted form.

t. marxist trade unionist

>>19554946
Economics isn't just labour forces and unions, I would bother to reply more earnestly if you were so immediately condescending. DARE I point you towards Freakonomics memery.
The gist which Marxists tend to overlook is not how the labour is considered or whatever, it's how the value of that labour is decided.
Generally speaking, beautiful things rule the roost. All of those non-capitalist systems seem vastly superior right until the moment when you are forced to reconsider beauty makes things unequal. Unless you want to force people to disqualify beauty by making people forcefully equal, in which case that doesn't sound like Marxism, more like a misogynist dictatorship of design.

>>19554998
incoherent and vague post, without any specific references to how I might better understand your position.
>Economics isn't just labour forces and unions, I would bother to reply more earnestly if you were so immediately condescending. DARE I point you towards Freakonomics memery.
Will you instead direct me to marginal utility memery or do you intend to avoid the notion of value altogether?

I also have no idea what this strawman of "beauty" is about

>>19554998
>>19555229
also lmao dude, you call me condescending when your first comment in this discussion was some cliched comment about the personal character of Marxists. do you actually think or just mechanically repeat talking points from /pol/?

>>19554844
both of those posts are actually me lol

>>19555229
"you", yeah that's not what's happening

>>19548319
Stirnerite Salafism

>>19555245
>do you actually think or just mechanically repeat talking points from /pol/?

>>19554699
st. blackops2cel ascension

>>19555290
>>19555299
articulate some affirmative positions or leave this thread. I've already made my case for marxism

>>19553560
This image BTFOs of miserable people like >>19552813

>>19552995
Holy onions

>>19557106
Onion boys have faith in science, human progress and post-christian humanism.

Epicureanism. Church used to kill them for a reason.

>>19552995
>You win the game by not playing it.
any more dull aphorisms for us? I mean holy shit, is this really the argument for pessimism or are the pessimists just not sending their best? "No ambition will save one from the blackness" lmaooo. "the blackness"??? Does philosophical pessimism just derive its authority from cheap metaphors?
>You win the game by not playing it.
It's impossible to not play the "the game". If you work a job you're playing the game. If you live a life of crime you're playing the game. If you do neither and become homeless and beg for change you're still playing the game. All 3 roles perform important functions in the system. The only way to escape "the game" is revolution.

>>19554444
>Implying
Stirner did write about philosophy... His philosophy!
>Quote
My intercourse with the world, what does it aim at? I want to have the enjoyment of it, therefore it must be my property, and therefore I want to win it. I do not want the liberty of men, nor their equality; I want only my power over them, I want to make them my property, i.e. material for enjoyment. And, if I do not succeed in that, well, then I call even the power over life and death, which Church and State reserved to themselves — mine. Brand that officer’s widow who, in the flight in Russia, after her leg has been shot away, takes the garter from it, strangles her child therewith, and then bleeds to death alongside the corpse — brand the memory of the — infanticide. Who knows, if this child had remained alive, how much it might have “been of use to the world!” The mother murdered it because she wanted to die satisfied and at rest. Perhaps this case still appeals to your sentimentality, and you do not know how to read out of it anything further. Be it so; I on my part use it as an example for this, that my satisfaction decides about my relation to men, and that I do not renounce, from any access of humility, even the power over life and death.

>>19552962
The Watercourse Way by Alan Watts, highly recommend

>>19548319
gotta be solipsism

>>19558157
The Player Who Takes No Chances

https://youtu.be/bJsV69bQhYI

>The only way to escape "the game" is revolution.

https://youtu.be/5fetSoZFyBw

Esoteric Racism

>>19548319
I find taoism mixed with a sprinkling of cybernetic post-modernism in the context of de maistre edge really jerks me off, so too speak.

>>19553560
Best ending

>>19549142
>It really has to be Marxism. No other school of thought has asserted itself so dominantly on the trajectory of world-historic events. Its most central work is a 1400 page treatise which is famously impenetrable (yet one of the most cited works in history) and so airtight that mainstream economists completely abandoned their most basic assumptions and introduced a paradigm shift in the field so as to escape Marx's conclusions. It took mainstream economists a full 70 years to articulate an alternative to one of Marx's theory of recessions. In fact, not only was the development of a bourgeois economic theory of economic crises stunted, but for most of that period the field was characterized by apologetics and outright denialism; they would deny the existence of any kind of business cycle even in the midst of catastrophic slowdowns in the economy. And that alternative theory (keynesianism) was only in vogue for about 30 years before being replaced with the neoclassical school, many of whose scholars still to this day believe that there are no built-in mechanisms in capitalist production which tend the economy to have recessions. Bourgeois economic theory is so weak that it can only grapple with a sanitized, abstracted, idealist conception of economic production. Marxian economic theory deals with capitalist production as it actually happens.

>The biggest flaw in the field is actually a testament to just how fucking chad Marxism really is--it purports to be a theory of everything in material existence. Marxism presents such an embarrassment of riches that its practitioners are arrogant enough to try to articulate literally everything in its terms.

>>19548319
Thomism.

>>19554856
>DEFINITELY not this

>>19554444
See also: Socrates, Descartes, and Wittgenstein.

>>19554946
>t. marxist trade unionist

>>19555559
>I've already made my case for marxism
Take your meds, you're hallucinating again

>>19559541
I have to give props to that one priests who doesn't believe in evolution purely because he thinks it violates the platonic idea of forms

>>19548323
>>19548327
>>19548683
>>19548767
>>19548897
>>19549592
All of you are based.
Also, Metaphysical Monism and everything it agrees with.
>>19549142
>>19550246
>>19554885
>>19558272
>>19549484
fucking cringeful idiots all of you

>>19559734
What?

>>19559815
The Metaphysics of Evolution
didn't read though