/lit/ - Literature

There are no philosophers. Chomsky is living corpse and zizek is a meme; the rest are irrelevant old NPCs repeating what was already said before

People get rich and then LARP as philosophers and use their money to rule by proxy through elected politicians. They're just naive and incompetent, because they're better at writing code and managing layoffs than leading a nation.

>>20075181
How on earth does Bakker write such good analysis on how people cause their own suffering, trains you through his books on how to see it, shows the way people use ignorance as their foundations, place meaning into a plethora of impermanent things making them able to be manipulated and suffer for it, shows the needed escape from mere concept, and more.
Yet very clearly suffers and falls into mass hysteria because an obese narcissist was elected in a declining burgerland below him?

>>20075181
it should be the other way around our kings should become philosophers. They need to be a king first before they become a philosopher.

>>20075204
Then there's me, who are taking on new concepts

>>20075500
Most people like suffering. They'd rather complain about their problems than fix them, because problems give them meaning and purpose. They fear boredom more than pain.

>>20075181
nobody should be entitled to have any say in our society no matter what their qualifications are. the problem of our society is a problem of trust. if a doctor tells you to eat peanuts when you know that you're allergic to them, would you still do it regardless? who do you trust to make decisions on your behalf?

the only form of government that I support is a government in which I can decapitate our leaders heads off if they screw up. I don't care if it's a democracy, dictatorship, communism, or whatever, as long as the people making decisions on everyone elses behalf are actually hold accountable for their mistakes.
we live in a society that legitimizes incompetence through a voting system, and makes genocide by stupidity legal.

>>20075500
You haven't read Bakker have you? His fantasy series is rife with his political beliefs that this doesn't surprise me whatsoever.

>>20076674
I've read a bit from him, nothing from the aspect emperor.
But the politics wasn't my point.

>>20075500
>Yet very clearly suffers and falls into mass hysteria because an obese narcissist was elected in a declining burgerland below him?
First time seeing a leftist/progressive show their true self? Because there’s nothing unusual about it.

>>20075181
Plato didn't predict it, it's presented as a very difficult thing to ever achieve, although theoretically possible
The true philosopher will not want to rule and will have little reason to care for public life, the pursuit of wisdom completes him, he is like the stargazer standing on the deck of the ship awestruck by the beauty of the heavens
The people are likewise naturally hostile to him, he is not bound by charm or by shame to convention and is a threat to what the people regard to be their own. He represents a mortal danger to the things held up to be good by the city and would be devoured by the creatures of convention.

The people must be convinced that this type of man is best equipped to lead them to the good, and this is possible if the men of rhetoric (previously convention's greatest guardians) see this and turn their craft on the people. This is possible, but the hardest component lies in convincing the true philosophers to rule, they must be compelled to re-enter the cave, they must be dragged in a manner of speaking back into worldly affairs, the city must force them to turn their eyes from the sublime to the vulgar. That free man wants to live out in the light and, once having left it, holds great contempt for the cave and its inhabitants, nothing in the city contributes to his specific pleasures. He wants nothing from it and he does not benefit from the city's riches as other types of ruler are.

It's a perfect circle, that the philosopher must persuade the people (or the men of rhetoric, the political creatures), but the people must compel the philosophers to persuade them to allow them to rule. I think the chief problem in the modern day is however that there are very few of these 'philosophers' as described, and one would be as likely to find such virtuous men outside of academia/scholarly circles as within

>>20075181
>>20077043
Who is this and why is he obsessed with America?

>>20077181
how can a true philosopher, in any sense of the word, avert his eyes from the truth simply because it is ugly?
how can someone extraordinary feel contempt for the ordinary when his craving is exploration of the unknown?
would such a person not be better described as a delusional narcissist instead?
the problem is much more people not wanting to listen than philosophers not wanting to rule.
society is a ship
the navigation system shows we are going to crash
people don't like it so they ripped the navigation out
we're still going to crash but blind.
the problem with Plato's cavemen alegory is that people always assume that they're the ones who walked out of the cave and everyone else is still inside.
people are blinded by delusions of the outside world and refuse to look at the shadows in our own cave.

>>20077421
>how can a true philosopher, in any sense of the word, avert his eyes from the truth simply because it is ugly?
Well by the platonic view it's not the truth, it is exactly what he is looking at in the heavens, the forms, that is the truth from which the rest of reality comes, the images on the wall and those who are enslaved to them are not the truth in continuing that idea.
>how can someone extraordinary feel contempt for the ordinary when his craving is exploration of the unknown?
It's contempt for falsehood anon and those enslaved to it, and presumably he seeks the truth, rather than purely the unknown for the sake of it being the unknown
>would such a person not be better described as a delusional narcissist instead?
Such a charge would of course frequently be levied against him yes (and frequently was in their own way)
>the problem is much more people not wanting to listen than philosophers not wanting to rule.
For what reason would the philosopher want to turn away from his perfectly-engrossing contemplation of wisdom?
>society is a ship the navigation system shows we are going to crash
In what way do you think so? In so far as what kind of 'crash' do you mean, a metaphorical/spiritual one or a physical crash?
>the problem with Plato's cavemen alegory is that people always assume that they're the ones who walked out of the cave and everyone else is still inside.
I suppose, but only if these people have misread it, I don't think even the most profane and vulgar dilettante would really think themselves to be enlightened in the way Socrates means

>>20075204
This. Everyone else is either busy arguing themselves into hedonism or an analytic fiddling with language and logic while Rome burns.

Hegel was right when he said that the owl of Minerva begins its flight only with the onset of dusk, and this was important enough for him to state it directly: "A further word on the subject of issuing instructions on how the world ought to be: philosophy, at any rate, always comes too late to perform this function. As the thought of the world, it appears only at a time when actuality has gone through its formative process and attained its completed state." He was correct. A philosopher can neither guide the present nor predict the future.
>>20075204
>There are no philosophers.
I think Deleuze provided the best explanation for the the sterility of philosophy today. Picrel is absolutely correct. Some philosophy graduates (we can refuse to call them philosophers) decide to serve society by entering think tanks, sitting on ethics boards, etc. to "apply" philosophy. But they are completely abandoning it. The rest trawl the past and produce assemblages that can hardly be called concepts. Philosophy is not dead but it is frozen.

>>20075181
Buddha was a philosopher king and it was great. So great Hiragana was inspired by Sanskrit. Look how far his influence went and how deep. Buddha is synonymous with teaching at that point.
Wheels turned.
Monarchs churned. But we can't let white people in on this or else they will eat with chop sticks and make cringe Youtube videos.

>>20077389
IIRC, he's a Canadian fantasy author who is memed around here because one of his books features his self-insert character getting cuckolded, followed by an explanation of why cuckolding is a good thing.
I haven't read him, I'm just paraphrasing other anons.

>>20077502
> but only if these people have misread it
> I don't think even the most profane and vulgar dilettante would really think themselves to be enlightened
> in the way Socrates means
How would somebody who misread the cavemen allegory, know that they misread the allegory? Are they not going to, through their initial misperception, make wrong assumptions about everything else that follows? Would they not believe themselves to be enlightened in the way Socrates meant precisly because they misread it? My claim is simply that those who are in search of the truth would not assume to already be in possession of it.

>>20077916
>IIRC, he's a Canadian fantasy author who is memed around here
He’s not really memed around here. It’s just a few redditors trying to force him on us.
>because one of his books features his self-insert character getting cuckolded, followed by an explanation of why cuckolding is a good thing.
He has two self-inserts. The one that gets cuck and the other is the Gary Stu protagonist who’s perfect every way and an ubermensch because he was taught philosophy or some shit.

>>20077987
His own self-insert gets cuck, but then he has another one where he’s a Gary Stu? The fuck is his problem.

>>20075181
No. Academic types are cloistered pussies. They can't manage their own feelings and use mountains of theory and analysis to cover it up.

>>20075181
Why are lefties so hysterical?

>>20075181
>The Philosopher of this age is not a Socrates, a Plato, a Hooker, or Taylor, who inculcates on men the necessity and infinite worth of moral goodness, the great truth that our happiness depends on the mind which is within us, and not on the circumstances which are without us; but a Smith, a De Lolme, a Bentham, who chiefly inculcates the reverse of this,—that our happiness depends entirely on external circumstances; nay, that the strength and dignity of the mind within us is itself the creature and consequence of these. Were the laws, the government, in good order, all were well with us; the rest would care for itself! Dissentients from this opinion, expressed or implied, are now rarely to be met with; widely and angrily as men differ in its application, the principle is admitted by all.

Thomas Carlyle - "Signs of the Times"

>>20075181
How do you recognize a philosopher from a charlatan? Anyone can claim to be a philosopher but not everyone is philosophical.

>>20075500
>Yet very clearly suffers and falls into mass hysteria because an obese narcissist was elected in a declining burgerland below him?
They write for profit, you know exactly how.

>>20075181
Some midwit with a blog propped up by other blogging midwits is not a philosopher. There's no such as an intellectual in modern society, just varying degrees of blog and midwit circle jerking one another, they never touch truth.

>>20078857
>unironically quoting Carlyle
Let me guess, you've a folder full of Hitler iconography right?

>>20079031
Why Hitler and not Jesus?

>>20075204
http://orgyofthewill.net/
>Get philosophed on, retard.

>>20077886
>I think Deleuze provided the best explanation for the the sterility of philosophy today. Picrel is absolutely correct. Some philosophy graduates (we can refuse to call them philosophers) decide to serve society by entering think tanks, sitting on ethics boards, etc. to "apply" philosophy. But they are completely abandoning it. The rest trawl the past and produce assemblages that can hardly be called concepts. Philosophy is not dead but it is frozen.
Isn't his critique just conflating philosophy with either a progressive "science" or merely novel creativity? Why would the stultification of philosophy matter then, if it's just masturbation, as opposed to inquiry into the truth of things?

>>20077912
>hiragana
please stop being a weeb, your quality of life will improve immeasurably

>>20079084
But this is just a different flavour of the same midwittery being lambasted in this thread. An embarassing self-awareness that gravitates towards style at the expense of any actual substance. It only adds one more stop to the tired romp through our intellectual wasteland.

>>20075181
Yes because I am one

>>20076031
Based monarchist replacement theory chad

>>20077886
>Hegel was right
about as right as my random word generator
Stop calling this guy a philosopher .

>>20075181
I'm favorable of Noocracy, or aristocracy of the wise, however the very nature of wisdom precludes getting involved in politics as it is an inherently unwise endeavor. For one thing how would you establish a mandate in a nooocracy? Democratic elections are off the table because who the masses vote for is by no means assured to be wisest.

Wisdom is also mistaken for intelligence but the two are not the same. There are many intelligent political leaders but fewer wise ones. Intelligence is raw brain power, pure calculation ability , the capacity to achieve a goal effectively. It is amoral. Wisdom, in contrast, is always has a moral direction, has to do with judiciousness, with knowing what's best not just for oneself but for one's people, or for the world, or better yet, in principle. The problem is that wisdom and concentrated power don't mix. And it is in the logic of politics to amass and concentrate power . Wise rules are therefore comparatively rare. Furthermore, they may only appear out of the blue, with no means to evaluate or credentialize them. The only means of judging wisdom is by appraising words and deeds. There are no qualifications. The wealth and power and beauty of a person has no weight in determining the measure of their wisdom.

>>20079302
There is also a bias , call it the Bismarckian turn, in the western conception of the political leader as the quintessential Man of Action. Deep thinking, and certainly not the strained reflection and skepticism required of philosophy, has no place in it. After all good philosophy entertains all sides and perspectives. You try to prove your own position wrong in the course of defending it. The West values political leaders who are not too wordy but decisive, self-assured, and who are above all doers. After all what is the genesis of a political leader? They were once the warlords, the chieftains, the conquerers of the tribe. Sword and scepter are their aspects, not pen and parchment.

This does not reflect the truths of history however and the best leaders are often deep thinkers . Consider Ashoka the Great, emperor of the Indian Maurya Empire. A benevolent and wise ruler, sure he crushed a few rebellions here and there. But most of all he promoted harmony. Or the numerous Enlightened Despots of the early modern period in Europe, Frederick the Great who almost cared more for fostering the great minds of his time than he did subjugating his rivals and expanding his borders.

An enlightened noocracy's goal would be the idealistic betterment of the world, rather than the typical maintenance and expansion of a temporal power structure . They want the maintenance and expansion of the human mind as they know this is the the ultimate resource of any empire and the source of all lasting power.

There are no modern philosophers who have a "say in our society." Any major voice is just a mouthpiece for whatever's in vogue to get paid.

>>20078619
They’re sad empty people inside.

>>20075181
There is only one philosopher-king, and his name is Jesus Christ.

>>20075181
>Plato once argued in favor of this type of government
Left wing mental retards thinking they know Plato is comedy gold. Shit trolling btw.

>>20079026
This

>>20080743
>Genre fiction is the last place to write "literature"
Is he just coping since he's writing children's fiction

>>20080950
Yes. Pretty much. Guy hates that no one takes him seriously.