/lit/ - Literature

>>5454252
Moral Antinatalism

>>5454252
>Your actions disprove your philosophy.
>being a teenager.
What have you read?

>>5454270

I don't see how it disproves my philosophy to be honest. I believe good people exist, I like having fun and enjoying the little pleasures in life.

Philosophy is obsolete, but not because of science.

Philosophy is obsolete because 98% of it isn't practical and/or doesn't matter, one way or the other.

>>5454252

Schopenhauer.

>>5454252
You should "get into" this

>>5454293

This is true. The only philosophers even worth looking into are maybe Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer and Spinoza. Everything else is shit and irrelevant.

>>5454304

Nah. I'm not suicidal.

>>5454310
The Stoics, the Cynics? Buddha?

>>5454252
Who should I read if I think all of that is irrelevant to the true nature of existence, and that things like "good and evil" are completely subjective?

>>5454315

Good and evil isn't subjective.

Why would you only want to read philosophy that reinforces your preconceived notions?

>>5454319
>Good and evil isn't subjective.
How so? college boy.

>>5454336

Because of the 10 commandments :)

Good and evil is objectively defined and you can't twist it

The problem with your philosophy is you don't realize how small of a perspective you have. Your criticism of human nature as a whole, while admitting that you are unread and uneducated in classical philosophy, shows that whatever you say is going to be retarded. Instead of assuming that what you have to say is of value and looking for validation, you should admit the obvious truth you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and read as much as you can

John Gray, maybe.

>>5454310
>Implying Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer and Spinoza are practical.

You done shit yourself, son.

the "rust cohle" school of thought may appeal to you

You're approaching this whole thing wrong. In reading philosophy you're sure to run across thinkers that resonate with you, but you shouldn't try to seek them out. Rather, read across the board, find those that challenge your beliefs and presuppositions, and see if they don't change your mind. If they don't that's just fine, but the practice of reading philosophy is not be just an attempt to hear your own opinions echoed by others.

>>5454349
This is the one true answer to your question OP.

liquid post modern fictional anarchistical nationalism

Fascist eutectic avicennistic cultural marxism

>Reading philosophers that align with your beliefs.
First of all, if you haven't, you should probably get an 'intro to philosophy' book or lecture series online, I'm sure youtube has some.

Then, find the philosopher that you disagree most with, and read them. By doing this, you will be forced to confront your own beliefs and then either discard them, or hold onto them, but have better reasons for holding them.

Read Schopenhauer, he was a pessimist and is easy to read even without historical context. Then, armed with knowledge about Schopenhauer, go read other philosophers. Repeat until you have a good general knowledge of the history of philosophy.

Just don't become a continental.

>>5454293
>Not practical -> Obsolete
I bet you think a good chunk of pure mathematics is a waste of time, too.

>>5454252
Schopenhauer

More importantly, when you're bored with him, read Nietzsche and stop being the last man.

Schopenhauer