/lit/ - Literature

stfu

>>5563438
nah m8

>Hegel
>Wittgenstein
>Kant
>Nietzsche
...
...
...
>Satan

/lit/ should write a book analyzing rugrats episodes

also why did you read hegel and wittgenstein and kant what is your purpose

camus
stirner

dont need anyone else

>>5563451
My purpose is to construct a transcendental system of philosophy for the 21st century.

>>5563452
what were camus' political views

>>5563457
wat do u have so far

>>5563460
individualistic right wing

he fought for a radical communist party early in his life but I don't see that as anything more than rebellion for the sake of rebellion. it's camus after all. the guy with an entire philosophy based around having something to prove.

it would be ridiculous to continue caring about "philosophy" after having read pic related.

>>5563429
Aristotle
Plato
Democritus
Dawkins
Gervais

>>5563466
All things that can be said to exist in a substantial manner-that is, all things that affect human perception of the world within which they exist-can be determined to fall into one of three categories: Words, Things, and Ideas. At the apex of Word, Thing, and Idea is the Subject, the entity around which this ontological analytic is constructed. Anything which can understand Words, have Ideas, and be influenced causally by Things is a Subject. A Subject is barred from its external world and the things in it (which are not the Subject being barred) by transcendental space. Transcendental space is the only area where misperception of reality may occur, since all things inside the Subject are understood to be in accordance with its unified equilibrium, and all things outside it are understood to be causally united and (through this causal unity) in a state of systemic equilibrium. The purpose of my transcendental analytic is to provide people with a new way to sweep transcendental space (which is, according to my analytic, the place where ideology and religion come into being and have their mediating effect) and determine what they really should care about, what really exists, and what they really mean when they say something.
I have particular definitions by which I understand Words, Things, and Ideas. I've filled up a couple notebooks with notes.
I don't plan to break new ground, I just want the system I produce to give people a new way of understanding the things they already know and give them a sense of purpose beyond vulgar materialism.

>>5563429
>Plato
>Nietzsche
>Stirner
>Hegel
>Descartes

>>5563501
idk man this sounds p boring why not write something funny instead

>>5563509
Why can't I do both?

>>5563520
idk lol

>>5563429
> Nietzche
> Hegel
> Wittgenstein
> Same list
? ? ?

Kierkegaard

Popper
Socrates
Schopenhauer
Russell
Gödel

>>5563429
>Foucault
>Bourdieu
>Kant
>Nietzsche
>Spinoza (because he's so damn cool)

>>5563429
>Kierkegaard
>Schopenhauer
>Satre
>Laozi
>Herac/lit/us

The first "philosopher" I got into was Thoreau but Schopenhauer put a bullet through his optimism and "nature is beautiful" bullshit. Then I got into Nietzsche and he made most of Schopenhauer's metaphysics boring and his pessimism and asceticism seem pussyish. Who do I read next to do away with Nietzsche and his elitist fedora tipping? I have a feeling the fourth philosopher is *the* philosopher for me.

>Schopie
>Neetch
>Stirner
>Zapffe
>Michelstaedter (simply because he had the balls to actually live as he preached)

>>5563600
try kierketard

>Jesus
>Nietzsche

Pick one.

>>5563501
skype??

>>5563600

Well, Plato and Aristotle first of all and then Alfred North Whitehead.

>>5563429
>no plato and/or aristotle
gross

>>5563638
>having a linear outlook

>>5563483
iirc he later denounced the radical communists he was with and said they were as bad as what they fought against.

Wow, a lot of shitty logocentric pseudo-philosophy itt.

>Laozi
>Zhuangzi
>Xunzi
>Mozi
>Han Feizi

>>5563429
Marx
Godel
Keynes
Minsky
Graeber

I'm saging a "top 5" thread but answering anyway because I contain multitudes

>>5563501
Could something be both a word and idea? Is love the word different from love the concept? Can words and ideas influence each other in the transcendental space?

>>5563501
Sounds interesting, good luck. Though you should absolutely read Foucault's The Order of Things. It illustrates the doublet of "Man (subject and object)," among many other things, such as the relationship between words and things, which is determined by a certain episteme (which is not static but determined by certain conditions).

>>5563638
Neetzchy had a positive opinion of Jesus, but not of his followers.

Stirner
Marx
Zizek
Baudillard
Butler

Molyneux
De Botton
Christ
Carlin
Affleck

>>5563644
I don't do Skype, soz. I'm gonna be tripfagging here as GWF Bagel for a while, though, so feel free to talk to me in threads I post in
>>5563907
By Idea I understand any process or sensation internal to the transcendental boundary of the subject. As such, a Word cannot be an idea, although language is a mode of thought. The word kills the idea it is meant to express because it cannot ever fully express the idea as it is to the subject.
By Word I understand any symbol, or anything that has no semantic content separately from that applied to it by a subject. As semantic content can only come from a subject and can only be interpreted by one, this category consists of anything that can be interpreted and nothing but this. Essentially, words are attempts to bridge the gap that exists between subjects.
By Thing I understand anything that exists in the physical world and doesn't rely on some sort of content imparted by a subject for its categorical nature. All subatomic particles and all things made up of them are things.
Love is a transcendental union of subjects. The same is true of any sufficiently powerful emotion in which multiple subjects are involved. Hatred, when mutual and intense, is a transcendental union as well. By transcendental union, I understand a state in which a plurality of subjects experience intense or meaningful Ideas that are so similar as to be called identical, and in which this plurality conceives of itself as a singular unit. Compare this with the Union of Egoists in Stirner.
>>5563940
I've been meaning to check out Foucault, I'll look into him. Thanks for the suggestion.

>>5564519
Words have a massive influence within transcendental space. The degree to which language and symbolism influences thought and worldview is the degree to which Words influence Ideas.

Derrida
Foucault
Deleuze
Sartre
Camus

>>5563600
Wittgenstein

>>5563429
>me
>me
>me
>me
>me
>my cat

so when did everyone here realize philosophy is only good for explaining why you're in a bad mood?

>>5564557
When I started reading philosophy and noticed all these faggots talk about is how much pleasure they get out of thinking about thought b

that's actually a pretty spot on political cartoon

>>5564574
no better way to cure a bad mood than to spread it

>>5563600
Alfred korzybski

>>5564598
Are you Schopenhauer?

>>5564519
you've got an interesting system (or beginning of a system) in the works here. Can a subject be both a subject and an Idea? like my mother is her own respective subject but she also fits into the archetype for mother which is a concept that shapes my experience?

>>5563429
>Plato
>Aquinas
>Kant
>Kierkegaard
>Nietzsche
Prove me wring.

I have not read past Locke;

1. Aristotle
2. Spinoza
3. Plato
4. Heraclitus
5. Locke

>>5564220

>>5563501
jesus christ this is dumb m8

>>5563501
>words things and ideas
Nigga the world only consists of Subjects and Objects.
Fuck off with your shitty philosophy.

>>5563600
>>5563618
I vote for Kierkagaard too. He will possibly change your life. Wittgeinstein has regarded him as being 2deep4me.

1. Wittgenstein
2. Kripke
3. Gödel
4. Ayer
5. Plantinga

>>5563501

>>5563530
The real problem is Jesus and Nietzsche.

>>5565374
Why?

>>5565054
>wring
just did

>>5563597
Best taste in thread

>>5563429
>Hegel
>Wittgenstein
surely the trips on this board can't get any worse

Plato
Kierkegaard
Foucault
Chomsky
Machiavelli

>>5565048
A Subject like 'mother' is the Thing referred to by the Word 'mother.' The archetype is an Idea that may be common to multiple Subjects. Mother is never 'mother' to herself, however. Mother always thinks of herself as 'I,' or in terms which have the same meaning that 'I' has for me when I use it. The Word 'mother' fails to impart this I-ness, which is vital to subjectivity because it is the way the Subject grasps itself. Without I-ness, there is no Subject.
Any person, essentially, is a Subject. The ontology of the Subject is the extent of my anthropological considerations.

>>5565074
Can't subjects be objects? Define your terms, plz

>Schelling
>Joseph de Maistre
>Heidi
>Augstine
>Toynbee

Guess I live them free-will philosophy.

Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Leibniz
Marcus Aurelius
Plato

>>5563483
>right-wing
Are you retarded? He was an anarcho-syndicalist (or at least a regular one), he dedicates a chapter to it in 'The Rebel'.

>>5567103
His views changed, faggot

>>5567106
His views on communism changed, nothing else. He only stopped supporting them once he found out about gulags and slave labor, it wasn't anything ideological.

Plato
Aquinas
Spinoza
Hobbes
Evola :^)

>>5567110
Those are integral parts of communism, how could he not know about them?

>>5567116
Ayn Rand, please leave.

>>5563460
Libertarian communism.

>>5567121
You're just mad because of my uninhibited mercantilism.

>>5567139
You're just mad because you can't pretend your favorite philosopher isn't a libertarian navel-gazer like you. He wrote for socialist magazines all his life, even when he denounced Marxism and political revolutions.

>>5567112
Good luck, Evola-chan! ;)

>>5567152
You're just mad because you're a collectivist pig intent on stifling individualism. Freedom outside of capitalism is impossible.

>>5567155
>using ad homonyms instead of arguing over the main issue that Camus was or wasn't right-wing
How is property a freedom when only the rich can express this freedom? How can we be free in capitalism when we have no freedom to decide who owns the factories, who keeps the profits, and who can influence the government? Capitalists like to attack leftists as 'big government', when state leftism is as corrupt as capitalism. You cannot have freedom in capitalism, and you cannot have freedom within the state.

>>5567170
Top kek, I'm actually an anarcho-syndicalist. You've been had :^)

>>5567179
le ebin maymay, xD

>>5567155
>Freedom outside of capitalism is impossible.
lmao

>>5567155
>There are people who think like this

>>5567155
> Freedom outside of capitalism is impossible.
>freedom
>capitalism
>in the same sentence
u wot?

>>5567348
Without capitalism there isn't freedom. Prove me wrong.

>>5567366
>Prove me wrong.
Capitalism requires property rights (no other way to hoard capital), which have to be enforced by some entity, usually a state. Laws and legislation are based on coercion, and are thus the exact opposite of freedom.

Check and mate, you dumb fuck. I bet you just read your first Rand novel and now wank yourself to sleep thinking about "capitalism".

>ranking philosophers
exceptionally pleb

>>5567375
At least I'm not a Marxist.
The government doesn't interfere in a genuinely free market, BTW, so your stuff about coersion doesn't apply to proper laissez faire capitalis .

>>5567403
>At least I'm not a Marxist.
Do you think I care?
>The government doesn't interfere in a genuinely free market, BTW, so your stuff about coersion doesn't apply to proper laissez faire capitalis .
>being this fucking retarded
The only "genuinely free market" is a market in an anarchy, with no rulers or rules. That's freedom, the moment you push an entity that monopolizes violence and forces you to obey by them (the state), you are no longer free.

There is no freedom in laissez faire capitalism, and coincidentally that system of capitalism is also not practised anywhere today.

>>5567408
There should be an anarchistic free market, then.

>>5567417
>There should be an anarchistic free market, then.
Correction: "There should be anarchy", a free market automatically follows.

>>5567155
>Freedom outside of capitalism is impossible
>Stupidity beyond words

>>5567417
>>5567423
Usually anarchy works better with collectivism and people doing their share becuase they have to, which is the principle of the commune. Free market requires someone to have things the rest doesn't have and to demand certain privileges because of that, which is actively against freedom. If everyone were free you'd do things because you either need them to survive or you want to.

>>5567423
No, anarchy is bad for capitalism. There should be a free market the gov't doesn't touch.

>>5567431
> Free market requires someone to have things the rest doesn't have and to demand certain privileges because of that, which is actively against freedom.
Wrong. A "free market" simply means that anyone is free to do any business, it has nothing to do with "demanding privileges" (there are no privileges to demand, since there is no strong authority, e.g. the State, to provide them).

>If everyone were free you'd do things because you either need them to survive or you want to.
Thanks captain obvious?

>>5567433
>There should be a free market the gov't doesn't touch.
I hope you're not this guy >>5567403 , because I've already explained this. There cannot be a free market as long as there is capitalism, because capitalism is based on property rights, which are based on coercion (all laws are coercive, enforced by the state).

>anarcho-capitalist

"Anything that happens must be good. Unless I decide something that happened isn't good, then that's an exception."

>>5567436
If I'm free to do any business I'm free to pay someone to break your legs so you can't compete with me, so I can have a monopoly and push a lesser quality product at a higher price. If it's something that's needed for that community, like the main protein source available, then I'm owning them through the free market.

>>5567442
Well without the government there won't be property rights, capitalists will keep control of their means of production by threat of force.

>>5567458
That's just totalitarianis .

>>5567458
That's just fucked up.

>>5563429
GOAT:
>Kant
>Nietzsche
>Schopenhauer
>Quine
>Putnam

>Ayn rand
2014

1. Stirner
2. Zapffe
3. Cioran
4. Nietzsche

>>5563429

Ghazali
Rousseau
Plato-Socrates dynamic duo for humour

That's it so far.

>>5567626
>philosophers
>ghazali

>>5567626

Oh maybe, Seneca or Marky Mark Aurelius too

>>5567631

Looks like somebody hasn't read Ghazali

How much longer until there are threads similar to /mu/'s top 50 albums threads except with books and philosophers?

>>5567658
What are your favorite books, tripshit?

Quine
Lukacs
Popper
Marx
Ryle

>ctrl-f: heidegger
>0 results
Plebs, all of you.