/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14671607]

Which philosopher had the best personal aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.14671638]

>>14671607

[Anonymous No.14671641]

>>14671638
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.14671645]

>>14671641
>retroactively destroys all religious and philosophical pursuits

[Anonymous No.14671652]

Sen no Rikyu gang rise up

[Anonymous No.14671653]

>>14671645
So you saw guenonfag and thought he was a good example to follow? Yeah, just keep going. I'm sure all posters of /lit/ are going to love krishnamurti.

[Anonymous No.14671660]

>>14671607
What's the name of that pessimistic philosopher whom Nietzsche wrote off as an edgelord? The dude had an a aesthetically pleasing big scraggly beard.

[Anonymous No.14671661]

[Anonymous No.14671665]

>>14671661
Aside from his shaved coomer face, I agree. Hume had style.

[Anonymous No.14671669]

>>14671653
>Yeah, just keep going. I'm sure all posters of /lit/ are going to love krishnamurti.

/lit/ is 50/50 on UG. 9/10 don't understand anything he's saying or the purpose (or lack of purpose) of his words it seems like so they write him off immediately

[Anonymous No.14671674]

[Anonymous No.14671683]

>>14671669
My point was to not mindlessly spam him. But regarding your idol, he just says nothing, He isn't even an skeptic, he is just nothing. It's even a great accomplishment how one could talk and write so much and say literally nothing.

[Anonymous No.14671684]

[Anonymous No.14671685]

>>14671660
mainlander?

[Anonymous No.14671686]

>>14671674
Yeah he sure is rocking that autism socks and sandals with his prison clothes.

[Anonymous No.14671688]

>>14671685
No, some guy with a huge messy beard, who was also a big Schopenhauer fan

[Anonymous No.14671694]

Pentti Linkola was a total chad

[Anonymous No.14671699]

>>14671660
>>14671688
>pessimistic
>big Schopenhauer fan
>whom Nietzsche wrote off as an edgelord
> huge messy beard
Gotta be Darwin.

[Anonymous No.14671700]

>>14671683
Not my idol. I'm just sharing him here because why not. It's boring here a lot of times.

>It's even a great accomplishment how one could talk and write so much and say literally nothing.

Well he never wrote nor copyrighted, nor received royalties. They were q and a's converted into books by his friends which UG never asked for. As for the comment about him saying lots, but saying little. That is more or less his critique of all religious men, or men promising you so and so which comes of nothing. He has no teaching, but there is profound wisdom his negation. You don't understand UG. If anything he says little, whilst also saying a lot if decoded or understood. A literal sledgehammer if received properly

[Anonymous No.14671704]

>>14671674
Ted apparently sounds like kermit the frog

[Anonymous No.14671705]

>>14671700
Acknowledge that you might be right and that I'm perhaps not properly understanding him. If that is the case, surely you could decode some of his teachings for me here?

[Anonymous No.14671707]

>>14671607
>No Schopenhauer
tsktsktsk

[Anonymous No.14671708]

>>14671607
Étienne Souriau

[Anonymous No.14671709]

>>14671705
I acknowledge*

[Anonymous No.14671716]

>>14671707
Based

[Anonymous No.14671717]

>>14671660
>>14671685
>>14671688
>>14671699
Okay I found him, his name is Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann and apparently he influenced Jung

[Anonymous No.14671720]

>>14671704
He sounds like Tarantino
https://youtu.be/o6mYuNd6uhY

[Anonymous No.14671721]

>>14671705
We run into the problem of language when discussing UG. As what he is saying is adversel to the knowledge/mind. He is saying that can't help you other than act sanely in society, other than that thinking is a neurotic hopeless mechanism. The mind or "I" (sense of self) is the cause of your sorrow, the demand of perpetual becoming, of desiring leads you to nowhere but delusion. The "I" is simply only interested in its own continuity, whilst the body simply wants to function naturally and organically. This is the dilemma of man.

[Anonymous No.14671726]

>>14671720
Somewhat so. I still can't believe he even sounds like that

[Anonymous No.14671727]

>>14671720
kek very much like Tarantino

[Anonymous No.14671733]

>>14671721
The same thing has been said much more profoundly and precisely by Jung and Schopenhauer. I still don't see the appeal.

[Anonymous No.14671736]

>>14671733
>Jung and Schopenhauer

Jung never denied a psyche and his ideas of self and individuation is autistic and counterintuitive. Don't know too much of Schopenhauer. From the quotes I've read he sounds like an ascetic. UG was anti ascetic

[Anonymous No.14671739]

>>14671720
GOD this This American Life pseud hack is driving me insane

[Anonymous No.14671743]

>>14671736
So it's just:
>stop looking bro there is nothing else just go with the flow
I might as well listen to my teenage sister.

[Anonymous No.14671782]

>>14671743
You don't understand. You are describing the end of searching in pejorative terms. The seeker is illusory, the search is also illusory. You will be on the merry go round for infinity. He is not saying to become a vegetable or not to read, or not be entertained, he is saying you live more or less in psychosis. When you (the individual) look at an object you're not looking at the object but the thought which described the object. There is nothing separate from the functioning organism, nothing split, the "I" pertains to the totality of man's knowledge and the split of consciousness which identifies with the body. When you get punched the thought arrives "I" am in pain or whatever. Well obviously this doesn't refer to "I" it refers to your body! The "I" is illusory

[Anonymous No.14671797]

Anyone have that rare Jung photo where he's dressed in traditional Swiss garments?
He was dapper af and if he were alive today he WOULD cuck you and steal your wife

[Anonymous No.14671940]

>>14671684
>philosopher

[Anonymous No.14671949]

>>14671607
When did "aesthetic" become synonymous with "personal homoerotic mancrush" and "simply outside looks"?

[cunt No.14671966]

>>14671607
Hyde

[Anonymous No.14672375]

ITT: anons post their favorite philosophers and not the philosopher with the best style