/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4605618]

Mark the thinkers you have read.
Gibe opinions.

[Anonymous No.4605649]

>>4605618
>David Fumes

Great thoughts but he can't write a simple sentence
Especially when he tries his best to explain a ideas and Impressions and why a mountain is imaginable

>Schopenhauer

Personal Favorite

Key: Will to Live,On Women, Suicide ,Beauty

>Rene

I like his personality

Yet to read about him properly

>Wittgenstein

>Language does not limit us

>Superman

Second Best behind Schopenhauer and one of the best Philosophers who has ever lived
Übermensch along with Slave/Master morality ,Nihilism and Existential reasoning's are better than majority of Philosophers

>Bakunin

Anarchism is only beneficial and intrinsically good to a nation when in the hands of literate masses

>Marx, Lenin and Engels

11/10 Would Communist all day

>Kan't

Can

Jesus

Love your enemies and various paradoxes
Hating Jews

>Socrates > Aristotle > Plato

Cicero

Good Aphorisms

[Anonymous No.4605654]

>>4605649
>touched and thought upon better than the majority of Philosophers

[Anonymous No.4605656]

>>4605618
Jesus
Darwin
Marx
Freud

[Anonymous No.4605681]

Why is Epicurus on there but not Epictetus?

[Anonymous No.4605699]

>Augustine - new testament fan fics.
>Thomas of Aquin - everything you need to know about God. Should be read with Maimonides.
>Descartes - The beginning of "Meditationes de Prima Philosophia" is an accessible explanation of the Cogito ergo Sum. Later he descends into theology. That part I didn't read. "Les passions de l'âme" are fun reductions of life, love and other such triffles to a Baroque understanding of physiology.
>Leibnitz - "Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement humain" are dialogues. That is very refreshing but it is also too long-winded for my taste.
>Rousseau - I was surprised how reminiscent his idea of history is to that of Friedrich Engels.
>Kant - dense food for brain but can be easily understood if you try, unlike
>Hegel - who is most befittingly described by Schopenhauer in his essay on style.
>Marx - doubly funs once you have realised how much he borrowed from hegel and how sensible it sounds if not applied to the hegelian abstractions. David Harvey made a nice course on the Capital available online.
>Thoreau - unabomber the first. I am not Murican enough to even care about half this drivel.
>Spencer - awesome in how similar it is to the Historical Materialism of Marx and Engels. Why did "Social Darwinist" become an insult?
>Schopenhauer - "Parerga und Paralipomena" is awesome light collection of Essays. "Welt als Wille und Vorstellung" is unnecessarily heavy and not worth it unless you're really into Nietzsche who quotes it a lot.
>Kierkegaard - "The Diary of a Seducer" is slow-paced and hopelessly out of date but his essay on Abraham, on how the "Theological" is "Suspension of the Ethical" is fine if you want to understand what the fuck this Dosto dude is going on about. It's similar to Nietzsche with his constant comparison of the dramatick Greeks to the docile Joo.
>Lenin - decent pamphleteer. Wrote the best article on the American Negro I have read.
>Russel - his history of philosophy is veritable bullshit.
>Foucault - fine as long as he's giving examples instead of gloating about the sheer depth of insight provided by his genius.
>Zizek - is a fat sticky slob. there are a dozen of zizeks drinking vodka in every public part of eastern europe since we have closed the Marx-Engels institutes.

[Anonymous No.4605708]

I have read everything Socrates wrote

[Anonymous No.4605713]

>>4605618
Interestingly enough, Smith never wrote about the invisible hand as a market mechanic, the only time it appears in the Wealth of Nations was describing how investors would prefer to invest in their own country due to some sort of nationalist loyalty

nothing with free market horse shit that he's famous for

[Anonymous No.4605714]

>>4605708

[Anonymous No.4605717]

>>4605681
This picture is as terrible as the hivemind on /lit/. Why is Epicurus on there? He's not been transmitted. It should be Lucrece!

[Anonymous No.4605718]

>>4605618
>only few blondes
Proof that aryans are retarded.

[Anonymous No.4605722]

I never read any philosopher and i always win arguments against those who have read most of them.

Explain that.

[Anonymous No.4605725]

>>4605722
Dunning-Kruger.

[Anonymous No.4605726]

>>4605718
>Almost all Philosophers have always had Brown eyes

[Anonymous No.4605727]

>>4605726
>almost all people have always had Brown eyes

Do you even think rationally?

[Anonymous No.4605728]

>>4605722
Der Klügere gibt nach.

[Anonymous No.4605730]

>>4605725
1. They admitted themselves that i was right.
2. Dunning-Kruger is considered to be one of the most retarded psychological "theories" by that academic community, and got the corresponding award, look it up.
3. The fact that you assume that without arguments means that you're suffering something close to that you're proposing.

[Anonymous No.4605735]

>>4605725
>>4605728
No that person but do you think that ONLY someone that read those philosophers extensively can understand and work with deep questions of life/universe?

[Anonymous No.4605736]

>>4605727
>almost all people have always had Brown eyes

But that's wrong;too you

I see more hazel and Greens outside than Browns

[Anonymous No.4605744]

>>4605736
How would you distinct brown from hazel in a person whom you've not seen in person and lived before photography?

[Anonymous No.4605746]

>>4605744
I'm describing the modern day you pleb

[Anonymous No.4605793]

>>4605746
>you pleb
shush! we are all patricians here.

[Anonymous No.4605815]

This is an impossible list to complete. How am I supposed to read Pythagoras? Socrates? Jesus? Diogenes? Thales? These kids left no writings. Also, I think the selection is quite biased. That said, the drawings are kinda cute.

[Anonymous No.4605824]

>>4605815
>How am I supposed to read Pythagoras? Socrates? Jesus? Diogenes? Thales?

Are you a Plebeian

[Anonymous No.4605846]

>>4605815
>This is an impossible list to complete
you can edit the list at will. it's just a meme here on /lit/

[Anonymous No.4605850]

>>4605815
>>4605846
besides this poll can show how this list can be improved.

[Anonymous No.4605878]

>there are people on /lit/ who haven't read at least 1/3 of those

[Anonymous No.4605915]

Thales: fell into a well
Heraclitus: cried a lot
Pythagoras: had a golden leg
Democritus: was a time-traveler who knew about atoms
Socrates: was the original tulpafag
Plato: believed in a thing called love
Aristotle: created the fifth element
Diogenes: publically masturbated
Epicurus: was pretty euphoric
Zeno: wrote goedel, escher, bach
Cicero: called out mark antony for being a drunk
Jesus: the first homosexual magician
Augustine: came up with catholic guilt
Aquinas: had five ways to get into anyone's pants
Avicenna: durka durka muhhamad jihad
Petrarch: dead poet
Machiavelli: surprisingly not evil
Bacon: baller/shot-caller/etc.
Galileo: martyr for the uneducated
Descartes: disproved by rimbaud
Leibniz: is hated by high schoolers
Spinoza: made lenses
Hobbes: was a behemoth
Locke: life, liberty and property. fuck yo happiness.
Berkeley: wrote the matrix
Hume: was unsure whether the sun would appear tommorow
Adam Smith: illuminati freemason reptillian
Newton: the last alchemist
D'alembert: algebraic!
Diderot: french as fuck
Rousseau: was a noble savage
Kant: father of analytic and continental philosophy
Hegel: spirit is a bone(r)
Marx: goddamn communist jew
Bakunin: hot topic-core
JS Mill: theories lacked utility
William James: huffed nitrous to understand hegel
Thoreau: original hippie
Darwin: grandfather or richard dawkins
Spencer: survival of the illest
Schopenhauer: was mad jelly of hegel's superiority
Kierkegaard: just watch the seventh seal
Nietzsche: is pietzsche
Heidegger: saved us from ontotheology
Lenin: salvaged marx
Hayek: was actually a serf
Beauvoir: ugly tumblr whore
Sartre: frogfaced bourgeoisie fuck
Freud: c-c-c-c-yeeeaaaahhhhhh
Russel: got rekt by goedel
Wittgenstein: lingua franca of analytics
Quine: might've rekt kant
Rorty: sophist
Singer: animal fucker
Baudrillard: helped berkeley write the matrix
Derrida: is a ghost on meth
Foucault: died of the gay plague known as aids
Marcuse: kinda one-dimensional
Habermas: the konsensual kommunist
Zizek: only pretends to know how to speak english

[Anonymous No.4606014]

>>4605735
you can't answer deep questions in life without being well-read (perhaps in physics).

[Anonymous No.4606018]

>>4605730
0/10`

[Anonymous No.4606056]

This list is very… "anglo". Too many semi-irrelevant English-speaking philosophers for German, French or Italian tastes, really (William James? Spencer? Berkeley?).
That said, on your list, I have read 45 thinkers out of 60, namely:
- Thales.
- Heraclitus.
- Pythagoras.
- Democritus.
- Socrates / Plato.
- Aristotle.
- Diogenes (hoho).
- Epicurus.
- Cicero.
- Jesus (hoho x2).
- Augustine.
- Aquinas.
- Avicenna.
- Petrarch.
- Machiavelli.
- Bacon.
- Descartes.
- Leibniz.
- Spinoza.
- Hobbes.
- Locke.
- Hume.
- Adam Smith.
- Newton.
- D'Alembert.
- Diderot.
- Rousseau.
- Kant.
- Hegel.
- Marx.
- Bakunin.
- Darwin.
- Schopenhauer.
- Nietzsche.
- Heidegger.
- Hayek.
- Beauvoir.
- Sartre.
- Freud.
- Russell.
- Derrida.
- Foucault.
- Habermas.
- Zizek.
My opinion: I prefer Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.4606066]

>>4606056
this list is the hivemind of /lit/. change it at will.

[Anonymous No.4606103]

>>4606056
>No Parmenides

I seriously hope you don't move bro

[Anonymous No.4606115]

>>4606103
That's because Parmenides is not on the list.
It's baby philosophy compared to Xenophanes anyway <3

[Anonymous No.4606374]

>nobody has marked Hayek so far
pls continue this way

[Anonymous No.4606384]

5th row was the greatest time for facial hair ever

[Anonymous No.4606434]

>tfw your name sounds way too plebby to ever be that of a serious philosopher

[Anonymous No.4606469]

>>4606434
Pseudonyms brah

[Anonymous No.4606486]

>>4606056
I would hardly call James and Spencer irrelevant. Spencer had one memorable idea, but everybody knows what it is even if you've never studied most of these people.

You might have a point about Berkeley because I can't remember anything about what he wrote, nor do I hear his named mentioned that often. But I think the school's named after him. That's something.

[Anonymous No.4606487]

it's like changing schicklgruber to hitler but the other way round

[Anonymous No.4606517]

>>4605718
>grey hair people

>implying aryan=blonde
seriously, that's the kind of shit that kids get taught in Elementary Schools

[Anonymous No.4606528]

Is it safe to read Marx after reading Kirkeegaard?
SK is one of my favorites, but i don't want to see multiple pages of marx bashing religion

[Anonymous No.4606556]

>>4606115
I bet you're anti-theist

[Anonymous No.4606560]

>No Deleuze
>No Merleau-Ponty
>No Wollstonecraft
>No Bentham
>No Barthes
>No Frege
>No Fichte

Ranked them by how useful I think their theories are in contemporary life and philosophy, well sort of.

[Anonymous No.4606574]

>>4606528
depends on the marx.

just read like 1839-1844 era marx.

[Anonymous No.4606579]

>>4606574
>>4606528
oh and German Ideology is alright, but fuck it has stupid hegelesque verbosity.

[Anonymous No.4606585]

>>4606528
Marx doesn't really bash religion.

[Anonymous No.4606596]

sorry i didn't follow your entire conversation, but
>>4606585
>Marx doesn't really bash religion.
>For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
>The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.
>The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

[Anonymous No.4606607]

I love how this list has my all-time favorite on here and nobody mentioned him except for:
>>4605915
but he hit everybody and didn't say anything that wasn't 'true'. Truly one of the all-time greats and one of the most controversial.

[Anonymous No.4606617]

just honestly ranked by how interesting i think what they say is and how compelled i am to agree

[Anonymous No.4606618]

Apparently, I am not an intellectual.

I have only read Russell. Only read a handful of essays before I got bored and then just stopped midway through one of them.

>>4605878
Yes there are. I am one of them.

[Anonymous No.4606620]

>>4606560
>Socrates above Plato
What the fuck are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.4606623]

>>4606617
oh and for the greeks it's mostly what i thought of their "character" or whatever. as in what they displayed in greek culture, not specifically what they wrote (obvs)

[Anonymous No.4606631]

>>4606620
one could argue that plato bastardized a lot of socrates' methods.

realize too the fuckheads who think that socrates said certain shit because of plato. plato kinda shafted the historical view of socrates.

[Anonymous No.4606634]

>>4605915

>Kierkegaard: just watch the seventh seal
>Singer: animal fucker
>Derrida: is a ghost on meth
>Zizek: only pretends to know how to speak english

[Anonymous No.4606639]

>>4606631
>realize too the fuckheads who think that socrates said certain shit because of plato. plato kinda shafted the historical view of socrates.

Plato was using Socrates as a mouthpiece in his dialogues. Nobody knows exactly what Socrates said because he didn't believe in writing (according to Plato).

>one could argue that plato bastardized a lot of socrates' methods.

Students usually use the techniques of their teachers.

[Anonymous No.4606643]

>>4606469
>My philosopher name is Thadeus Stone

[Anonymous No.4606648]

>>4605915
>Zeno: wrote goedel, escher, bach
>William James: huffed nitrous to understand hegel
>baudrillard: helped berkeley write the matrix
>Marcuse: kinda one-dimensional

Ok I laughed. Good job.

[Anonymous No.4606650]

>>4606607
We're not going to ask you who it is, I hope you catch a cold.

[Anonymous No.4606654]

>>4606650
I really don't want you to ask me who it is. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but he was the reason why I decided to study something else. Philosophy is great though.

[Anonymous No.4606657]

>>4606639
but there's still the matter of personal interpretation.

i dunno. it's tough to argue. but for me, the reason i put socrates higher was what we know about him is all things I can generally consider myself on board with. questioning, the pursuit of knowledge, ect. i think plato wrote a lot of good and interesting material, but a lot of shit that weighs it down.

[Anonymous No.4606665]

>>4606654
I still read him in my spare time. I just don't want to discourage other people from this activity. Seriously not trying to be a prick. I enjoy reading philosophy as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4606689]

>>4606665
I just didn't think I had anything else to add to the tradition. But there's always room for more conversation and memorable philosophers. There's always something to say about this stuff so I don't like to make it a thing.

[Anonymous No.4606693]

>>4605618

I have read everyone on this list. Ask me anything.

[Anonymous No.4606701]

>>4606693
What's your metaphysical position?

[Anonymous No.4606704]

>>4606701

I don't have one.

[Anonymous No.4606705]

>>4606701
I love dick.

[Anonymous No.4606709]

>>4606704
Why?
>>4606705
That works too.

[Anonymous No.4606721]

>>4606709
When you read enough philosophy you realize it's not sensible to adopt a position.

[Anonymous No.4606729]

>>4606721
So what do you believe then? Some things must really exist, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.4606732]

>>4606721
To ASSUME the position, on the other hand..

[Anonymous No.4606737]

>>4606665

WHO IS IT

[Anonymous No.4606754]

>>4606737
ROBOCOP

[Anonymous No.4606756]

>>4606737
That was a stupid comment on my part. I was already on my way to studying other stuff when I came upon his stuff. Just keep reading, man. Write good material, especially if you seem talented at it. I just attribute my personal calm to it because it came around at the same time I got into it. I'll read this stuff for the rest of my life. It makes an impact,

[Anonymous No.4606763]

>>4606729
Not necessarily. Many philosophers have made good cases that the universe couldn't possibly exist.

[Anonymous No.4606769]

>>4606732

To assume a position is to be in a position one has no other choice but to be - a default position you don't adopt per se

>>4606729

I don't <i>believe</i>. Anything can be argued, it all depends on how well you argue for it.

[Anonymous No.4606770]

>>4606756
That being said, I was already familiar enough with the tradition to know what was being said. If you don't know what's being said, then how can you possibly absorb the arguments? You'll come across whatever it is that makes you feel steady at some point, if you understand it enough. It just comes with time.

[Anonymous No.4606779]

>>4606763
It depends in what sense that you mean that. If you make clear what you mean by that, then we might have a discussion.

>>4606769
>I don't <i>believe</i>.
Then you believe that you don't believe.
>Anything can be argued, it all depends on how well you argue for it.
Sure anything can be argued, but why do we lend credence more to some arguments more than others.

[Anonymous No.4606790]

>>4606779
>more than others?

[Anonymous No.4606830]

>>4606721
So you've read 60 philosophers, but you still have zero philosophy inside of you? Reading every single position, then concluding: "I have no position", like someone who didn't understand a single word of what he just read?

[Anonymous No.4607736]

>>4606830
Not the same person, but there's this one saying that goes along these lines:

"When I began, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers; when I penetrated deeply, mountains were no longer mountains and rivers were no longer rivers; and when I had finished, mountains were again mountains and rivers again rivers."

[Anonymous No.4608154]

>>4606560
>zizek above Augustine

[Anonymous No.4608198]

Have I failed to capture Stirner? Perhaps he should be clenching his lips.

[Anonymous No.4608212]

>>4608198


i think you made a good first effort

[Anonymous No.4608248]

>>4608198
Shoppy doesn't have a grin, so purse them puckers.

[Anonymous No.4608318]

>>4608212
>>4608248
I'm trying to reproduce his smile in that very good engraving, but he ends up looking only happy

[Anonymous No.4608322]

>>4608318
>>4608248


the grin is pretty much essential to fsjal though, unless something essential to the particular being depicted involves that element (which, in schoppies case, would be his pessimism).

[Anonymous No.4608325]

>>4608318
Neko Miku Stirneru ai shiteru

[Anonymous No.4608341]

>>4608322
I think Stirner smoking his thin long cigar with a :3 is perfect though.

[Anonymous No.4608355]

>>4608341


but anon! if we break tradition here, where will it end? next thing you know people will be wanting to change the wall eye! what will fsjal be then? no such thing!

[Anonymous No.4608356]

>>4608322
then it needs the eyebrows especially
how about this?

[Anonymous No.4608360]

>>4608322
then it needs the eyebrows especially
how about this?
/fixed

[Anonymous No.4608370]

>>4608360


i like it.

[Anonymous No.4608403]

All I read of Lenin was his biography of Marx and a little bit of "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism", so all I know is that he has a succinct, to-the-point style of writing that could appeal to anyone. I'd like to read Lenin, but I feel like I can't get into Lenin without reading Marx (I've only read his early works). I find Marx pretty hard to read (I find myself only able to get through it when I'm in a certain mood). What am I to expect from reading Lenin?

[Anonymous No.4608421]

>>4608403
>what am I to expect from reading Lenin?
Hectoring, character assassination, fallacious argumentation, outright lies, mischaracterisation, fallacies.

Some of Lenin's work is decent, like his stuff on the structure of Ukraine agriculture. Some is obvious, like Imperialism. Some is fallacious, like Left-wing communism. Some is perniciously false, like What is to be done?

I've not read State and Revolution. It doesn't seem to be apposite reading when I can read the documentary history of actual workers states in the documents of workers councils.

[Anonymous No.4608426]

>>4608360
I like it as well, but the glasses are visually confusing. He looks sort of like a bug, at first glance. What if the glasses just totally cover his eyes instead?

[Anonymous No.4608430]

Socrates: Most of what he says has little substance
Plato: Excellent, but a lot of nonsense as well
Aristotle: Terrible writing style, frequently makes nuanced points of little broad philosophic merit
Machiavelli: Solid
Hobbes: Solid
Locke: Charlatan
Marx: Excellent
J.S. Mill: Even bigger Charlatan than Locke
Thoreau: romanticism
Spencer: Excellent
Lenin: Solid
Freud: Solid, at times
Elull: Excellent, why has nobody but me heard of him

[Anonymous No.4608453]

>>4608426

[Anonymous No.4608472]

>>4608453
I had tried this, it works I guess but I don't like the bridge of his nose
it's fine I guess
maybe his nose should be sharper?

[Anonymous No.4608485]

>>4608472

[Anonymous No.4608486]

>>4605915
You just made my godsdamned day. Thank you, Anon. So much.

[Anonymous No.4608504]

>>4605618
>Socrates
Is a fiction of
>Plato
Who is okay, but a bit tiresome
>Jesus
is a fictional character, whose philosophy of a reformed inhering ethics derived from an ontology of human being is quite interesting.
>Augustine
Self-loathing sinner who projected that outwards as ethical violence on the world
>Galileo
That one cunt who picks fights to lose
>Spinoza
Founder of modern theology
>Smith
Constantly misread
>Diderot
As accurate as wikipedia, of course, this isn't a compliment.
>Rousseau
Weak
>Marx
Will this cunt never finish any of his useful… oh he died.
>Bakunin
Bad thinker, right thoughts on Marx's positive political programmes and sectarianism
>Kierkegaard
Up there with Spinoza and Jesus
>Nietzsche
When you obscure what you say, it makes a great career for hostile interpreters
>Heidegger
Isn't it easier to get buddhism from buddhism?
>Lenin
His criticism of his own substitutionalism in 1912-1916 was insightful, what a shame he didn't back that insight
>Beauvoir
Useful and interesting
>Sartre
Speedie speed boy, writing is vacuous
>Derrida
Chips.jpeg. Structuralism: so bad its antithesis is worse.
>Foucault
Wouldn't being a Marxist have been simpler mate?
>Marcuse
Pop philosopher
>Zizek
Pop philosopher on speedie speed boy writing is vacuous.

[Anonymous No.4608517]

>>4605915
>>4608486
here's another one from a thread a while ago, that was also golden (not exactly the same ones as the OP pic)
enjoy

[Anonymous No.4608529]

>>4608485
>>>4608508

I always imagined Stirner to be blond. I assume if he had black hair, Engels would have used some form of pencil shading, maybe?

[Anonymous No.4608549]

>>4608529
so, blonde hair and black sideburns? I hardly think so.
Also, the engraving of him with black hair is rather well known so to stray from it would confuse people
further improvements...

[Anonymous No.4608553]

>>4608529
on the drawings on black canvas, his hair is black

[Anonymous No.4608565]

>>4605618
>all white men except de Beauvior

fuck that list

[Anonymous No.4608571]

>>4608565


success breeds jealousy.

[Anonymous No.4608574]

>>4608565
women have only been liberated enough to make good philosophy for a short period of time - expecting women to get over their essential enslavement that basically only started to end in the 60s enough to make decent philosophy is silly

[Anonymous No.4608575]

>>4608565
>white men
I mean that is most of the history of philosophy, art, science, politics, etc. in the West

[Anonymous No.4608579]

>>4605618
>Kierkegaard
Fucking brilliant. Ignored today because of his association with what today is called christianity (McJesus)
Also his life is probably the most depressing out of all philosophers.
>his relationship with Regina

[Anonymous No.4608587]

>>4605915
>Hume: was unsure whether the sun would appear tommorow

[Anonymous No.4608592]

>>4608565
Avicenna?

[Anonymous No.4608595]

>>4608549
>so, blonde hair and black sideburns?

If you look at the picture Engels drew of Die Freien, some of them have real black hair. At most, I would put Stirner at dark blond/brown based on that. I haven't read Mackay's biography, it might even be in there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.4608608]

>>4606528
I tried to read SK and absolutely didn't understand it, though I've since been able to make sense of stirner.
What is required reading for kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.4608616]

>>4608608
A summary of kierkegaard and the Bible. Remember also that he writes with le pseudonyms (meaning that his most famous works don't necessarily reflect his true beliefs), so take everything with a grain of salt.

Don't feel above summary. You're not. What matters is that you understand, not that you won the dick twirling contest by diving into the works of a 19th century obscure existentialist christian theologian dane with no preparation aforethought

[Anonymous No.4608622]

>>4608616
the edition I read was a compilation, of course most titles were "edited" by sk, it was explained that he mostly didn't publish under his name

anyway, is that a particular book? if so, who is the author?

[Anonymous No.4608641]

>>4608421
Haymarket is putting out a new edition of left-wing communism. It's hilarious. I've already ordered a copy.

[Anonymous No.4608652]

>>4608622
I don't know of any summaries, just read SEP and Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.4608653]

>>4608403
Luxumburgism > Leninism Read her instead, Lenin is just a perversion.

Also, Fanni Kaplan was right.

[Anonymous No.4608663]

>>4608641
If you've read any left-communists or councilists or documents from councils, LWC:AID is funny shit. EXCEPT IT IS SECTARIAN AND PREVENTED EUROPEAN REVOLUTION.

[Anonymous No.4608669]

>>4608663
Yes, read it, then read Homage to Catalonia.

[Anonymous No.4608673]

>>4608653
>Luxumburgism > Leninism

Guess who actually managed to pull his revolution off?

>Fanni Kaplan

Right. Your other personal heroes are probably great democratic leaders Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov. Oh wait, you don't actually know who they are, your only source on Russian revolution is a ten minute Chomsky's speech you saw on youtube. Jesus, at least read some damn Trotsky.

[Anonymous No.4608675]

>>4608673
>Guess who actually managed to pull his revolution off?
Nomenklatura, value form, red bourgeois.

The only revolution is the revolution of the proletariat ourselves. Leave your newspapers at the door, come join the fight.

[Anonymous No.4608677]

Kant is the single most intelligent person I have ever read by far. The depth and clarity of his ideas is fucking astonishing.

[Anonymous No.4608679]

>>4608673
>Guess who actually managed to pull his revolution off?
The Russian Revolution didn't belong to Lenin.

>Right. Your other personal heroes are probably great democratic leaders Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov. Oh wait, you don't actually know who they are, your only source on Russian revolution is a ten minute Chomsky's speech you saw on youtube. Jesus, at least read some damn Trotsky.
Trotsky's writings don't portray Lenin in a very favorable light, whether or not that was Trotsky's intent. While better than Lenin in some respects, Trotsky was still a part of the Bolshevik movement and that become a bad movement the day they dissolved the assembly.

[Anonymous No.4608686]

>>4608675
>The only revolution is the revolution of the proletariat ourselves

Have the factory workers come up with some theories on political economy already? If they have, did they throw away all the legacy stuff written by dirty bourgeois scum like Marx and Engels?

[Anonymous No.4608689]

>>4608686
They don't need theorists to tell them how to run a factory, and they don't need some shithead bureaucrat "planning" (taking away all they produce) it for them.

[Anonymous No.4608700]

>>4608689
Thank you comrade for making our point for us.

[Anonymous No.4608701]

>>4608677

Tied with Heidegger and Wittgenstein I'd say.

[Anonymous No.4608706]

>>4608700
I'm a prole too, I work for a home upkeep and repair company. If I get enough of a raise down the road (I can barely get by right now), I intend to set aside some money and look into setting up a co-op; it would still operate within a capitalist system, but I'd prefer the environment tremendously.

[Anonymous No.4608716]

>>4608679
> bad movement the day they dissolved the assembly

You could've at least mentioned the Kronshtadt. Parliamentary democracy in a rural country filled with illiterate peasants is a joke. Nobody actually supported the assembly, white officers wanted monarchy and were going to rebel no matter what, general populace didn't have a slightest idea what the fuss was about. Soviets were the superior form of democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_councils

[Anonymous No.4608722]

>>4608716
Precisely, the destruction of Soviet Power in the workplace by Leninist controlled geographic "soviets" is detailed at length in Simon Pirani's works

[Anonymous No.4608724]

>>4608579

ludwittgenz had a very, very, crushingly depressing life.

[Anonymous No.4608727]

>>4608716
Oh, I think soviets are fine when community soviets are the ones planning their economy, rather than some far-off "higher" soviet. I'm okay with state so long as it is consensual (every communitiy renews memebership through votes on a regular basis) and it doesn't micromage the economy. The economy should be managed either by the community in a democratic fashion, or by the workers of the industry, but not by bureaucrats. Taking everything the workers produce is wrong unless it's consensual .

[Anonymous No.4608751]

Stirner as only called Stirner because of his 5head

If you include him draw him with a huge-ass forehead

Goddamn plebs

[Anonymous No.4608754]

>>4608751
not much room in fsjal
edit it if you like ;)

[Anonymous No.4608756]

>>4608727
>I'm okay with state so long as it is consensual (every communitiy renews memebership through votes on a regular basis) and it doesn't micromage the economy.

Yeah, that's not a state. If you can actually opt out, it is basically a Stirnerian Union of Egoists, or in your case a meta-Union. Funnily enough, despite the different opinions on morals, the ideas that Bakunin/Kropotkin had about how humans could live together better and Stirner's union of egoists only seem incompatible if you pretend that a certain number of people HAVE to form one community, that they cannot oust someone or that an individual cannot leave and form another community with others / somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.4608759]

>>4608751

'Max' wasn't his real name either, 'Max Stirner' means maximum forehead, basically (Stirn is German for forehead).

[Anonymous No.4608765]

:^) where is stirner

[Anonymous No.4608877]

>>4605618

>that Schopenhauer

Hahahah. I laughed.
'Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit' is absolutely great. It's fun and easy to read, at least in german, and I can only recommend it.

[Anonymous No.4610076]

>>4608756
It is a state, just not a state according to certain terminology, but it's a complex governmental body with jurisdiction. And, obviously, while just leaving and forming your own community would be totally "legal", property disputes with the community you're leaving would make it less than simple; then there's the nature of, what if you still want your home, but you don't want to be subjected to the community around it? all sorts of stuff.

[Anonymous No.4610137]

>>4608765

>Russell
>shit
>implying you've read Socrates

I thought this was an 18+ site.

[Anonymous No.4610138]

>>4605618
>Jesus
>no Confucius

disgusting.

[Anonymous No.4610144]

>>4610138

We're talking about Western philosophy here genius. The real problem is that they don't have any Eleatics, and in place of honest-to-goodness contemporary Analytics - such as Searle and Kripke - they have a bunch of Postmodern hacks who nobody fucking cares about.

[Anonymous No.4610152]

>>4610144
>Jesus was a western philosopher

I guess if you're just using that name as a placeholder for the authors of the New Testament and other related works.

[Anonymous No.4610181]

>>4610076
>It is a state, just not a state according to certain terminology, but it's a complex governmental body with jurisdiction. And, obviously, while just leaving and forming your own community would be totally "legal", property disputes with the community you're leaving would make it less than simple; then there's the nature of, what if you still want your home, but you don't want to be subjected to the community around it? all sorts of stuff.

Yes, it's problematic to say the least.

[Anonymous No.4610183]

reading socrates

fuck

[Anonymous No.4610191]

>>4610183
also reading jesus

damn

[Anonymous No.4610219]

>>4610181
Not really. I mean, I don't think there would be a whole lot of people who want to live apart from their communities, but of the ones there were there would probably already be a community for them. Transfer between communities would be easy, all you'd have to do is submit your skills and desires to the state, and they'd show you a list of communities that could accommodate you with housing and work or whatever it was you were looking for, then provide transportation to the one you wanted to move to.

[Anonymous No.4610244]

>>4605618
>zizek scratching his nose

lol

>>4610191
I'm actually kinda looking forward to reading the Bible thoroughly. So I can actually debate with my friends who are Christians and (hopefully) properly justify my non-belief. And then see what they say.

[Anonymous No.4610254]

>>4610244
People like you are the reason why everybody hates atheists now.

[Anonymous No.4610265]

>>4610254
And people of you just like to generalise.

come on /lit/ stop responding to any mention of
>I don't believe in God
with buzzwords. You're better than that.

I don't believe in God, but equally I don't classify myself as atheist (partially, yes, because of the stigma on places like here, but also cause it can be used to generalise). More agnostic, but I don't like any labels in all honesty.

I've just had a fairly lengthy discussion with a Christian friend of mine which was basically about whether I should believe in God or not and it actually got me thinking for the first time in a while as to why I don't.

So get out of here with the fedora rubbish

[Anonymous No.4610268]

>>4610265
>of you

like you

[Anonymous No.4610293]

>>4610244
None of your Christian friends have anything approaching a thorough understanding of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.4610342]

>>4610293
But what about tomorrow's lottery numbers man

[Anonymous No.4610357]

in class:
>socrates, plato, aristotle, cicero, jesus, aquinas, machiavelli, bacon, descartes, hobbes, locke, hume, smith, diderot, rousseau, kant, hegel, marx, james, darwin, kierkegaard, nietzsche, sartre, freud,

artsy girlfriend has lectured me about:
>leibniz

for real:
>thoreau .... voltaire, swift, rand, kerouac, kesey

[Anonymous No.4610389]

Freud looks chronologically misplaced

[Anonymous No.4610426]

>>4606560
>No Confucius
>No Luther
>No Mill
>No Calvin
>No Du Bois
>No Popper
>Seriously, no Confucius?

It really ought to be updated.

[Anonymous No.4610434]

>>4610426
Yeah I think Confucius should be on there too.

[Anonymous No.4610436]

>>4610426
>>Seriously, no Confucius?
I suppose it is focused on Western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4610447]

I'm really surprised someone took the time to make this image.

Makes me wonder what the other unemployed philosophy majors do with their time.