Are Stirner and Evola the final bosses of philosophy? I loathe spookposters as much as the next guy, I really do, and I'm definitely not saying everything is meaningless except for muh ego, but what I am saying is that it is absolutely undeniable that all that we really have in this life is our Being/Ego. And to put anything over it at your expense is retarded. Think the distinction between embodying God vs. the torturous, life-denying mortification of your Will.
Where do we go from here? Stirner stops at the Ego, Evola goes all the way to its transcendent origin. Is philosophy, at least its more practical branch, over? What else is there but a refinement of details?
Philosophers are hacks.
>>736162
Evola is pretty good and really cuts this metaphysical level or this sense of thought that has almost never existed in American society and is absent in Western thought today.
Also Spengler is pretty good as well.
>>736162
You can add Nietzche too since everything you mentioned from Evola is based off his work.
And what you described is the stepping stone into post-modernism. If the Ego is the ultimate reality than the logic conclusion is to start deconstructing all them spooks, figure out who's ego they are serving, and what makes them tick.
But the task of post-modernism despooking is already over. We are sort of waiting around for the next big thing. That's why the state of philosophy is utter shit because we are still waiting for the guys who succeed Baudrillard and Foucault. Everyone that actually knows what's going on is kind of stuck about where to go.
Than you have people like Harris who never bothered studying philosophy and just scribble on paper.
>>736162
To the people that agree with them maybe.
>>736162
I hate to admit it, but Evola's opaque prose gets in the way of non-Italians understanding alot of his stuff - one needs to be pretty literate in his own sources a to get the jist
Nu Alt-right memery doesn't lend itself to people understanding Evola, either
I'd hardly call Stirner an end-boss of philosophy. It's not that his philosophy isn't quite solid, it's just that I feel it's better used as something to build upon and create ideals and values that suit your interests from. His work is handy in helping you be aware of what you value and why you value it, but it's not exactly an end in and of itself.
>>736211
Oh certainly, but he lays a very stable foundation for why we must put ourselves over everything else, though of course that's been bastardized by legions of NEETs who use m-muh spooks to justify their shallow and hedonistic lifestyles. The root idea is totally valid however
>>736186
I would say post-modernism is a clarification of the insufficiency of certain external values. By external I mean projecting morality, justice, whatever on external and foreign agents, without coming to the understanding that they are as much inside us as they are outside, and that to truly live for them requires that we be beholden to nothing but our own clear-sighted, integrated selves
>>736162
>Is philosophy, at least its more practical branch, over?
Yes.
Contemporary philosophy is just pretentious, pseudo-intellectual marxists circle jerking up in their ivory tower about how to fix those dumb proles.
>>736162
>Are Stirner and Evola the final bosses of philosophy?
Not at all. Maybe Weininger or UG Krishnamurti
>>736225
Not really. The only contemporary Marxist philosopher is Le Sniffing man.
Peter Sloterdijk is huge in Europe and is a radical capitalist for instance.
Besides Marxism off decades ago. People like Chomsky are a dying breed and the new Proggressivist is taking their position.
>>736244
Maybe my campus was just terrible.
>>736220
>though of course that's been bastardized by legions of NEETs who use m-muh spooks to justify their shallow and hedonistic lifestyles.
Which I don't quite, myself. If you value yourself enough to put your interests first, it seems to me as though self improvement would be the name of the game. Not in pursuit of becoming greater, but in pursuit of being more capable of seeing to your own interests. Someone who is physically fit with a successful life will be more able to pursue his interests than someone who is not. Or at least that's how I see it.
>>736378
We had a Nietzche thread on overcomign ressentment which sounds like a good idea.
Thread was just a bunch of NEETs talking about how masturbating to anime makes them an ubermench because they don't listen to anyone! Not even their mom!
>>736419
Wouldn't that make them spookmeisters?
>>736419
I get it, it's very tempting to take an easy way like that when you're talking about philosophies that don't assert objective morality, but it still seems to me foolish, and counter to pursuing one's self interest. Unless your sole desire in life is to be a fat shut-in who masturbates to anime.
>>736162
>Evola
Not even a mini-boss. Shouldn't even need to grind to beat him lad.
>>736162
>And to put anything over it at your expense is retarded.
Why.
>>736448
Because they are things of no substance. If you choose not to regard them, they cease to be.
>>736467
Explain though. Using actual language not meaningless words. What you have said means literally nothing.
Not to mention identification and control of our ego is what separates us from beasts. Would rather be 'civilised' than a shit stinking animal like you imply I should be.
>>736448
Kierkegaard puts it beautifully. To paraphrase: you don't determine your relationship with the Absolute through the universal (you don't let your perceived relationship with God be determined by what you do or don't do, pretty much letting externals tell how to act in the eyes of God), you determine your relationship with the universal through the Absolute (you ground yourself in the Absolute first, and from that unshakeable inner point you conduct your life from there)
>>736513
No one is implying crass hedonism. At all. Please have a modicum of familiarity with the ideas being discussed itt before flying off the handle, though ill grant you spookposters are fucking cancer
>>736531
>though ill grant you spookposters are fucking cancer
They manage to make a legit philosopher look moronic with how they represent him. I'm not sure if it's just people that never read Stirner and think it's funny to call everything a spook or if it's people that genuinely can't understand him.
>>736526
Is it really the same thing, though, what Kierkegaard is after?
When you put it that way, it sounds like Kierkegaard's Absolute, his God Almighty, would orient you and your life in a fundamentally different way than Stirner's Ego. After all, the Ego is yourself at the end of the day, while God is the Great Other.
Maybe, but Heidegger is the secret final boss.
His name is also more fun to say.
Evola is like Nietzsche without atheism and Catholicism without belief in God.
No, Stirner is basically just a psychopath. To deny that other people are rational free agents such as yourself is the ultimate spook: narcissism. It simply isnt logical.
>>736225
Youve never heard of any philosopher past Wittgenstein have you?
Research semiotics senpai.
>The ego! The ego!
It cannot exist without its surroundings, aka what you guys like to call spooks. Without the external to position the self in, the self simply does not exist.
>>736659
Narcissism is not a spook.
And what you claim about Stirner is not part of his belief system.
The ultimate spook is God.
>>736681
surroundings=/=spooks
It's called the Ego and his Own for a reason.
>>736531
>he uses more useless vocabulary as an attempt to win an argument.
You are yet to explain anything, stop parroting. Read pic related.
Stirner isn't necessarily an 'end boss' as much as it is a dead end
it's terrifyingly simple philosophy; you cannot refute it, you cannot prove it. You can either accept it or reject it but it is absolutely flawless
>>736681
My friend, I think you should familiarize yourself with Stirner's view of the self, he very aptly names it as a creative nothing.
Stirner acknowledges the external, but rather the 'self' exists as a protean and abstract being, constantly shifting and morphing in accordance to the will, unable to be fixed to a true idea of 'self'.
Also, look up Stirner's views on 'property'.
>>736704
Is solipsism the same way? Is there a list of dead ends somewhere?
>>736726
I would say, while not entirely refuted by any means, the Private Language argument makes the stance of solipsism unconvincing.
>>736729
Interesting. What about Pyrrho? Or the idea of the Cartesian demon who can mislead you about legitimacy of rationality?
Ok, I have now seen more than just a few threads mentioning Stirner and Evola in a single sentence. Who started this shit trend? Who the hell thinks Stirner and Evola are even remotely compatible?
>>736754
I'm afraid that just like most who would want to argue against solipsism, the best I could offer is that Fallibilism is an undermining process and hinders thought, but honestly, that is the best I got.
>>736797
That's alright, anon, it's all I need.
Thank you. It's nice to hear different opinions on these things, it's very easy to think about them overly much.
>>736810
It was good to speak with you.
Also, I'm glad you brought up Pyrrho, I previously overlooked him, but now I am rather curious about his work.
>>736824
You as well, anon. Good reading!
Modern philosophy is divided between Jews, good goy, and bad goy.
>>736842
Goys are too stupid to do philosophy.
Philosophy is figuring out what we should do with the Goy slaves.
>>736186
>who succeed Baudrillard and Foucault.
These are both dead ends m8
All philosophy since 1900 can be safely discarded. We're still waiting on the successor to Nietzsche
>>736906
Are there any ends that aren't dead, that can obviously be improved on? Or do we need to go to the questions that lead to the dead-end philosophies and answer them in different ways?
"Je est un autre." -- Lacan
How can one serve the self if one does not know the self?
>>736513
>What you have said means literally nothing.
Is there something wrong with you? Those other things are not actual things. They are concepts, and thus without actual substance. If you do not recognize a concept, it has no actual existence to you.
>>736659
>To deny that other people are rational free agents such as yourself is the ultimate spook: narcissism. It simply isnt logical.
But he doesn't deny that. Where would you get that opinion?
>>736930
Because Lacan was a charlatan
QED
>>736704
>Stirner isn't necessarily an 'end boss' as much as it is a dead end
I have to disagree. I think Stirner's philosophy is an amazing starting point for further values.
One of the problems of a godless universe is providing yourself a relative stable foundation from which to build values, and I feel Stirner's philosophy comes pretty close to providing something workable in this regard. It wont provide universal truths, but it can provide personal truths.
I'd say that to call Evola the final boss of philosophy is to call mysticism the final boss of philosophy. I know some people do that, and they may be right, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus nowadays. Evola thought that there exists sort of prisca theologica, but it is scattered and fragmented, and only parts of it remain today in different religions/philosophies. He never tried to actually create any new outlook on life, merely to bring ancient thought/Tradition to modern consciousness.
Of course we can debate whether his Tradition actually ever existed in the form he thought it did, but if it did, the task is only to study the ancient texts and cultures, rather than to conjure up your own views. Well, you do conjure up your own view, but thats when it goes heavy into the esoteric and mystic parts, and very little can be said of it
>>736186
>baudrillard and foucault
horrifying
>>737894
>is to call mysticism the final boss of philosophy
Now you're getting it
>>736930
The self is the Self
