Personally, I gotta cop out in favor of Albert Camus, a philosopher still considered controversial even today (particularly due to his wishy washy stance on the post WWII Algerian independence movement).
Some his better known works are The Stranger and the Myth of Sisyphus, with a very common theme in his works being the incredible absurdity of life. As well as participating in the French resistance in German occupied France (directing their newspaper lel), he stood against totalitarianism all his life to the point of ending up in staunchly opposed to Jean Paul Sarte despite being quite the liberal himself.
He was a quirky sorta guy, embodying liberalism tempered by suspicion of ideology (this particular quirk leading to many comparisons between him and George Orwell), and adamantly committed to the value of the individual human life.
>inb4 stirner
>>762247
ending up staunchly opposed*
>>762247
Marcus Aurelius. He made some mistakes, but the dude was largely successful, and his furthering of stoic philosophy has done a lot of good.
None, because I don't live through other people.
>>762266
Who said anything about following in their footsteps in the least? It says "which philosopher(s) do you admire"
diogenes
UG Krishnamurti
While I'm personally a huge fan of Max Stirner's philosophy, I've got to go with Diogenes. There was a man who truly lived by his beliefs, and I can't help but respect that.
>>762247
spooks are a meme and we all fell for it
>>762371
People need to feel badass
>>762247
On a personal level J.P. Sartre and Martin Buber have helped me the most.
>>764950
Ur spooked bruh
Nietzsche and Jung.
>>762247
Chesterton, he spoke truth.
>>762247
Nietzsche und Schopenhauer
Witty
Hume, Nietzsche, Stirner, Popper, Russell, Aurelius, Cicero and Montaigne.
They all tried to make us aware of the fact that the human intellect is highly fallible
>>765915
>reading the myth of sisyphus in class
>going to a good university
Pick one.
Out of all of them, I'd have to say the one I admire the most is Hume. His work in epistemology and his work in ethics I particularly like.
Epictetus. He was a superior philosopher to Aurelius, he is not as well known because Aurelius was an Emperor.
Aurelius himself would agree.
>>762261
>Pop-philosophy for nouveau riche Romans
You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power--how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live--is not that just endeavoring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"--how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise-- and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves--Stoicism is self-tyranny--Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?
>>768474
Is there anything Nietzsche didn't shit on?
>>768474
If Nietzsche bothered to actually study Stoicism and apply some of it's teachings rather than skim read some works he most likely wouldn't have been so edgy or have gone mad
He's works and life style suggest he needed some stoicism
>>768505
I'm not even a Nietzcheboo, I'm the guy in the other philosophy threads calling them retarded for gargling Nietzsche's junk like he was the first and last word in philosophy. But if there's one thing he did fucking brilliantly, it was the way he eviscerated the very concept of an ideology, and his uncanny ability to put down individual ideologies (like stoicism) like he was euthanizing a sick old dog.
>>768536
Why should he bother spending too much time on a philosophy that's been obsolete since the 3rd century CE?
>>768574
>I think hell is something like this, being subtly reminded what a shitty person you are by having to confront people like yourself.
And considering how similar humans actually are to one another, maybe another word for it is "civilization"
>in during stirner
i'm actually a big fan of the presocratics.
>guy who believes everything is change
>guy who believes nothing changes
>guy who believes in a war between attraction and repulsion
>guy who believes everything is mathematical
>guy who believes everything is atomic
so many philosophical systems trying to make sense of the world. all the innovation seems to have screeched to a halt after plato t.b.h
>>768632
>Same deal with Nietzsche, really.
yeah, but isn't it ironic that the best way to stay true to Nietzsche's works is to actively deconstruct them?
>>768695
Perhaps. I prefer to take a Stirnerian approach to them, in using what I like of them and not letting them possess me.
>>768708
I have to be honest, I haven't read a whole lot of Stirner, but he sounds like my kind of guy.
Got any recommendations on where to start?
>>764950
>spooks are a meme
you're not even wrong in a way
>>768762
The Ego and Its Own. If you like, you can also pick up Stirner's Critics, in which he explains some things a bit further (like the fact he's not opposed to any ideal, just ideals held as sacred and untouchable).
>>768797
much appreciated mate
*tips fedora*
