I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that these are the only 4 philosophers that matter
>>8248786
Kek
You forgot one
>>8248837
Devil worshipper be gone
>Plato
Means Aristotle
>Nietzsche
Means Stirner
>Land
Means Hobbes
>/lit/ trying to philosophy
Where the fuck is Quine, Lewis, Putnam, Kripke, and fucking Parfit you pleb
>>8248786
plato hobbes kant hegel tbqh
>>8248958
>kripke
Kill yourself
>>8248982
Why?
>>8248992
Suicide is fun. I kill myself daily.
>>8248982
I knew I'd get slack for Kripke. He is the memiest meme in the analytic camp (next to Lewis who is salvaged for his Possible Worlds stuff which is pure logical gold intermingled with critiques and expansions on Hume *my fav*).
But to say he is not among the most important philosophers of all time is to ignore sheer data that he is still like the most referenced philosopher of the 20th century as far as formal papers go. His influence is undeniable.
>>8249012
why is he important
>>8248958
Read all but Lewis (kek) that you mentioned and none of them could handle the Neech it's fuckin pathetic (I mean, Quine is probably on neech's side but who gives a fuck)
>>8248786
Nick Land looks a shitload like Ted Bundy. On phone. Don't feel like putting two pics next to each other.
Pynchon is number uno desu fame
>>8249027
>>8249025
>Implying Nietzsche didnt plagarize Stirner
>>8249018
Naming and Neccessity, bud. Not to mention Kripkenstein (one of the few intelligible interpretations of Wittgenstein out there). He changed the way we logic, and gave Lewis a run for his money. Though, I reiterate, Lewis is too fun to concede.
>>8248976
I'll trade you a Heideggar for a Hobbes and we've got a deal.
>Old cunt
>Tryhard
>Vengeful hypocrite
>Edgelord
>>8248786
In what world are all these dudes teachings compatible?
Slightly off topic, but does anyone have that "start with the greeks" flowchart?
>>8249254
Do you even dialectics bro?
>>8249168
>Vegeful hypocrite
>le communisme = moralisme xDDDD
Jesus Christ
>>8249254
understanding them doesn't mean adhering to them
despite being about as far right as you can get (and then some) Land's work has a lot of basis in Marx
the 4 that matter to ACTUAL people
Camus, Dawkins, Darwin, Tesla
>>8248786
>Plato
>Nietzsche
>Marx
>Land
These philosophies are all in direct opposition to one another. I think you just fucking wrote out all the ones you've heard of.
The only philosophers you need are Aurelius, Kierkegaard, Augustine, and Nietzsche. Before you say "Anon, you can't have Augustine AND Nietzsche", yes I fucking can. Augustine is about embracing religion, Nietzsche is about the fundamental change in human nature now that religious morality has been subsumed by materialism.
>>8250725
Only one of those is a philosopher
>>8250981
While I am of the opinion that a 'proper Nietzschean' (lol as much as one can exist) cannot adhere to Judeo-Christian values---not without such a radical facelift we wouldn't even call it that anymore---people do miss the importance and embrace of religion in N.'s thought.
>>8249305
>I swear, it's History man, it's just going to happen because muh dialectics, i-it's not like I want those filthy bourgeoise to burn in Hegell, there's nothing I can do, the Revolution has to happen, muh supestructure can do nuffin!
You're right, it's not moralism. It's much worse.
>>8250981
Are you fucking stupid? Go back to BGE's preface. Drop the "materialist" bullshit. Neech's problem with Christianity is the same problem he has with Plato.
It offers weak, insufficient metaphysics that is ultimately destroyed by a commitment to the logic of the will to power.
Your morality is useless in the face of true vitality.
Neech would laugh at you.
Aside from that glaring contradiction
>Aurelius
Really? Do you realize how fucking contradictory and messy the logic/metaphysics/most basic arguments of Stoicism are? Sure, if you want a "muh down to earth" meme, you've got it, but c'mln if you remotely give a shit about "truth" and all that (which obvs you do as implied by your commitment to the Jewish-slave-morality version of The Forms) you can't possibly sack up with the likes of Aurelius.
>Augustine
le I pulled this shit out of my St.Paul dick sucking ass meme
>Kiekegaard
Quite literally a waste of time. I could read Hegel, or Job, to get everything he ever said. A beautiful writer, but a weak thinker bound by his own bourgeoise upbringing and sexual repression.
But what gets me the most about your list is that it screams conveniance. You want philosophers that you can interpret as offering some day-to-day self help-gyide for your life. But that's a shitty reading of any of those thinkers, let alone Neech who would bitch slap dat ass for speaking his name in the same sentence as the likes of the weak-willed Kierkegaard and the dogmatic Augustine.
>fedora tipped
>>8250984
tesla?
>>8248786
Marx is retarded garbage. If only we can remove all his influence, the world would heal.
>>8251022
I'm not a Marxist, my friend, but calling trying to call Marx/Engels hypocrites completely disqualifies anything you have to say tbqh.
>>8250981
christ, you're a retard
>Marx
why? Marxism was probably the biggest blunder of the last century
>>8248786
>implying the greatest philosophers of all time aren't Aristotle, Aquinas, Nietzsche and Heidegger
U dun goofed OP.
>>8248958
Analytic philosophy is mostly garbage, and is ironically heavily politicized despite protestations to the contrary. You're all basically useful idiots of out-dated Cold War politics. You'll never read this book because the result would be narcissistic injury, but for anyone that doesn't believe me, Time in the Ditch lays out the history well.
Plato
Kant
Hegel
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Deluze
Land
Done
>>8250998
The way which Nietzsche deals with religion is what sets him apart from the New Atheists, who are mostly just godless Christians who have replaced Christ and God with Utility and Humanity.
Nietzsche rightly recognizes that religion is part of a healthy human condition. His problem with Christianity isn't that it's untrue (after all, the truth isn't even shallow, it's not a worthy thing-in-itself) but that the values it promotes weaken us. New Atheists harp on the first point but are in many cases better Christians than the churchgoers themselves are.
He is against metaphysical religion because he thinks the promise of heaven and the like have a bad influence on how people live. ER was largely his way of dealing with the question of what happens after death without separating the realm of the dead from the realm of the living.
People like Dawkins and Hitchens read like fucking whiny teenagers by comparison to the N-God.
>>8251936
>The way which Nietzsche deals with religion is what sets him apart from the New Atheists, who are mostly just godless Christians who have replaced Christ and God with Utility and Humanity.
Muh Cathedral.
Kill yourself reactionaryfaggot, do the world a favor.
>>8251943
>uses buzz words like reactionary in a bombastic matter
Calm down /pol/
>>8251953
People like you literally want the era that spawned shit like /pol/ back.
>>8251956
lol just stop
>>8248786
I feel like this is definitely the most interesting direction the New Right is taking. Really hard to underestimate the dependence of Land, and his blogging clique in general, on Marxism. It would be no exaggeration to call Land a Right-Wing Marxist. It all ends in fuggen Mega Death, but at least he's honest in fighting the class struggle on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
>>8248786
>Nietzsche
What a fucking tool.
>>8251967
the cathedral is a loosely adapted culture industry of Frankfurt school fame.
>>8251648
Kill yourself.
>>8251943
lmao, do you really think that one must be a neoreactionary to see that humanism is becoming a new religion?
http://www.humanityparty.com/proposed-constitution.html
Scroll to the bottom to see exactly what I mean, these guys are on the bleeding edge of progressive movements. Also their 'seal' is hilarious since it's basically the mason's compass. Not even trying to hide that shit.
>>8251943
observe as the acolyte squirms
>>8251956
>Era back
>Reactionary
You're so retarded this is an oxymoron
>>8251997
>humanity party
Wow, you really proved your point with those bunches of nobodies.
>>8251943
This is argument made by Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx, Adorno if you think this is limited to NRx you need to study more.
>>8251997
right again
i
g
h
t
a
g
a
i
n
>>8251934
>Deleuze
>Land
Putting them on the same list as Kant should be a capital offense.
Move over, losers.
>>8252056
No, Kant is still amazingly influential wtf are you talking about
>>8248786
>>8249018
You're retarded
Also, the list goes:
Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Wittgenstein
>>8249012
>sheer data
>most referenced philosopher
this means nothing you sad analytic
Heraclitus, Christ, Kant, Stirner.
>>8251934
D&G are only good for better understanding Land and maybe impressing arty girls
Chomsky, Zizek, Land and Foucault.
>>8252246
That's why they are cannon
>>8251934
Whoah..... This.... Is..... Perfect.....
Aristotle
Hegel
Sartre
Freud
Lacan
Done.
>>8252111
will oldham, stalin, bjork, and chloe sevigny
hmm
>>8248786
>Marx
>Matters
What is this, alliteration hour?
>>8248786
Tfw no Kant
>>8251797
Don't listen to me, ask yourself if Marxism has ever made anyone happy.
>>8254163
Even though they were pretty pathetic attempts at socialism a lot of eastern Europeans miss the living standards of Yugoslavia and the USSR.
>>8248786
Get rid of Marx and we shall be fine.
>>8254257
I meant personallly. Are there any thinkers or artists that have been possitively affected by knowing Marx's ideas, that have found any solace or new found love for life in Marxist ideas, and not a pneumatically diseased, spiteful wreck? Brecht maybe? But even he wanted to take catharsis out of theater.
Jesus and Buddha are the only two philosophers that matter
>>8254305
>catharsis out of theater.
Did he really?
Mutter Courage shows no sign of this
>>8254257
Loving
Every
Laugh
>>8254305
>"knowing Marx's ideas" could ever contribute meaningfully to the personality.
it takes a very special kind of stupidity to think the reading forms the man, rather than the man chasing after the reading he seeks to be formed by. readers of marx are already upset; marxism is just the finest and grandest way of articulating it.
>>8251967
Quiet down. I was planning on spearheading a Right rehabilitation of Marx, don't need people giving away that Land already did.
>>8248786
How can this be true ifOP is a faggot?
>>8254532
You're being extremely reductionist. Often writing touches parts of us which would not even have come to consciousness without it, and therefore not developped as a result. I don't disagree at all that their previous conditions lead them to it, but if the writings in question did not affect their personality, then writing, and the whole of art really, are completely pointless.
>>8254163
>I'm not a Marxist, my friend
Literally right there. I don't care for your arguments regarding Marxism, for it or against it.
My only point was that by calling out Marxists for being "hypocrites", you just make a fool of yourself and show your lack of even basic understanding, rather than criticizing them.
>>8255109
>My only point was that by calling out Marxists for being "hypocrites", you just make a fool of yourself and show your lack of even basic understanding, rather than criticizing them.
And you base this on...?
>>8254257
That's because Nationalism was fully done then. Same reason why italians, greek and spanish people have nostalgia for their fascist periods
>>8248786
excellent bait, also
>land
>>8248958
>analytic
>>8255984
is right about everything
>>8254670
>a Right rehabilitation of Marx
You mean neoliberalism?
>>8256004
said no one with at least half a functioning brain.
>>8256019
>brain-based insults
i outgrew this in 1st grade
>>8256019
I'm really really smart and I just said it
>>8254735
i don't think the "personality" as it has been constructed in this brief discourse is something that can be meaningfully altered after the age at which it is able to approach marx, let a lone capital-l literature
>>8251967
I'm not sure the bourgeoisie is very eager on a return to some kind of pre-French revolution social order.
>>8251022
What is your text from? Sorry if I come as a newfag.
>>8256065
I disagree, character is something that is always changing, expanding and contracting.
>>8256587
https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=AzssomBIDRIC&pg=PA426&lpg=PA426&dq=%22the+article+you+sent+me+is+a+plausible+lie%22&source=bl&ots=pmYoBcKfeW&sig=_G7ee61ra8efxu0DqkJ7PwNPFSw&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizpvzG3-XNAhXCGZAKHauGDIkQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>8248786
PLATO
KANT
HEIDEGGER
WITTGENSTEIN
IS ALL A NIGGA NEED
>>8248786
>plato
>jesus
>aquinas
>evola
Non-fedora Master race.
>>8250981
>Nietzsche is about the fundamental change in human nature now that religious morality has been subsumed by materialism.
delete this
>Heracltius
>Parmindes
all downhill from here
>>8258073
Or did they reach the bottom and start going up?
>>8250981
>These philosophies are all in direct opposition to one another.
Yeah? Its like saying only the chinese, latins, arab, etc civilizations matter instead of a bunch of half-baked spinoffs like the gooks or the pakistanis
>>8251967
reading leftist social theory and post-modern philosophers I just couldn't help but think that the conceptual tools they were creating would be able to be turned back against leftist movements much more effectively than they could utilize them. the thing stopping this from happening is that we haven't had any cross-talk with people that actually understand these theories and right wingers. With NRx people we are starting to see a bit of that, but most of them are still massive faggots.
turns out that in criticizing ideas like objectivity, morality, democracy and liberalism the left doesn't have the weapons to respond to right-wing nationalists.
>>8251797
But Marx was a hypocrite. He lived off of Engels and loans his whole life, and Engels made his wealth from his private business.
Marx actually 'exploited' the workers indirectly.
>>8258785
That's not hypocritical in Marx philosophy desu.
He was a dialectician not a moralizer
>>8258691
post-modernism isn't leftism bee tee dubs
>>8258797
How is it not hypocritical?
He lived off of profits from a private company and loans, then went on to denounce private business owners as immoral and exploitative.
>>8258814
they are best buddies
>>8258846
and this effects his studies of the dynamics of capitalism, his theory of history and social change, and his ideas about a society in which nobody had to rely on wage labour to get by how exactly?
>>8258849
i don't think so because of how it can be used against leftist movements. even leftist social theory can as well but i didn't want to say it "isn't leftist". because these theories get appropriated by neo-liberal capitalism doesn't mean the theories themselves are best buddies, it just means pieces are picked and chosen for the purpose of entrenching bourgeois culture because the majority of the population isn't educated let alone educated in french cultural theories
>>8258846
Jesus Christ, why don't any of you read his fucking work before you actually comment on it?
There is literally no excuse, none.
>>8258054
>Non-fedora
>literally fedora
I get your joke
>>8258854
In the fact that he didn't practice his disdain for Capitalism in his life.
As Stefan Molyneux put it: "If you picked up a book on how to lose weight written by a morbidly obese man, there are only two observations you could make from that.
1. The diet doesn't work
2. The man does not practice his own theory"
Not to mention that his critique of Capitalism is actually total bullshit because the relationship between employer and employee is a mutually beneficial one, not an inherently exploitative one.
His theories of history are wrong because there are more classes throughout history than just 'the exploited' and 'the exploiter', and not all struggles were class struggles.
His Labour Theory of Value is laughable at best, taking only one factor of value on particular item, that being the amount of labour put into it.
>>8258866
Explain.
>>8254532
>it takes a very special kind of stupidity to think the reading forms the man, rather than the man chasing after the reading he seeks to be formed by.
Confirmation bias isn't laudable in the least, anon. I don't think I've ever seen a sentence as turned around as this one.
>>8258880
>Explain.
Marx wasn't some fucking NEET, he was chased out of the continent and forced into poverty for Christ's sake. He worked as a journalist even in exile but it wasn't enough to pay the bills so Engels was kind enough to provide enough to let Marx and his family survive, though they only just got by. Marx and Engels owned and operated newspapers before they were forcibly shut down.
And the critique of capitalism isn't based on petty fucking moralism.
It's not none of you mongoloids don't care that you have no idea what you're talking about, it's memes all the way down.
>>8258901
*It's like none of you mongoloids care
>>8258880
>[this effects his studies of the dynamics of capitalism because] he didn't practice his disdain for Capitalism in his life.
>Stefan Molyneux
>the relationship between employer and employee is a mutually beneficial one
>Labour Theory of Value
>not all struggles were class struggles.
>His theories of history are wrong
>because there are more classes throughout history than just 'the exploited' and 'the exploiter'
>Stefan Molyneux
>>8258901
Is that why he didn't bother going to his father's funeral and, in fact, started pressing his mother to provide the money that his father could no longer provide?
Is that why Marx never held a proper job in his life?
Marx was a fucking loser and a horrible human being.
>>8258846
I don't even know where to stay with you.
1) being a hypocrite might be a character flaw, but it does not make you wrong
2) Marx living off the system he is fighting is not hypocritical because being a hypocrite means telling people to abstain from something you do; Marx was trying to dismantle capitalism while surviving in a capitalist world this is literally his argument point blank, it's the least hypocritical thing about him.
3) hypocrite is a term that usually applies to a 'moralized' or axiomatic system of values, Marx was a dialectician and using a 'hypocritical' evaluation while ignoring how his own criteria would change over time is asinine
4) exploitation was not a moral or individual action under Marx trying to call him a hypocrite on that basis is so illiterate I'm almost certain you didn't even skim the Wikipedia page
I hope you are like 14 for your own sake. Maybe there is still hope.
Just don't insinuate some obfuscation on my part, or any Marxist belief please spare me.
>>8258914
Nice argument there, buddy. Really convinced me.
>>8258925
Excellent non-arguments, anon. The addition of the moving goal-post really tops it off. Well done.
>>8258927
To be honest it's convincing to anyone that is actually familiar with the material.
I mean, you really think Marx thought "exploiter" and "exploited" are classes...
>>8258948
'Capitalist' and 'worker', 'oppressor' and 'oppressed', 'exploiter' and 'exploited'.
Whatever you want to call it, Marx believed that one group of people were oppressing and exploiting another.
>>8248786
>I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that these are the only 4 philosophers that matter
to who?
>>8258880
OK now you are actually saying something a real argument. Saying Marx is a hypocrite is what your buddy would call "Not an argument". His writing wasn't "people on an individual level shouldn't engage or benefit from wage labor", it was a theory of how society should be organized on a macro-level differently.
I have no interest in actually defending classical Marxism because that isn't what I believe, but your posts make it very clear you have never read even a summary of Marxist thought that didn't come from a right-winger.
Of course wage labor is beneficial to both parties, people would starve without work (hence the concept of wage slavery). But the real question is which side holds all the leverage, how they got that leverage, and what they do with it to tilt the playing field.
>>8258948
yea, yea, yea we get it. Marx was an agent of British intelligence order the direction of David Urquart. he isn't to be taken seriously. his revolutionary philosophy was not so much intended to liberate the oppressed as it was to remove leaders who opposed Britons imperial policies and open new markets for neocolonialism. this is unmistakably a capitalists world and those defending the Marx meme are too pathetic for words.
>>8258952
It's like a long wet fart that won't stop
Class and group aren't the same thing retard
>>8258970
Except there is such a thing as class mobility.
For example, a worker can become an entrepreneur by setting up their own businesses with loans and savings.
Other workers can become 'Capitalists' by buying shares of a company in the stock market.
But even among regular workers, there are different levels of jobs, such as a retail cashier versus a civil engineer. One clearly makes way more than the other, and can live quite luxuriously, thus making the idea of 'wage slavery' invalid, as it assumes that workers are merely slaves to their masters for a pittance.
>>8258980
Stop with the semantics already. You get what I mean.
It's this idea that one class exploits the other.
>>8258978
You're wreckted, I understand, but surely you knew that you would've been exposed eventually? My suggestion is to not air opinions that are about subjects you don't understand.
>>8258992
>believing jewish lies
>>8258996
you're a retard
>>8258996
>Stop with the semantics already. You get what I mean.
Weak damage control desu
>>8258992
>Except there is such a thing as class mobility.
Well it's a good thing that Marx's critique of capitalism doesn't rest on the assumption that the bourgeois society is a caste structure.
>>8258992
>But even among regular workers, there are different levels of jobs, such as a retail cashier versus a civil engineer. One clearly makes way more than the other, and can live quite luxuriously, thus making the idea of 'wage slavery' invalid
That's like saying the fact that there were house niggers means that slavery didn't exist in the US.
Look, 'wage slavery' doesn't mean that all wage jobs don't pay well, it means that the worker has nothing else to sustain him but his labor, which he necessarily must sell, which is to say that he is existentially obligated to work, or else he dies. It's clear you don't understand even the basic ideas.
>>8259035
You have just been so exposed to not know what you are talking about that its not worth engaging with you. At least read a short unbiased summary of Marx's work before you talk about it.
The funny thing is I'm a right wing nationalist and even I recognize you are getting BTFO and don't understand what you are talking about.
>>8259044
Yes, he is obligated to work because things need to be produced and services need to be provided in order for a society to function.
Nurses are obligated to work to take care of the sick.
Chemical engineers are obligated to work to produce petrol.
Accountants are obligated to work to keep track of a company's finances.
Farmers are obligated to work to provide the nation with food.
I mean, what's the issue with this? People work in order to earn money, but their work also produces something of value or something necessary for society to function.
>>8259035
I mean even a really basic understand of Marxist history betrays the idea of capitalists and workers existing through all time. Liberals might believe that all previous economies are "essentially capitalist (because they have "markets" or some dumbfuck argument)" but that's not a Marxist idea.
>>8259059
I'm not saying that it's just Capitalist vs worker, but it's the general idea of oppressor and oppressed.
>>8259058
>People work in order to earn money
"Money" didn't always exist, and even in the history of money it takes different forms and importance. Capitalist Farmers have no obligation to provide the nation with food. That is a purely feudalistic notion. The farmer is obligated to provide labor to the capitalist that owns the farm (or else the laborer dies) and the capitalist is obligated to sell the commodities created by the farmer in so far as it generates a profit for that owner.
There was no working class in pre-capitalist societies. The peasantry's labor work produced goods that sustained themselves and the other classes. You can't eat money.
>>8259074
Marx's theory of history is always more of a mosaic than this. The bifurcated, antagonistic appearance of class discourse, while retaining a certain objective reality as ideology, is ideological nonetheless.
>>8259089
Just because it didn't always exist doesn't mean it's not essential now.
Pre-money societies were far more primitive than contemporary society.
Yes, the produce of the farmer is sold for a profit, but without a profit the incentive simply wouldn't be there to produce the food. In a Marxist society, what incentive would the farmer have to give any food to the nation's people? He could just hoard it all for himself.
>>8259153
>Just because it didn't always exist doesn't mean it's not essential now.
The fact that it didn't always exist does in fact mean it's not necessary. That alone completely blows a hole in the notion of "incentive" as some kind of engine of nature and why the present system is necessary to maintain.
>In a Marxist society, what incentive would the farmer have to give any food to the nation's people?
In a Marxist society there are no classes that divide people and no means by which to exploit anyone since everyone is a worker. How does a farmer, without any ownership of land or crop, hoard said land or crop? What is he hoarding it for, exactly? And without an army or police to enforce his domination of the means and mode of productions, how does he do this? This kind of act only makes sense in a society defined by exploitation and division.
>>8252111
Is Julien Donkey-boy the final boss of philosophy?
>>8248786
kek
>>8251919
kek. found the guy who cant read.
>>8252188
ty
GET THE MARXISTS OFF OF /LIT/. BURN THEM AT THE STAKE.
ITT
>>8249012
Lewis and Kripke ruined analytic philosophy
