[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/lounge/ - Lounge

The Wizard's Lounge
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1706904592741.jpg (494.96 KB, 1880x1513, 1880:1513, 1697748924714463.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


Here, in this thread, we'll be talking about philosophy. tell us what are you reading or talk about what is on your mind about philosophy


The other day I was thinking about whether this is the real life or nothing more but a mere fantasy…


which philosophers align best with volcel?




what makes you choose him?


Listened to some Max Stirner last night while on my shift.

Now my recommended feed is fucked to hell with communist bullshit because he was friends with other German Hegelians and post post-Hegelians. Yes, including Engles.
Only reason why I bothered looking into him is because I like objectivism and many of those guys call themselves Egoist. However Max's work is much less impressive to me since it isn't practical philosophy like objectivism is. It's mostly playing word games, like far too much of modernist philosophy, and isn't as interested in actual real life real world real deal shit.


The philosophy book I had most fun with is titles Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. It's a mix of biography, oddities and philosophical opinions about a number of issues. Definitely the only philosophy book I could recommend to anyone.


In the past philosophers were like us. Usually virgins or outcasts who had time to think about life and asked questions about society. Sex havers are incapable of this because they are satisfied and don’t need to think deeply. When your basic biological functions aren’t met you come to conclusions that no one else will be able to unless they are in a similar position. Say someone was able to live without food, water or shelter past 3 weeks (which are on the same level as sex on the hierarchy of needs) they would probably be on the same plane of thinking as us.
You go back to Roman times there were chances for us to industrialize but we didn’t probably because wizard voices weren’t given the light of day.
Philosophy virgins in the past didn’t even have a platform or following so they couldn’t voice their based antisex opinions. That’s probably why we weren’t even able to advance as much as we could have as a wizard society.

Only sufferers can see the true reality and understand what is best.


It really makes you see how spread out across the ancient world Greek civ was. Like Hegasius the one who advocated suicide was from Libya.


yeah I've read his book 3-4 years ago and I kind of understood it but yeah me too I have anarchist video that pop since I watched a video about stirner. I should read his book again because I fon't remmeber what it was about but I memeber that everything is a spook


stirner's egoism is personal philosophy that can be applied by anyone. objectivism is that, but mixed with theories of all kinds, and quite literally prescribes you a way of life that cannot be applied by everyone. much prefer deciding what is good for myself instead of that hag rand. with stirner you can justify anything, even denying yourself that which you enjoy, if the idea of doing so interests you


File: 1707056696102.png (16.88 KB, 200x154, 100:77, mainlander.png) ImgOps iqdb

I use to be really into Schopenhauer. I feel like Schopenhauer, emil cioran, and mainlander are like wiz magnets when it comes to philosophy. While it was nice reading the stuff most of it isnt really practical. I do like reading on the philosphy of aesthetics though since im an amature artist


>Schopenhauer, emil cioran, and mainlander are like wiz magnets
Unfortunately and I say that mostly because they're on the edges of philosophy, if those guys are the only ones you read you won't get a wide scope of what philosophy even is. It would be better if Plato and Aristotle were wiz magnets since their works are the foundation of everything that comes later. I suspect it would also be healthier.


yes, i explored other philosphers like hegel and kant, and some greeks, and even the post modern french faggots.

Im just a natural born pessimist


I've read a lot about Kant, but never directly read his Critique of PR. Since Schop and Hegel have influenced me so much, I'll try to read it through the lens of Schop. Schop sees Kant as basically saying the same thing as Plato that there is a hidden true reality behind appearance. Although most academic philosophers would disagree with that reading.

A lot of moderns interpret Kant to be saying something along the lines of Cognitive Psychology. That our minds are the equipment or hardware by which we can even view the world. Its not distorting the real, but the only way to see it at all.

I've never been all that into epistemology how we know what we know. I just take it for granted and focus on more interesting topics.


To seek out philosophy is one of the most mundane tasks a man can endure. To be at all invested in reading the journal entries of these court jesters in the hopes of fining some explanations for the world is no better than seeking out life advice from the Hollywood movies about gruff tattoo collectors smoking dope in a basement to cope with the fact that they don't have a female companion. Willingly doing away with your God-given ability to reflect upon the world around you and draw your own conclusions, just so that you can entertain the ramblings of a handful of drunken aristocratic perverts from a bygone age. And what do they have to say? 30 unique ways to mope about how life sucks because >no gf, >some men stronger than other men, >why God let big animal at small animal?? >IF Gd real, why he not make ME big and have GF???. Schopenhauer should be held to no higher esteem than a modern day sand-up comedian whose routine relies on rolling about the stage floor crying that he's inferior and afraid.

If you believe learning "Philosophy" is a noble undertaking, then you've been fooled by a college culture; studying philosophy was always just a way to distract horny teenage boys from the world around them. Stop reading philosophy, and start philosophizing. Tell us what you've come to believe instead of writing scripture for the ancient clowns who couldn't see past their dry dick far enough to witness people, birds, and beasts actually enjoying life for what it is.


most amateurs autodidacts who philosophize themselves just end up reproducing philosophy 101 positions but on a lower and more confused level.

its about applying analytical rigor to these topics.


There are plenty of optimistic philosophers like Leibniz who said this was the best of all possible worlds. Or Plato who used the term Demiurge as a compliment not an insult. As someone above said Schop and Cioran aren't the mainstream of philosophy.


That anon is so green it's funny. I would recommend reading some history of philosophy first since it's painfully obvious he can't tell his right hand from his left on the matter. Frederick Copleston books are an excellent start and I enjoy them a lot.


philosophy was created to undersrand our world and why we do things or why this is happening


reading what someone else thinks doesn't make you incapable of thinking yourself, rather it enhances the process because it gives you something to start from and work off of. Also, not every philospher is schopenhauer


tell us you're in your early 20's without telling us you're in your early 20's

[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]