/philosophy/ - Philosophy

I'm still a newphag and the only one I've read a lot of is Nietzsche, as well as The Outsider by Camus. I have a very basic intro grasp to the others I'd like to think. Except Heidegger, that guy is complex af.

I'm ordering the Irrational Man from Amazon so hopefully it will be a better intro text. If anyone else has any other recommendations or w/e, I would love to hear them.

>>2459

>Heidegger

Definitely what I would consider a late-stage philosopher when you're more well-read.

Kind of like Hegel and Lacan in the sense that if you haven't had any pre-reading before them you won't know what the fuck you're reading, especially Hegel.

>absurdism

>existentialism

Heidegger for his political thinking, the fucking loony.

>>2463

Well I don't think absurdism ever yielded enough thinkers to qualify as its own branch. I mean, you've got Camus,Kierkegaard is debatable and that's it.

>>2466

I never got people who dismissed him because of his politics alone, since if one is captivated by a philosopher's thought, it should cause that person to reevaluate the political current the philosopher subscribes to, lest a newfound truth be found in it.

>>2467

Absurdism is more of a branch off nihilism.

There is also Discordianism. I'm quite digging. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism

>>2468

Discordianism always seemed to me like a long running "le ebin meme!". What I really have to ask is whether these people actually believe in this stuff down to their bones, or if this is like a sci-fi fandom adding on to its lore, and maybe identifying with it in public to be a special snowflake.

>>2463

I like to think of it as nihilism in denial

>>2467

>>2472

I will rebel against your absurd labels

>>2483

Continental feminism is just about the only kind that isn't bullshit tbh smh fam

>>2498

If you mean pre-20c feminism by that then it's mostly fine but contained the seeds for later, terrible feminism within itself.

I don't hold to any of the various types of feminism, but there's a distinct drop in quality from the wrong philosophy (but still philosophy) of people like Beauvoir to the complete nonsense you see today.

>>2499

>I don't hold to any of the various types of feminism, but there's a distinct drop in quality from the wrong philosophy (but still philosophy) of people like Beauvoir to the complete nonsense you see today.

Honestly If you're going to subscribe to first wave feminism or the pre-20's feminism ideology you might as well call yourself an egalitarian

The only thinkers of value from the Existentialist "movement" are Simone de Beauvoir and Heidegger (who was really a phenomenologist anyways). Existentialism is shit-tier pop philosophy that cannot outlast its own novelty in the minds of anyone who engages with philosophy on a serious level.

Proto-existentialists like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are fine though.

>>2506

what is the general consensus here about phenomenology anyway?

>>2507

bargain basement kant imo

>>2508

but hegel tho

>>2506

Can you give an argument to why existentialism is pop philosophy? I'm asking because your argument is a big ad hominem.

>>2519

The minute I hear someone invoke the ad hominem fallacy, I automatically assume you are a stormnigger who throws around logical fallacies as though they will necessarily win every argument.

Anyways: Existentialism is objectively, demonstrably a pop philosophy on the basis that it is the only branch of philosophy that has enjoyed any popularity in popular media (muh Fite Club XDDD although I actually like that movie kek). And this is more or less the extent of its significance, aside from Sartre's influence on Focault and Simone de Beauvoir's influence on the feminist movement (which sadly has taken a turn for the worse; she must be rolling in her grave).

Existentialism itself is a worthless branch of philosophy because its content consists almost entirely in prescriptive claims about how to approach the human condition. Sartre blatantly stole from Heidegger - whose conceptualization of the idealistic plane that post-Kantian philosophy confines us to is, in my opinion, a brilliantly accurate one - and added to it that we all "create" meaning. But the very idea of "creating" meaning is as absurd as the concept of meaning itself - which in language is more or less impossible to locate (see Quine's "Ontological Relativity"), and which elsewhere is a pseudo-philosophical concept (the "meaning of life" - could there be any more a stereotypically "deep" question!?). It is not so much that humans can consciously create meaning or that we phenomenologically "create" meaning, so much as we are under the illusion of meaning which corresponds to absolutely nothing outside of us. And this is without even addressing the problems in developments since Existentialism that have been raised vis a vis post-structuralism, which would critique it on the basis that we do not create meaning so much as we regurgitate the historical and cultural circumstances we are thrown into. While we cannot help but believe that our words have a shared meaning or that our lives have purpose, much like we must believe we are free and act as if we are, in both cases we have no rights to these beliefs. They exist in our minds alone and on this basis any privileging of them in any philosophical system is patently idealistic - in the non-Kantian sense.

Basically, Existentialism took the Heideggerian rejection of an essential conflict between the real and the ideal (as an ontological conflict) and made gross and indefensible claims about our abilities within this idealistic sphere that nonetheless sounded very nice.

That isn't to say that Existentialism isn't a very inspiring body of works, or that literary Existentialists like Dostoevsky and Kafka aren't fantastic and important figures in the literary canon, but on the whole I think that Existentialism as a philosophical tradition is a dead-end. And at the end of it (for those who make it to the end and don't stay stuck in the naive, solipsistic belief that their existence has meaning because they create it phenomenologically, or the even more naive and delusional belief that they can consciously create meaning) is nihilism.

>>2520

(keep in mind that I am not counting Nietzsche and Kierkegaard here as Existentialists; they are proto-Existentialists).

>>2494

It's not. I mean, it can allow for agnosticism, but that's not the point of it. The point of it is that we can find meaning in the struggle.

>>2520

>who is socrates

I don't agree with your analysis. Existential philosophy purely stems from the premise that existence precedes essence, that essential arguments are after the fact semantics which almost always come from wishful thinking. Instead we should look towards what we perceive and what our desires are.

If existentialism was purely pop philosophy, then Stirner would be a lot more popular, given that he influenced most of it. Individualism and egoism stem directly from existential philosophies such as absurdism, and so I oppose your analysis that it is worthless. We don't "create" meaning I agree- we form our own identities is the point. It's about dealing with human desires and needs and their conflict with both reality and their standards, as opposed to metaphysics.

Existentialism isn't a monolith so I also disagree with your suggestion that it makes "gross and indefensible claims" unless of course you're arguing against the core premise that existence precedes essence which I don't think you have demonstrated.

The meaning of life is only one part of it, that's the part that's been pop-ized.

I think you are confusing existentialism, which is just the branch, with Sartre and such's philosophies.

>>2520

Advice: I agree with your opinion, but that's merely a coincidence. Ranting like this won't ever get anyone on your side.

Berdayev although he's not spoken much among these parts he's Orthodox Kierkegaard basically

>>2468

discordianism is too eligaitarian for me

>>2469

discordians are apparently religiously forbidden to believe in anything

>>2468

>A nihilist is not one who believes in nothing , but one who does not believe in what exists.

They're all three pretty related I guess, but also very different, I guess.

Nihilists - there is no purpose

Existentialists - man's purpose is his own

Absurdist - man's purpose can not be known

>>2494

For Camus perhaps but certainly not for Kierkegaard.

>>2477

>Once you label me you negate me.

>>2469

Discordianism is even less serious than worshipping the god-emperor of mankind

>>2456

Me desu. All other's answers are incorrect

>>3743

I appreciate the advice. I think the problem really lies in where we are, 8chan. It's the common attitude to be ranting about anything, and most of the time antagonise anyone we talk to. It doesn't fit well with philosophy as a whole, but I guess we can't do much about it. Though so far the conversations I've seen here are way more polite than on /v/, it's a good thing.

Sartre was a giant hack, Camus was way better. Nietszche + Camus = best combo.

>>2499

it doesn't matter they're all just gonna get raped like cavemen at the end of history.

King Solomon

>Ecclesiastes 9:7-10

(7)  "Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.

(8)  Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment.

(9)  Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun.

(10)  Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

Foucault and Heidegger. I dunno maybe Nietzsche too, does Schopenhauer qualify?

Though I'm not a fan of existentialism in general too much of a Plato and Hegel fanboy.

>>6844

Likely. One can hope. Based Kojeve. Doesn't get enough credit. People would rather Jack off to Spinoza all day.

>>5809

Most are feminist so they must believe in something, like cuckery

>>2456

dead one