Philosophy Alignment

> inb4 Comic Sans

> Lawful Good - Plato because the ideal world and the duality of good and evil;
> Neutral Good - Kant because he wanted to save metaphysics using reason;
> Chaotic Good - Descartes because... well, he liked drinking wine while naked in his room;
> Lawful Neutral - I don't know, help me, /lit;
> True Neutral - Socrates, "I know that I know nothing";
> Chaotic Neutral - Hegel because he wanted to "end" philosophy using his own method of dialectical system;
> Lawful Evil - Maquiaveli, wanting to do good using "bad" methods;
> Neutral Evil - Hume, "destroying" metaphysics;
> Chaotic Evil - Marx cause... you know, look at the state the he left the world.

So, what do you think, guys?

Lawful Neutral would probably be a Utilitarian like Mill or Bentham.

>So, what do you think, guys?
Don't waste your time doing that, thank me later

My friends and I were bored at university.

>Chaotic Neutral - Hegel because he wanted to "end" philosophy using his own method of dialectical system;

fuck, I'm retarded and can't use Veeky Forums

Lawful neutral could be Hobbes, literally defending laws and shit

That's an awesome idea

>Marx
>Chaotic evil

Kant is a lawfag, Macchiaveli is Chaotic good, even as you described him, and Socrates is chaotic.
Lawful neutral is uhhh idk Hobbes? Suppose that's a bad guess

o wow didnt see someone thought of hobbes b4 me

Yeah, Maquiaveli is better at Chaotic Good. And why would Soc be chaotic too?

Tfw no Depressive Neutral

Obviousyl marx is lawful good go back to pol

He is restless in his inquiry

Spinoza?

Sure, let us lawfully overthrow our government through bloody revolution so that we may starve half the country for the greater good. Sounds as legit as it gets.

now for the next generation

sorry for the plebness, but I don't know who the chaotic evil is

jock dorito

>anglos
>good in any sense of the world
It's time to stop shitposting, lad.

>Maquiaveli
mfw

>marx
>chaotic evil
couldnt you use evola or stirner for that?

the face of someone who goes to taverns, fucks sluts and after writes "how to be a dictator for dummies"

Mr. Spooky would be Neutral Evil, probably.

How do I finish this? Is there anyone I should change out?

>How do I finish this?
Take a breather and realize you're wasting time on a pointless memepic that's neither funny nor informative.

(there are sites that fill these in for you)

Marx is chaotic good

What about Aurelius or smth in true neutral, depending on how you classify stoicism.

Diogenes could fill in rebel neutral.

I’m thinking chaotic evil should be a some post-modern progressive “intellectual”.

reactionaries need to believe Marx was an evil man for some reason, as though he expected his ideology would lead to people like Mao or Stalin

he was just a fat lazy piece of shit who never worked a day in his life much like his writings suggest you do too

whos the chaotic good?

whos chaotic neutral?

impure tho really?

hurr durr

switch Socrates and Descartes positions

>Chaotic Evil - Marx cause... you know, look at the state the he left the world.

these revolutions happened because of insane access to weapons for peasants brought about by international free trade and international backstabbing politics (Lenin being shipped back to Russia from Germany, Vietnam being occupied by France, Mao financed against the US by Russia) not because some German lawyer wrote pamphlets on capitalism, if Marx was never born the 19th and 20th centuries would have happened just as they had just without a convenient scapegoat for dumb pseudolibertarian analysts to point to

GE moore

thanks

Why is Machiavelli evil? He was a humorist, The Prince was a satire. He believed the opposite of what he wrote.

no

>Kant
>not lawful

perfect could not do better myself

Lawful netural is neitzsche you have to

>Implying that didn't happen in the english and french revolutions

This is a surprisingly good chart (not that we can really ever gain any insight by sorting philosophers into categories designed for poorly written roleplayibg scenarios), but I’m curious as to why you put Moore down as lawful good. I can certainly understand the “good” part—his good-natures ethical propositions are generally agreeable, as is consistent with his systematic common sense fetish—but what makes him lawful?

No, he’s wrong. Moore is lawful good there, and Wittgenstein chaotic good.

Ragnar Redbeard for Chaotic Evil.

Rebel Neutral

>Simone Weil
>Neutral

what did user mean by this?

>refused to be baptised so that she could remain united with both Christians and non-Christians
>not neutral

>Marx is evil
upvote my fellow redpiller!!

breddy good, as long as Plato is #1 it is correct. "Everyone else is just a footnote to Plato." -- me

>ranks a perfunctory point of diplomacy over her lifetime of actual work and sacrifice toward the good

wew to the Nth power

whitehead get off the computer

diogenes is an objectively superior choice for "rebel neutral" bee tee dubbs.

wittgenstein

Marx inspired the cancerous experiment known as Communism, but also saved Capitalism from itself by allowing the broader masses to enjoy the fruits of their labor

They would be lawful evil. Utilitarians are mediocre, evil cock suckers

Lawful Neutral is Spinoza.

Wouldn't Chaotic Evil be someone actually espousing a chaotically destructive policy? Maybe Stirner or something idk
>inb4 hurr Marxism is destructive

chaotic evil-lenin?
rebel neutral epicurus i guess
true neutral hume and social neutral mill

none of them were good or evil, their deeds were to a greater or lesser degree good or evil, separate the wheat from the chaff, choice by choice, not person by person. As:
"Thus wisdom eventually results from the effort to cope rationally with the problem of the unknown." so good/evil is not (in) the object/person(what is the etymology of person?) it doesn't exist. It is created and only exists by the choice of man. Like wisdom, it is created by divine sparks.
"SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." You self-aid your creation of good/evil by the matrix you put onto the world. But if you place it on things that don`t conform to it you will get confused. Apply alignment only to actions/choices, never people/objects/anything else, for all of it is both good evil. Only consciousness has the freedom to /choose(create)/ good evil. Everything(man included) exists, as per Heraclitus, in the strife(union) between good evil only the choice/act of consciousness can choose/create good evil. The duality of its results in no way affect the non-duality of the choice/intention. Intentional duality in the act/choice is floating in the river. Intentional non-duality is steering the river, as much as the university of duality allows us. In short you are the _creator_ of all Wittgenstein says we should shut up about.

Literal embodiment of Chaotic Good coming through

Legalism for Lawful Neutral.

Care to elaborate?

St-stop saying Marx was evil.

he's confusing some danes with other danes

which dane is chaos good. also chaos good in general cause that is the alignment i like most

>Maquiaveli
>Lawful Evil
Maquiaveli did not at any point in The Prince state that one *ought* to do good using methods which are bad. He only said that successful princes do good things using bad methods, and princes who refused to use bad methods were unsuccessful.

He is not lawful evil because he only wrote a taxonomy of Principalities.

True Neutral, Montaigne?

Rebel Neutral, Pascal?

literally no difference between derrida and nietzsche