Post three favorite philosophers and your favorite ideas

Voltaire - >HOLY
Voltaire - >ROMAN
Voltaire - >EMPIRE

So this is how it's going to be now, huh

...

Look at all those pretty places Nappy conquered in a couple of years

Hegel-The end of history, Absolute idealist ontology
Plato-Elenchus as a way to acquiring truth
Confucius-The cultivation of the self

François-Marie Arouet -- >Holy
Arovet Li -- >Roman
Voltaire -- >Empire

...

Father (omnipotent, omniscient, holy creator)
Son (God incarnated as a man)
Spirit (instructor, guide, salvation)

Epictetus: It's not external events, but opinions about external events, that disturb us.

Anselm: That-than-which-something-greater-can't-be-thought must also be that-which-is-greater-than-can-be-thought.

Kant: Space and time do not exist independently of the human mind - they are only the ways in which the mind structures the raw sense data that arises within it.

Stirner- Not needing to bow to made up rules and values
Kierkegaard- Leap of faith
Evola- Riding the tiger

Who the fuck is this Toby Reynolds guy? Google just reveals that he's not the Umqua shooter.

Egg Man. /r9k/ memer on suicide watch
youtube.com/channel/UCjYdT_4DyWAVLCNPsuFN_Ug

a.k.a. "i've never read a book i'm just in for the memes"

Kys

he has his own particular brand which uses a lot of psychology and physiological metaphors

>Ted Kaczynski -- surrogate activities
Isn't this just another aspect of what Horkheimer meant by "Instrumentelle Vernunft"?

or Nietzsche letzte Mensch

Great stuff guys.

Aristotle- act/potency, form/matter
Joseph De Maistre- Argument for Sovereignty in Du Pape.
Duns Scotus- Choice at an instant.

Schopenhauer - women are mentally inferior
Otto Weininger - women are animals and the opposite of human
Elliot Rodger - women are evil and need to be removed

Plato - yeah, nah, you're a cunt

>No Descartes -- give her the dick

I miss the old memes

That's pretty fucking metal.

Thomas Nagel- sick bantz

Voltaire- sicker bantz

Diogenes- sickest bantz

How the fuck do you respond to something like that?

Maybe with examples of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

How is that supposed to counter de Maistre's thesis, though?

I only meant it in relation to the quote stereotyping nature as only 'red in tooth and claw'.

It loses most of its punch without the religious aspect. If you argue from theology all I can think of is the old "God works in mysterious ways and you can't comprehend his plans" like God is quite clearly wicked on the surface but is supposed to be benevolent.

Symbiosis is just to make animals more effective at consuming life.

>If you argue from theology all I can think of is the old "God works in mysterious ways and you can't comprehend his plans" like God is quite clearly wicked on the surface but is supposed to be benevolent.

I think the quote accounts for that sort of thing with the last sentence. That seems like a reference to an Apocalyptic cleansing of evil.

There's not really an "only" to it, from what I can tell.

Yeah, he say's that every living thing has something that is designed to kill it violently, not that everything will only die violently, but that it can, and possibly should.

I think the wickedness comes not from the goal but from the method, and that from what I can tell there is a lot of things that aren't evil that are treated as acceptable losses. Unless you take a kind of Gnostic approach that the physical world in general is evil.

oh fuck, this makes me want to make a series of images paraphrasing Plato as if he were a bogan.

>and that from what I can tell there is a lot of things that aren't evil that are treated as acceptable losses.
Indeed.

>Athenian shitposters

oi m8 mind ya bizzo if a cunt gives it a burl every arvo, make a blue or not

Olavo de Carvalho - Study of the revolutionary mentality

Jaime Guzmán - Organization of society around intermediary corps between the individual and the state

Nick Land - Post-Lockean notions of private property

Hume: skepticism mitigated by habit and experience
Santayana: lots of things, mainly the benign humanism attached to materialism
Epicurus: living pleasantly, simply, and surrounded by friends, and death is nothing to worry about, bro.

Pythagoras - existence is an endless circle

Parmenides - existence is literally shaped like a circle

Plato - souls exist because i remember how to draw a circle

Plotinus - our souls can be freed by continuously thinking about circles

>Olavo de Carvalho
kek complete meme """""philosopher"""""

Diogenes - Love of Sunlight
John Stuart Mill - Muh Freedumbs
Nietzsche - Master/Slave dichotomy

Okay, help me out here.

Here we go: All mental content is perceptions, for Hume

Perceptions are divided into impressions (both inner and outer), and ideas.

Impressions are things experienced with the 5 senses, emotions, pain, pleasure, etc. They are also the origin of all our ideas, and knowledge, subsequently. (pineapple and blind man color arguments go here). I believe it is also appropriate to refer to impressions as sensations.

Ideas, which are less vivacious and clear than impressions, are merely the recollection of impressions. They can also take the form of images of impressions used in reasoning and thought. This is the Copy Principle.

Impressions and ideas can either be simple or complex. An impression of smelling a rose is complex. It can be broken down into it's component simple impressions (scent, texture, color... simple qualia although Hume does not use that term). Ideas are the same, but they have the additional capacity to be built up into fanciful complex forms that may have never been experienced. Golden mountain example goes here.

Here's where I get sketchy. The above are the contents of the mind, but Hume also has an account of the functioning of the mind too. Two categories of mental operation emerge: matters of fact and relations of ideas.

Impressions belong to the matters of fact category of mental operation. Their negation does not pose a contradiction (principle of conformity/problem of induction eventually goes here). Impressions, that belong to the matters of fact category, are properly known as a posteriori truths. They are contingent.

Ideas, not unsurprisingly, belong to the relations of ideas category of mental operation. Their negation does entail a contradiction. A priori knowledge belongs here. Necessary truths.

But see, now I've fucked up in that last paragraph. How can the negation of relations of ideas entail a contradiction, if ideas properly belong to this category, and a golden mountain is a (complex) idea?

All are shit

The fuck is that quote even supposed to prove

Evola: Aryan attitudes toward war
Nietzsche: Ubermensch
Jack Donovan: Tribalistic thinking

Relations of ideas are things like deductive logic, geometry, etc. Things that by definition are true and cannot be contradicted. I would say not all ideas are relations of ideas, but all relations of ideas are ideas. You can have a priori truth as long as the form allows for it (Socrates is mortal in the context of logic, a straight line is the shortest distance in geometry) but just combining things (like a centaur or a golden mountain) doesn't fall into that category.

I haven't read Enquiry in far too long, but I think that's generally the gist. Feel free to correct if I've gotten that wrong.

Are you that Scholastic poster from lit? Ive never seen anyone here other than that guy bring up the man whose name was turned into an insult

You don't

Violence is inherent

With your own idealism about symbiosis and mutual aide so pretty much Kropotkin

Nice taste, user.

Interesting thread idea

>Jack Donovan

As a homo woman-hater myself I originally liked him but when he went full ancestral paganism and invoking demons and whatever the fuck I quickly lost interest.

>Still thinking symbiosis is a counter
>still missing the point

I know right? As far as I can tell

> The world is violent
> Man is king of this violence
> Therefore....man has a moral responsibility over this never-ending carnage?

I honestly don't even know yet everyone is swooning over him

It presents a option for a possibility to end that great cycle of violence with and life not death

You kneel down and pray.

I don't understand why you think that's true.
He's describing the order of violence as it is in fact. We're swooning because we've never, or rarely, seen a better description of the dynamics of natural violence that doesn't just boil down to "lol it's clearly evil and there's clearly no God."

He is making some further point about man's relationship to that violence. He just doesn't make it very clearly.

Must have wasted all his talent on the writing leading up that.

Considering that we don't know the context of the quote, I'm not sure if you're qualified to make that judgment.
>wasted all his talent
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

>I don't understand why you think that's true.
Well read more figures like Kropotkin and Tolstoy

>Well read more figures like Kropotkin and Tolstoy
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, either. Are you saying that you don't have an argument?

Not at all, only that the figures I mentioned could provide you with material as to why people might think that symbiosis and mutual aid are a viable alternative to the situation described in that poem.

Indeed communities who embody these kind of principles have existed and continue to exist to this day some of which even mix vegetarianism into it which contradict the notion of Maistre

>only that the figures I mentioned could provide you with material as to why people might think that symbiosis and mutual aid are a viable alternative to the situation described in that poem.
So you don't have an argument.
>Indeed communities who embody these kind of principles have existed and continue to exist to this day some of which even mix vegetarianism into it which contradict the notion of Maistre
How does vegetarianism prove de Maistre wrong? Plants are still dying for the sake of things other than themselves in vegetarian communes. If you think making a salad isn't violent, you're a fool.

I warmly recommend you read the entire thing. It's the sixth chapter in the St. Petersburg Dialogues
maistre.uni.cx/st_petersburg.html

Maistre is speaking a genuinely theological language here. He's using war and its particular mechanism to designate the connection between humanity and providence. The point is that war is not only immanent to the human race, but it also appears within certain limits; it is ritualized under very specific rules and regulations which prevent it from annihilating the entire earth. War is the proportional evisceration of mankind, and it is proportional because it is sacred, because creation moves by certain laws of symmetry, shape, size and regularity.

Read the entire thing, it's not long and it's breath-takingly beautiful.

Seventh chapter*
It's not a complete version of the text btw, and some of the more interesting stuff is unfortunately omitted.

marx - muh feels
engels - white men are evil
stalin - die cis scum

>So you don't have an argument.

No the argument the notion that there *must* be some great reign of violence and bloody destruction is an invalid one as symboitic relationships and those based on mutual aide have, can and do exist. With the advances in lab synthesized meat/protein being developed in time the whole cycle of violence will come to an end and be replaced with peaceful change.

>How does vegetarianism prove de Maistre wrong?

See the above and bellow; its a measure of potential.

>Plants are still dying for the sake of things other than themselves in vegetarian communes

Not at necessarily, consuming fruits and nuts does no harm to the plant and a simmilar prinicple can be extended to certain vegetables

>If you think making a salad isn't violent, you're a fool.

If you think people eating salad = a whole world must be perpetually steeped in blood and slaughter you are either hyperbolic or are very loose with how you define words.

Louis C.K -- interracial breeding grounds
Justin Trudeau -- Dood weed LMAO
All non-white woman -- For the sake of diversity and because they are heroic.

I think you're just dumb. He outlines the law with plant life in the beginning it's just "in the most dreadful evidence" in the animal kingdom.

You are not looking at this in the right way. I don't think you have a proper grasp on what he is saying.

>I think you're just dumb
Now its my turn: Not an argument you just gone on to ignore my point and make the assumption that all change must be violent destruction.

>You are not looking at this in the right way. I don't think you have a proper grasp on what he is saying.

I could say the same for you, change =/= violence.

I'm not the same person.

>not an argument

fuck off Stephen Molyneux

Just responding in the lingo of that previous poster I mistook you for.

Calling someone dumb isn't an argument tough.

He did make an argument after calling him dumb. That poster is ignoring the part where de Maistre refers to plants.

Do you think change = violence ?

> That poster is ignoring the part where de Maistre refers to plants.

I literally covered plants in

>Not at necessarily, consuming fruits and nuts does no harm to the plant and a simmilar prinicple can be extended to certain vegetables
"Not at necessarily" isn't a phrase.
Consuming fruits and nuts deprives a plant of offspring. Pulling a carrot out of the ground does violence to the carrot. Chopping it up to throw it in stew continues the violent process. Living organisms are devoured. This isn't hard to understand.
>If you think people eating salad = a whole world must be perpetually steeped in blood and slaughter you are either hyperbolic or are very loose with how you define words.
Like the other user said, I don't think you get the point.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was calling you dumb and trying to give you some advice. You aren't convincing anyone but yourself and I don't think you really have a firm grasp on the subject, the quote itself or the context of which it was said.

the point you are focusing on is the "law of violent destruction of all living things" and trying to counter it by putting forth some concept of an implausible ideal world where only plant life is destroyed, and claiming because some organism can mutually benefit from each other, this means that there are exceptions to the rule, forgetting that they only form a symbiotic relationship to be more efficient withen the laws context.

He is describing the world as it is and claims that this is how it was divinely meant to be. Even if though some scientific miracle the law could be broken, it wouldn't be desirable from religious viewpoint.

>"Not at necessarily" isn't a phrase.

I accidentally left an "at" there, delete that and it makes sense.

>Consuming fruits and nuts deprives a plant of offspring.

Firstly not if you don't eat the seeds and secondly when does merely depriving of all potential offspring become a grand act of violence? The seed isnt alive and neither is it a part of the plant.

> Pulling a carrot out of the ground does violence to the carrot. Chopping it up to throw it in stew continues the violent process. Living organisms are devoured.

>Hence why I said fruit and "some" vegetables.

>Like the other user said, I don't think you get the point.

Im alright with you ignoring the other part of my post just answer this: do you believe all change = violence? If you believe that is the case then we can leave it there as I assumed from the beginning that the user did not subscribe to that view.

>Firstly not if you don't eat the seeds and
This is trivial.
>secondly when does merely depriving of all potential offspring become a grand act of violence?
Are you serious? It's a disruption of what would otherwise be the natural course of events. What do you think violence is?
>The seed isnt alive and neither is it a part of the plant.
The seed carries the plant's genetic material, and without seeds the plant can't reproduce. The point is that violence is being done in the process. The seed is very much a part of the plant prior to its separation from it.

>Im alright with you ignoring the other part of my post just answer this: do you believe all change = violence? If you believe that is the case then we can leave it there as I assumed from the beginning that the user did not subscribe to that view.

>do you believe all change = violence?

What are you even trying to do with this "gotcha" shit. What are you labeling as change? How is this relevant? now instead of "bloody" you are focusing on violence. I consider the forceful destruction of plant life and animal life for the consumption of another living organism violent yes.

>What are you even trying to do with this "gotcha" shit

? there is no gotcha shit going on its just that I realised that I could be working under a different assumption than you, and that that could be the source of disagreement.

>What are you labeling as change?
Something becoming different.

>How is this relevant?
Because it can be said that this process destroys the original state and replaces it with something new. Which some consider destruction.

>now instead of "bloody" you are focusing on violence

Only because I thought you believe them to be interchangeable/ linked. I can correct myself if thats not the case.

> I consider the forceful destruction of plant life and animal life for the consumption of another living organism violent yes.

Well if eating a fallen apple that constitutes violence for you then I certainly agree that we live in a violent world.

ludwig von mises - muh
murray n rothbard - free
ayn rand - market
ron paul - dude gold lmao

>Something becoming different.

specific to this context. I asked you what you are labeling, not how you are defining change.

An apple is alive and being destroyed violently against it's will. The reason the apple falls is in the hope that in the process some seeds will not be destroyed and will grow into a new tree once you shit it out. Maistre outlines this is the law, he says it's quite obvious in the animal kingdom but more subtle in the vegetable kingdom. You seem to have a hard time wrapping your head around this. Life being forcefully destroyed is violent whether there is blood, guts and pain or not.

>specific to this context. I asked you what you are labeling, not how you are defining change.

I was just making sure you weren't pulling a heraclitus on me, its no biggy. Im working on violence being the destruction of a living organism - not something with the potential to live.

>An apple is alive and being destroyed violently against it's will. The reason the apple falls is in the hope that in the process some seeds will not be destroyed and will grow into a new tree once you shit it out.

I would see that as fullfilling the will of the tree in this instance as the whole reason it evolved tasty suggary flesh and not a bitter or poisonous one is because it wishes to be eaten to better spread itself.

In this case and cases like this I see it less as violence and more as mere change.

The apple doesn't "want" anything, though. Apples didn't have any say in their own structure. Nature produced them. You can't talk about how it 'prefers' or 'wishes' to have a tasty skin. It's just not right to do so.

> The apple doesn't "want" anything, though. Apples didn't have any say in their own structure. Nature produced them. You can't talk about how it 'prefers' or 'wishes' to have a tasty skin. It's just not right to do so.

Ill pretend for the sake of the discussion that Ill discount that point from my other post regarding life.

Now how is it that you can talk of the apple wanting/wishing/preferring not to be eaten if one cannot talk about it wanting/wishing/preferring to be eaten?

>Now how is it that you can talk of the apple wanting/wishing/preferring not to be eaten if one cannot talk about it wanting/wishing/preferring to be eaten?
I haven't been talking about desire at all. I've been talking about the natural order of things. Violence is built into this order. You're arguing with multiple people.

>I haven't been talking about desire at all.
I thought that was what you meant when you were speaking of things happing to the apple "against its will" in
>You're arguing with multiple people.
Oh that comment was directed at the person who made that quote I mentioned. Honestley it might be for the best if your take the advice given in

So you don't have a response? That advice was directed at you, not me, and I suggest you take it. I agree with the other person you're arguing with that you're an idiot.