PHILOSOPHER CORE THREAD

Cioran eraserhead-mode

this is a shitty and pretentious thread

somebody should post foucault wearing that biker jacket, and then the thread should die

i won't do it though

>this is a shitty and pretentious thread
welcome to Veeky Forums, enjoy your session of browsing here!
i got u

there are literally none except for Spengler and Gentile.
>inb4 memevola

...

>Spengler, Gentile, Evola
>National Socialists

...

...

Pretty sure Spengler and Gentile inspired the Nazis, (they were both at least important to fascist thought). Name some 'real' ones if you know better

Also, I hope you don't think Heidegger counts...

>Pretty sure Spengler and Gentile inspired the Nazis

Well, your assuredness is wrong. Spengler was a monarchist, and Gentile was a Fascist.

NatSoc philosopher thinkers include Heidegger, Savitri Devi, Miguel Serrano, Alfred Rosenberg, Dietrich Eckart,

Why wouldn't he count?

...

...

...

...

...

What kind of trousers do you think this gentleman is wearing? Any guesses?

>pseud general

...

Heidegger is literally the ONLY one of the people mentioned to actually be a member of the NSDAP, which he was for the entire duration of Adolf Hitler's run as chancellor.
Spengler wasn't a monarchist (that would be contradictory to his main work), he was a conservative revolutionary like Ernst Jünger, Ernst Niekisch, Thomas Mann, Carl Schmitt, Heidegger (again) and Max Scheler.

Flannel maybe

Lol. This is not a philosopher

Heidegger was a national socialist, marching his students to the voting booth to vote for Hitler. Sure, he became disillusioned with how the movement developed but early national socialism was totally his bag, baby.

not an argument.

National Socialists are fucking silly lmfao

w2c?

ra

>2017
>not realizing the supremacy of 19th century poet core

eraserhead core
>philosopher
please. Veeky Forums nevertheless.

Bob Dylan has more Nobel prizes of literature than any other philosopher or writer mentioned ITT :^)

...

will it ever come back in style?

>Nobel prize
as if that means anything

As an added bonus, Schiller's statue is male model tier as well, looks kinda like Gandhi.

it's called ann demeulemeester, look it up

>just image searched my fav philosopher.
>not effay.
>just an overall decent guy.

I'm pretty ok with this

Chicken Neck lol

w2c sweater?

duh

damn louis ck looks like shit nowadays

...

...

...

Here's an argument. From his "book"

This man is a genius!

Mirin Ciorans hair/haircut and eyebrow ridge desu

Are you fucking tariq

wtf is this retardation
people bought this shit?

...

fake buddhism

Mohamed is the only true philosopher

The second example is constructed entirely differently than the first. Garbage argumentation

...

this thread is for philosophy as an aesthetic, not a practice. I don't know why I had to take time to break it down for you but wow

steve jobs core

w2c a similar jacket?

>this thread is for philosophy as an aesthetic, not a practice.

might be the most pleb thing I've ever heard.

...

...

...

...

...

Better with or without beard?

...

Pick a side.

Which lifestyle is more Veeky Forums?

I find it funny that he writes like he dresses, and dresses like he writes.

alexandr dugin tbhhh senpai

...

...

Can you elaborate more please

Stop shilling this degenerate slav, you fucking putinoid.

>no Derrida

That doesn't matter. He's trying to show how bad deductive reasoning is happening in all kinds of situations, and especially in the subconcious act of reasoning. Most people with a certain political affiliation think more highly of others with the same affiliation. This is a good example of bad deductive reasoning.

You clearly have no idea about how philosophy works. Educate yourself, your ignorance is showing

you're dumb. The second argument is good deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about following the logic that comes off of the premise, not about arguing the validity of the premise.

The first:
p->q (being a plumber means you can swim)
q (bob can swim)
∴p (bob is a plumber)

The second:
p->q (being a good person means you are a socialist)
p (bob is a good person)
∴q (bob is a socialist)

Do you see how the first one takes the premise and uses it backwards, but the second one simply follows the logic given in the premise?

The first argument is fallacious, specifically a fallacy called affirming the consequent. You can't go backwards with an implication.

The point is you don't write a book about elementary reasoning and try to make it look like you are building some larger than life philosophy, or this is some lost knowledge, when in reality you are just copying philosophy 101 high school textbook. Read the bit about 'the argument', literally doesn't mean anything. He doesn't even know basic terms of philosophy.

>using the earphone-wire's shadow as jawline

lmao'ing @ ur life

...

quite accurate, I must say.