ITT: nu male filter philosophers

Schopenhauer's philosophy is a branch of existentialism in my humble opinion.
And I didn't say it was outdated, just that names like Nietzsche were not very well regarded after the wars and therefore newer philosophies tried to look in other directions.

Schopenhauer is essentially westernized Buddhism/Hinduism. I can see why you'd say that though, because isn't shy about talking about suffering.

Analytics is trash and completely divorced from actual reality. only a cushy 1st world society can allow you to make a career debating bloodless minutia

This is the only one.

Not a philosopher.

shit I was not paying attention my bad.
fagggg

make way peasants

Why not?

...

Why are there so many commie in Veeky Forums? Every single thread has commies trying to re write their version of history and its retarded. Marx himself has no understanding of history and all of his prophecies were not true.

I don't see you complaining about the daily Hitler threads

>dude the human condition is just class struggle and how, like, work makes you feel lmao

Autism

Congratulations for this fine example of Godwin's Law.

Spengler

His words influenced che Guevara, sub commandante Marcos, and Lenin.

I wouldn't exactly call them nu males

>no understanding of history

You do realise that Marx studied history, right?

clarify

Technically she did try to write philosophy but it was so awful even her groupies don't care about it.

What is most interesting is that she was a pleb about aesthetics, theory of knowledge, theology, etc. But many people trash talk her about her individualism which is the only thing she got right.

Easy OP

Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hitchens, Edward Said

>Why are there so many commie in Veeky Forums?
There's a fair number, but there's more people who don't understand what communism is or what Marx said but think they can pass judgement on them.
Nu-male is a dumb term anyway, with no bearing on reality.

She just didn't have sufficient philosophical rigour. I suppose she was a philosopher in that she did philosophize, but her works just don't stand up to philosophical scrutiny. She was a novelist first and foremost.

>decide to send a message to Chomsky asking a few things about Stirner (I know he doesn't like him, but I wanted him to clarify some things he said about laissez faire libertarianism and Stirner)
>just get a response saying he doesn't care about Stirner

>Nu-male is a dumb term anyway, with no bearing on reality.
Unfortunately I live in one of the contaminated cities where they cluster. Whatever you think of the term, the thing exists.

Haha, no

t. nu male

>Unfortunately I live in one of the contaminated cities where they cluster. Whatever you think of the term, the thing exists.
As far as I understand it means a hipster with a beard. I mean sure, they exist, but the way people talk about it gives me the impression that it's some kind of weird decaying masculinity thing.

>Nu-male is a dumb term anyway, with no bearing on reality.

This. It, much like cuck, says more about the insecurities of the people that use the word than it does the person being insulted.

>Expecting anything from memesky
Why would you set yourself up for disappointment.

Why doesn't he like Stirner? Stirner's ideals should mesh quite well with his anarcho-syndicalism.

>Haha, no

Why so?

That's sort of what I wanted to clarifying. I couldn't find him saying much on him, beyond that he thought he misunderstood language and that he was instrumental for the ideas of laissez faire American libertarianism.
I think he prefers anarchists like Proudhon who believe in natural rights.

>appeals to aut-right wing faggots who have as much chance of getting laid than hell freezing over, and yet constantly whine about them being the alpha male, despite being post- Elliot Rodger like fuckwits, then whine about the preservation of "duh west" despite it being the hedonistic environment they hate

You tell me, lad

It is, in part.
I'm a stemfag that never lifts and at this point I wouldn't be surprised if I developed more testosterone than three of them combined.

That's silly. Stirner's views are more damaging to lassez-faire libertarianism (which is absolutely built on natural and property rights) than they are any form of left-libertarianism (which for the most part is not, typically rejecting liberalism outright).

Well exactly. Perhaps he meant that the laissez faire types misunderstood Stirner, but these questions popping up about it are exactly the reasons I sent him a message.

>telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/right-wing-people-more-likely-to-be-happier-with-their-sex-lives/
Work on your strawmen.
The whole loser angle just won't trigger anyone. First because it's not true, second because people posting here will never give a damn about being called losers.

>heheh call them just call them virgins
Are you a woman?

Nu male filter philosophers are generally thinkers who promote ideals of strength and self-mastery, recognize heirarchical nature of life, are not shy to talk about suffering and evil, and look down upon all weakness, servility, and the opinions of the herd.

Judith Butler? lolno. Le language man? lel. Hitchens? Hahahahshha

>self-reported survey

Not him, but I've got a bridge for sale. Are you buying?

So you're telling me this guy gets pussy?

Well Jee wiz, better find a nationalist club, and dump the missus

>falling for bait

Dumbass.

Also it's really funny that this thread would start out with Nietzsche, since he was a bookish intellectual, who was by his own admission (and supported by others) nothing like his own bombastic writing style, who got soundly rejected by the woman he wished to marry (which spurred some cringey rants about women).

Also considering life to be innately hierarchical and rejecting servility are incompatible. You either recognize yourself as part of a hierarchy or you reject the hierarchy.

t.Someone who, not only hasnt read Spengler, probably doesnt even know a single concrete point of what Spengler wrote about

Granted, there are plenty of alt-right faggots who havent read Spengler either and formed an idea of him and his work that his pathetically incorrect

Wow it's almost as if the whole point of Nietzsche's philosophy was to not let your physical and romantic failings get to you and to still strive for an ideal anyways

Just saying, he's not much of a nu-male filter if he himself fit the iconic description of a nu-male.

Big difference between being a weak faggot and being proud of it and being a weak faggot who wishes he wasn't.

Not really. In either case, you're still weak.

No one who matters cares about stirner except historians. His philosophy is infantile and worthless.

>His philosophy is infantile and worthless.
Looks like someone is thoroughly spooked.

>His philosophy is infantile and worthless.

Pleb. His philosophy is amazing as a piece of intellectual bedrock upon which to use as a foundation for sincere ideals and relationships.

I see you're in the "people who don't matter" camp of people who care about stirner, since you obviously have no real knowledge of his philosophy.

J. Bowden

I probably have a more nuanced understanding of it than yourself. Though I am indeed a person who doesn't matter.

But your assessment of his philosophy is indeed completely plebian. It betrays only your own shallow thinking and nothing more.

Where do you get this "probably" from? I've given no details of my readings of Stirner so I'm not sure how you've gathered this information except by magic or conjecture.

My assessment is basically universally held in the literature, the only people who disagree are certain bands of anarchists who "coincidentally" have little to no familiarity with philosophy otherwise.

...

>Hegel
>MMP
>Sartre
>De Beauvoir
>Focault
>Derrida
>Baudrillard
>Levi Strauss
>Lacan
>Frankfurt bros
>Fanon
>hooks
>Butler
>Kristeva

>just get a response saying he doesn't care about Stirner

More like he has no idea who he is, like most people.

>Where do you get this "probably" from?

Just a hunch that you haven't actually read The Ego and Its Own. Generally flippant dismissal without actual critique is an indicator someone doesn't know what they're talking about.

...

...