Do you agree?

I like this one although I don't see how Descartes is LN

Radical subjectivism is lawful in the sense that it can be mutually applied, but it is neither good nor evil because it's a matter of execution. Also, something something, staring at a candle, and another something god is the container for action a la Parmenides.

Anyone have that one with "How to make a functional multi alignment party"?
I seem to remember that LG was a character from Pirates of the Carribean

Didn't Machiavelli had some good intentions behind his work? Like helping prince to stop being chaotic stupid and evil? And maybe even exposing a bit how power works?

>Camus being Chaotic Evil
>including masturbatory schlock-writers like Rand
I mean cmon

found it

>Kierkegaard
>not lawful good
He was a paladin of infinite faith my man.

A nervous, neurotic paladin.

The best kind.

Not disagreeing with you there.

Albert "Why not kill yourself?" Camus

And while Rand really doesn't deserve to be associated with the others, she's pretty much the poster child of evil philosophy.

Yes. There are two main readings of Machiavelli, particularly the prince:

>Fuck the police, I do what I want. Instead of killing many people over a long period of time, you kill everyone at once so people are terrified of you and wont act. It's better to be loved then feared, but if you can't be loved, you better make people respect you.

>Italy was a collection of warring city states, not some modern sovereign nation, so in order to preserve Italy's longevity you need to act pragmatically. You can't control when a river floods (fortuna) but you can control how you prepare for a flood (virtu).

Long story short, I prefer the second reading because it's a bit more nuanced. He actually creates a system of governance that diffuses the power of the prince across various judiciaries, and while the original prince may own a god-like rule, the subsequent princes are bound to the artifice of the original prince. He does a cool pseudo-democratic legitimization of authority through popular appeal sort of thing that I like.

If "why not kill yourself" is what you got from Camus then I believe you should take his grossly misinterpreted advice. Do you also believe Nietzsche was a nihilist?

Sarcasm aside, I guess I agree about Rand. She's a good laugh atleast.

>Hume
>Evil
What? Why?

>Albert "Why not kill yourself?" Camus
You misunderstand that, if you believe this is somehow evil. While it is true that Camus believed that "why not kill yourself?" is the only question in philosophy worth answering, he didn't believe this because he was edgy. He used this as a starting question arguing from the position that life is meaningless (which the rejection of the metaphysical has as its only possible outcome: the conclusion that life is meaningless). He rejects suicide as it is avoiding the problem rather than solving it, and builds up his philosophy from there.

Explain how this is inherently evil.

This user you're talking to is just a Veeky Forums shitposter. He's never actually read camus, he just understands the memes about him.

how is aristotle not lawful or at least neutral

Veeky Forums has memes?

This surprises me as well

I always assumed Veeky Forums is a lot of people arguing about books they haven't actually read themselves. Though I haven't really been there.

Guilty as charged. Aside from the Veeky Forums part, anyway.

Veeky Forums trolled this one girl's book review channel with

>trying desperately to promote positive reasons for living in a world where spirituality is destroyed by materialistic forces outside his control
>chaotic evil
Nietzsche was the last paladin.

Indeed they do. This is one of my favorites.

>walk into book store, ask the cute sales lady for some recommendations
>"Oh, have you ever tried to read some Hemingway?"
>Have you ever tried to read Finnagan's Wake?
>she looks at me with pure horror as I grab a copy off the shelf and flip to a random page
>bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk
>my pronunciation is flawless, she's visibly moist with my silver tongue
>I close the book, flip it over my shoulder, and walk out the door as she tries to catch it like a bridesmaid going after a bouquet
>she's so distracted by my literacy that she misses the generic mystery novel I have tucked under my arm

>Veeky Forums
>act like /v/

Okay, this one actually made me laugh.

>The D&D alignments don't really apply to anything
FTFY

I'd put Kant at LG since for him good and lawful are quite closely related.

Yeah Veeky Forumss a Veeky Forums board all right
That is admittedly pretty funny

...

Sartre is definitely a better CE candidate than Nietzsche

How so?

I didn't need this is my head today. I've got shit to focus on.

Major purveyor of the critical theory kool aid

Wasn't he a surly fuck who frequently hit people he was having arguments with? Or was that Camus?

That does sound more like Sartre, who was way more of an ideologue.

Camus died before he had a chance to become and old surly philosopher.

If you want to blame someone for the negative effects of postmodernism, blame that faggot Foucault. It is truly amazing how wrong he was on such a wide variety of topics.

No, no, not even close.

LG - Aristotle
NG - Montaigne
CG - Nietzsche
LN - Machiavelli
TN - Siddhartha Gautama
CN - Stirner
LE - Hobbes or any Legalist
NE - De Maistre
CE - Pythagoras (I will never forgive him)

Foucault did nothing wrong though.

That's because all he did was state the obvious.

Good old Foucault.

I blame Gramsci. Yet another entry in the list of Fascist Italy's bungling was putting him in jail instead of giving him a free biplane ride.

>nietzsche
>not beyond good and evil
missed opportunity, faggot

I don't know how the whole throwing leftists out of airplanes thing started, but I don't want it to end.

I don't know about you guys but as someone who is unironically qualified to teach philosophy, I don't understand the OP's pic or the reasoning behind it the slightest. If a student gave that pic to me I'd just be the pic related.

You'd just start screaming "fucking fuck fucks" until the end of time while complaining that the new guys are exposing the business?

I don't care user. Just tell us who, in your opinion, is the most chaotic ebil of all the philosophers of all time.

marx was ce

My stance on postmodernism is:
> Everyone who speak about postmodernism is wrong.
It's not true, of course, but it's the best approximation I have.

You just spoke about postmodernism.

GOT EM

Okay - AND?

Who's supposed to care who you trust? You're obviously a quibbling retard. You think anyone should take your opinion seriously...why?

FUCK.

That's why he said that it's not true. Because it is.

If anything it should have started earlier. From Marx and Engels*, to Foucalt, Sartre and Derrida, to Mao and Ho Chi Minh. I fear it's now far too late.

*hot air balloon rides

same w/ socialism

LG: Kant
NG: Rawls or maybe JS Mill, I dunno
CG: Fanon
LN: Hegel
TN: Kierkegaard
CN: Nietzsche
LE: Malthus or Hobbes, probably?
NE: Thrasymachus or probably any sophist
CE: Rand

Giving some leeway for people's political beliefs (eg: the Social Justice slant to Fanon) I think this works fairly well.

Once again, how is Kierkeberk not the goodest of good boys?

OP here, the thing is I made that chart not to classify them but to explain what I think the alignments are in D&D because as said, they are fucking stupid (especially evil) so in a discussion with one of my friends (we're both in philosophy) I started explaining what the alignments were to me using philosophers. In any case, I posted it because I was trying to improve it. Sorry for blogging.

Well, Kierkegaard's entire shtick is anxiety and how you'll never actually know if what you're doing is correct, you just have to take it on, by definition, blind faith. I feel like, regardless of his moral leanings, slapping him in a Good category would kinda defeat the point, no?

Is not Good about doing what you believe to be right regardless of what other people think? Neutrality implies Kierkegaard was a pragmatist or something, which would be crazy.

The fact that we're discussing Kierkegaard's D&D alignment is hysterical.

Well, also regardless of whether you think you're right. I know I'm strawmanning him a little bit, but if you're dead certain you did the right thing, then you did the wrong thing.

Max Stirner would be a good CE.
Why TN for Schopenhauer though?
Wittgenstein would fit better.

My view of alignment is that Epicurus is NG because his philosophy has a way of determining if a law is just or not and it is flexible.
Any rigid philosophy that is good is LG.
Any philosophy that is good and runs on the ends justifying the means is CG.

Evil is for sociopaths, psycopaths, and races which lack empathy. If you'd kick an animal just for the fun of it you're evil.
LE is the alignment of a evil group that follows a set of rules for their in-group, but treats out-group people as people to be prayed upon.
CE is evil is acting upon base evil instincts.

There is no such thing as a True Neutral philosophy

Probably.

See, I've never heard of a philosopher who is a proponent of evil deeds. Many of them do criticize and develop our understanding of the concept of good, as they should, but that does not mean they advocate evil by doing so. The only thing that comes to my mind is moral egoism which can be considered "evil" by common standards. From this perspective Nietzsche, Hobbes and Machiavelli are all -somewhat- understandable propositions (here we must acknowledge that a common trope in historical egoism is that self-interest is a necessity of life; people are ought to do it to protect themselves and their own existence, not out of greed or to have their own castle in expense of others). However, contrary to the pic in the OP, in the "Enquiry" Hume argues against egoism so I don't understand his placement in the evil category.

The distinction between lawful/chaotic is so complicated in this context I don't have the time to get into it. I almost did but quickly decided against it.

If you took that picture to me in real life I would tell you to clearly define each key concept used: what is lawful, what is neutral, what is chaotic, what is good, what is evil. Like this:

"A philosopher is considered lawful if..."

Then it would make more sense rather than appear arbitrary. I would take it as a given to have Kant considered as lawful too when his moral philosophy is all about a priori moral principles and following them.

Nietzsche should be true neutral

Agreed. The alignments are designed for fantasy worlds with black and white morality.

Studying political philosophy is starting out thinking Machiavelli is Lawful Evil but reading him because it's edgy, studying him and figuring he's more Lawful Neutral, understanding him and realizing he's Lawful Good, and then understanding governance and coming around to understanding why he's Lawful Evil. You then understand how to run really solid Lawful Evil characters.

Anyhow Machiavelli's definitely Lawful, either way. He thought republics were best, and republics are arguably the most Lawful form of government alignment wise, as at least in theory it is the Law itself that rules, rather than a man.

>Start out thinking republics are chaotic because elevating individual liberty over tradition is chaotic in nature
>See this post and realize that one could also define republics as lawful because it elevates the law over the rule of an individual or a certain social class (the nobility)
Huh...neat.

>a philosopher who is a proponent of evil deeds
Stirner comes close, though he's not a proponent of evil as much as he condones it.

That is actually pretty good.

The way I figure a Chaotic government system that isn't just anarchy wouldn't be a democracy or a republic, it would be a loose confederacy of clans or tribes or whathaveyou. Maybe there's a high king that's elected or maybe it's hereditary, but it doesn't matter much because none of the chiefs feel the need to listen to him unless it's something really important like a foreign invasion, and sometimes not even then.

Then the chiefs themselves might be more or less just in charge of the towns or cities where they directly reside, their relationship with the more local clan-heads and landowners and more rural farmers and settlements being a miniature version of their own relationship with the High King. They're nominally in charge but everyone not under their direct supervision just kinda does whatever they feel like or need to.

As someone who's thought about D&D alignments and political systems way too much the scale a government would probably be graded on for Lawful-Chaotic is how centralized it is, rather than whether it's a democracy or a monarchy or whatever. You can have a really centralized republic or democracy or one where most of the power is local, and same with a monarchy. A Lawful republic might have the people vote on laws, but they apply universally to all provinces, while a Chaotic republic would be silly with all kinds of Holy Roman Empire-esque local and provincial rights, etc.

Hume would be TN, if anything, considering his scepticism and conclusions about the nature of Morality.

Machiavelli is the definition of the border region between LN and LE.

>Plato
More like Lawful Neutral with all the Athenian dickwaving and ultimately empty appeal to authority. Kant is the real nigga Lawful Good.

Nietsche is cn
Machiavelli is te
Plato is le

>a government would probably be graded on for Lawful-Chaotic is how centralized it is, rather than whether it's a democracy or a monarchy or whatever

This ist so very true.

A CE Ork Warlord might be an autocratic ruler of his clan, despite the chaotic alignment. But if he tries to expand his authority to other clans, he will need to rely on permanent force and brutality. The other clans will just try to break away constantly.
The only longer lasting solution would be a decentralized confederation of clans with a council where the warlords work together, but respect each others territory.

On the other hand, a democratic republic could very well be LN. The democratic system would probably be embedded in a written constitution and a complex system of laws. But because the lawful citizens believe in the system, it could be a centralized unitary state without much seperatism.

So the tendency would roughly be:
lawful - unitary state
neutral - federation
chaotic - confederation

>He hasn't read boethius

...

Swap Plato and Hobbes

Bump Rousseau down to CE, Neechy over to NE, and Hume up to CG

>Hobbes
He's a lawful idiot
>wah i saw a war once let's lick roalist boot

Is this /jp/ thing? They arr rook the same to me.

why is marx lawful anything?
isn't the end goal of communism "man in a state of nature" that results in a hierarchless,stateless,classless so city society?
the exclusion of the state and common ownership of everything prevents the existence of law as a formal subject does it not?
you can't have a hierarchy and have a system of law me might properly comprehend

>Nietzsche
>Chaotic evil

how is Machiavelli anything other than true neutral?

>Nietzsche
>not beyond Good and Evil

t. christian

>Rand not Chaotic
>Camus not true Neutral
>Sarte nowhere to be seen
try harder/10

I like this one, it explains the concept really well and makes sense.

This is... better. At least the C row makes sense.

We need to keep Veeky Forums in Veeky Forums cause I don't think Veeky Forums can handle it.

Post more Veeky Forums meme, I liked the two that were posted.

Rand is a good example how a CE ideology could look without being the Joker.
Max Stirner is another good example. Although he is more at the border between CE and CN.

Or, in Planescape terms, Rand would be a layer of the Abyss. Stirner is the essence of Pandemonium. Like says, he condones Evil, but does not actively encourage it.

Sartre would be CN