I want to 'get over' philosophy. What are some good endgame philosophers that help one do away with it all?

Philosophy is a giant waste of time.

>Stirner destroyed ethics

No, he was just an absolute embarrassment that neckbeards take seriously.

>No, he was just an absolute embarrassment that neckbeards take seriously.
Go to bed Karl

*ring ring* *ring ring*
Hello-o? Are you there user? This is Jesus, calling you home to God.

Not to oversell my product here and all, but what you'll get out of it is infinite happiness and comfort in the world, and everlasting perfection for your soul!

Popper, Jaspers, Marx, other?

probably all three, they're all spooked cucks, but in this case is literally Karl.

Diogenes

nah

Schopenhauer is always the right call.

Sapir and Whorf. Anthropology in general.

Jesus Christ

Nihilist literature. Realise everything is obsolete.

what are som niihilist books?

Just find something better to do, reading more books isn't going to help you.

There are none. Philosophy isn't something to get over, it's a hobby. Some people like to think that it helps them understand things but that's really just nonsense.

user, this is the first thing you're supposed to do on your philosophic journey.

The first and the last.

>Zhuangzi destroyed even caring about philosophy
What specifically can I read for this. At the very least recommend me the book but I'd appreciate an excerpt of his that deals with this

Justin Bieber's tweets run as deep as the subterraneous religiosity of an Old Testament or the fiery enthusiasm of Zarathustra's oratory.
If there ever was an End All Be all of philosophy, then Justin's tweets would need to be crowned in a wreath of Laurels and pure Gold.

Schopenhauer --> Nietzsche --> Heidegger

(Kant if you must) --> Hegel --> Stirner --> Marx --> Debord --> Deleuze/Guattari

Russell --> Wittgenstein --> Late Whitehead

These will give you a good understanding of the current endgame. Even this is a fair bit of reading but if you sincerely read this stuff over about half a decade you'll get over it.

You don't have to read all of that shit to realize that thinking about thinking is pointless and circular.

Ok, you just keep on truckin' with whatever contingent ideology has been put into your head then :^)

Hope you have a happy life and make many monies!

>being limited by ideology
>not making decisions on the fly based on personal preference

> personal preference
> not the formative cumulative weight of parents, society, developmental accident, propaganda and reinforcement

le rugged individualist faec :^)

and? the preference is still his, it doesnt matter how he got that preference

I was going to post that but now I don't have to. Thanks user.

Camus

"On my view, James and Dewey were not only waiting at the end of the dialectical road which analytic philosophy traveled, but are waiting at the end of the road which, for example, Foucault and Deleuze are currently traveling." -- Richard Rorty

Yeah but fucking hell mates, if you're just going to act on an immediate stimulus/response basis you're going to have issues. Feel free to tread that road -- I don't condemn it -- but it's not a solution to the problem the OP had. By all means, go and live a (classical) Epicurean or Hedonist life, but don't go worrying about philosophy while you do it.

I can't tell if I agree with you or disagree with you. Care to elaborate more on what you meant by this?

I am a bit of a pragmatist -- I see theory as tools, weapons, to be employed in practice (when attacking systems and situations I want to attack -- and working out which ones those are). I think philosophy is mostly word-games or symbol-play, but in a world made up of so many dense symbolic constructs maybe that is what we need.

Have you tried crippling alcoholism?
It's really popular among esteemed philosophers.

>it's not a solution to the problem the OP had.
>don't go worrying about philosophy while you do it.
Seems like a solution to me.

>By all means, go and live a (classical) Epicurean or Hedonist life, but don't go worrying about philosophy while you do it.
You have no idea what Epicureanism is.

"Just stop worrying" is not a 'good endgame philosopher... that help[s] one do away with it all?'

I am getting sick of your bullshit, comrade.

Epicureanism is a philosophical approach to life where you try to seek maximum pleasure.

Epicurus himself, after trying all the hedonist shit, decided to live in a farm-type philosophical commune with his mates (and women) and talk shit.

However, this is still an Epicurean solution to the existence problem, because it is still insular, hedonistic (though moderated, but only because pleasure gets old fast), and discourages, for instance, public/political life.

I'm not knocking it, it is a good solution, I am just saying it is only one solution, and leaves out many other options.

You REALLY have no idea what Epicureanism is.

Well don't offer to educate me or have a discussion, far out

I am not Professor Expertise here, I am just some guy on Veeky Forums. Please halp.

/thread

"Le morality is a spook!" is a moral statement.

Stirner sucks, dude.

Whoever invented electroshock therapy.

it's a meta-moral statement bro, nice try though

Kazantzakis. Zorba.

The main character is literally a wannabe Buddhist reading Dante.

Please recommend some.

there is literally only one philosopher who matters any more- see pic related
it even says PHILOSOPHER right there in big letters in his profile name
and he totally wants us to share his awesome work with the world

Never-Ever Lose Hope. i mean how deep is that

Benatar, Better Never to Have Been

alternatively Camus the Myth of Sisyphus

If that doesn't work I don't know what will

>Benatar, Better Never to Have Been

i thought Love is a Battlefield was more profound, myself

Put your books down and go outside. Stop thinking of why everything happened or why it actually doesn't matter and just enjoy the one life you have. It's really not that hard.

>Zhuangzi destroyed even caring about philosophy

came here to post this

The Book of Chuang Tzu (Penguin Classics)

I'm reading it right now, it's a great book, especially if you've read tao te ching beforehand

Academic philosophers HATE him!

Sartre. He will make you believe in free will and that you really are in control of your life and then you can just go get laid or whatever.

Different user here. Epicureanism is fundamentally a negative hedonism, in that it seeks the good life in pleasure, but by doing away with excessive desires and habits that disturb pleasure. The goal is a pleasant tranquility, free from the insatiability of uncontrolled appetites, free from fear of gods and death.

"If you wish to make a person rich, do not add to their possessions, but take away from their desires."

the penguin version is by far the worse one. there are just too much available to pick that one. (ive read over 10 in both english and french). it depends on what ones interests are: if academic/sinology, the graham one is the one to read, if literary id say the mair one is the best. if lying in between those two then the classic watson one should do it. from the abridged versions the ziporyn has quite good translations of certain passages. and that is just from memory, cause the older ones are not neglectable and the abridged ones are all worth checking.

Panentheism is the true definition of God.

Determinism is true, free will is a myth.

When you die you experience heaven, but in reality it is an illusion or rather delusion of the immaterial consciousness, that experiences a state of bliss and peace for a period of time before being thrown back into another life on Earth.

I've always seen philosophy as wearing protective gear to make walking into walls less painful.

To me, it seems easier to just not walk into walls.

Reality is simple. There are two layers.

There's physical reality - wherein things are what they are; structure without function or purpose.

There's mental reality - which manifests as possibility. Each tool, object, or material has a myriad of potential functions. When we employ a function, it gains temporary purpose.

The fundamental state of our world is one of balance, and it's easy to arrange our definitions to reflect that.

Conflict arises when we cling to incorrect definitions. The only thing required to repair them is a willingness to do so.

The one important thing to bear in mind is that language is a very limited medium for representation - it cannot quantify, only illustrate.

Allow it to leave you thoughtful, but never accept it as truth.

There. Now you're set for life.

I agree with you. I'm still miserable tho.

Are you healthy, user? Do you eat and sleep well?

Eating fish is always helpful.

You sound spook'd

Yeah. I'm just a bit bored and dissatisfied with the world.

>2016
>believing in "physical reality"

>Hume destroyed metaphysics
Only for a few decades

>The fundamental state of our world is one of balance
Where do you get this? There's only a tiny window of short-lived life in this ongoing explosion and then it is gone. Existence is not balanced or stable, it's a thing tearing itself apart trying to get away from itself.

Smoking pot and watching television

>Eating fish is always helpful.

not for the fish

What's "endgame" philosophy anyway? A philosophical realization from which you can no further derive anything?

In that case, what would it be? There are many philosophies that lead you to such a dead end: solipsism, nihilism, absurdism and probably egoism as well, although the latter is compatible with the other three.

How do you choose among those dead ends?

it's okay, they don't have feelings

Literally none of those are true logical dead ends.

Something in the way.

Why not?
What would you say is a logical dead end of philosophy then?

Taoism 2bh

Why?

>I have blindly accepted whatever vague philosophical umbrella my parents/culture/friends broadly accept, because im a free agent free from all outside influences because I feel that I am
>I will never question any of these assumptions, because to do so would be dumb obviously, it's just my common sense xD

It sounds like you do not want philosophy but religion.

That joke totally wasn't done to death in the past 5 years.

>muh cum-on cents

>Stirner destroyed ethics
Stirner destroyed all of philosophy.

Aristippus

>solipsism, nihilism, absurdism and probably egoism as well

Only if you're 15.

Stirner only destroyed shit for himself, not anybody else, unless you role-play as stirner, which is basically what stirner people do.
They don't actually agree with him they're just pretending to be him that's my theory.
Hume destroyed fast food chains by systematically exhausting their inventory, there is a difference.
Zhuangzi didn't do shit you shut your mouth.

The philosophical endgame is actually the priesthood.

>it's a "user trivializes a philosophy by claiming it's for teenagers" episode

>They don't actually agree with him they're just pretending to be him
What are you talking about

The saddest part about the joke is that they're rarely actually teenagers, most are in their twenties still believing those things.
What makes them stop I wonder.

Explain non-condescendingly why these ideologies are invalid

I mean like if everything is a spook then you're a spook so the only thing that isn't a spook is stirner since he came up with spooks so the only way to agree with stirner is to be him since otherwise you can't be anybody.
The only thing that's real is the spook, you have to assume that otherwise the idea of spooks is not reputable and holds no weight because it is a spook.

Holy shit you're retarded; stop posting about things you've never read.
Stupid fucking weebposter.

You don't know what a spook is. Read Stirner.
If you've already read Stirner yet still came to this ridiculous conclusion, kill yourself asap.

They all revolve around certain degrees of materialism, and when it's a lesser degree of materialism the "immaterial" parts are unfounded.
If you're not religious then just don't bother with anything other than straight materialistic nihilism, anything else in the realm of "irreligious" philosophy doesn't understand its own situation.

So all I really have to argue against is materialistic nihilism:
It basically boils down to this; things exist, so there must be some subsistent principle of existence differentiating them from non-existence, the source of which is immaterial and non-contingent but ultimately ever-present by metaphysical necessity.
Science (or any empirically based method), for example, cannot differentiate being from non-being, nor life from non-life, those things are intuited by the sense-perceiving individual by means of an inference upwards to conscience.
Hence mathematics is abstracting from matter, but in this context philosophical thought is abstracted from sense-perception, so there is some ultimate truth that the senses, together with the synthesis of the whole individual, are able siphon from reality itself which science cannot adjudicate and which the abstractive intellect can only gaze upon from afar and wonder how it got there.

>What makes them stop I wonder.

the real world intrudes. most people grow up and get jobs, partners, etc and the time comes to put away childish things and stop trying to work out which philosopher's pop-thinking most closely acts as a justification for one's own twisted worldview

that's what happens for most people, anyway. for the people who post here, i'm not so sure. i suspect there are many Veeky Forumstards who will go to their graves wondering which ideological label they should attach to themselves.

Don't quit your day job, christfag.

>the "immaterial" parts are unfounded
What do you mean?

>things exist
Some reject this postulate, or rather, consider the dichotomy between existence and nonexistence as insubstantial. Where do you go from there?

I fail to understand how your post invalidates nihilism. The assumption that the information gathered from an individual's senses and conscious perception hold any intrinsic value is preposterous.

>stop posting things youve never read
Then why do Stirnerposters still exist?

The beginning, middle, and end if philosophy is picrelated.