What philosophers should I read

>if you are too lazy just read Hegel

Wow way to have a non argument. You really disproved all that stuff in her books by speculating about my conception in a way that projects your own incestual fantasies.

Bravo user! You are edgy! Indeed. Very edgy.

Is this your first time on Veeky Forums?

By that I mean that there is truth that can be understood and extrapolated from and about reality and some of these guys got some of it right. The reason Hegel is and was so great is because he understood the importance of synthesizing the knowledge gained into one uniform theory that explains it all.

Most people think the world is a mystery, but once you manage to wrap your head around the fact that there is a truth that CAN and HAS been understood, you'll be fine. Most billionaires are super smart dudes who know how existence works (to a certain extent) and can manipulate things. I suggest you also read the stoics, they got some things right as well.

Philosophy is a magical thing, fewer and fewer people understand that and leave it behind for their new religion of science where the new preachers are the "scientists" and their new religion is the scientific establishment. You're a heathen for not believing in science.

what part of that was wrong?

you know who

>trips confirms

Completely agree. Science answers the "how?" Not the "why?"
But when you can tell someone how something works they accept your theory on why it works

No I'm #cruzmissle

Have you ever made an argument before?

Sure I have. I just noticed that your mannerisms looked kinda foreign. Whaddya wanna argue about, hotshot?

>because she didn't interact and had her arguments debated by other philosophers, this makes her a non-philosopher and her arguments invalid
A philosopher is someone who studies and questions the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. Ayn Rand did this, therefore she can be considered a philosopher.

Hegel's not exactly for the lazy.

Human essence.

What is the simplest characteristics that make a human an individual?

I mean he's not THAT difficult to understand

His life and the right to exist.

no such thin as "the right to exist" existence just is, you don't have any right to or not to. Look at it as if 1s and 0s in a matrix. A thing constantly is and isn't at each interval and moment, because each moment it's relevance to the matrix it is in may dissipate hence making it a 0. And since there is no clear way of knowing exactly why something that was a 1 is now a 0 we assume that it is a 1 and 0 at the same time. In other words you carry your own anti-you with you at all times.

Also existence = life, live things are just a different aspect of existence, but they are no more existent than a rock is. Therefore whether something is "alive" or not doesn't matter, what matters if it exists or not.

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. The right to exist is the right to continue living, which defines a person as an individual. A person who has no right that isn't able to impose themselves upon the world and life cannot be considered an individual.

All you've done is detail reality and existence.

Human essence is not the simplest characteristic that makes an a human an individual. It's his life and the right to exist. The Ego is only the vessel which perceives reality. A comatose person is not an individual because it cannot impose itself on the world.

>It's his life and the right to exist

Do unborn generations also have this right?

They are not alive, so no. And they cannot impose themselves. However, once they are born, they will have that right by birth and by imposing themselves on existence.

That's a problem I have with rand, no regard for those who come after us, and the state of the planet we bring them into.

>He has a 3D notion of existence
Time is an illusion bruh. The unborn exist in 4D space same as you or I.

>"Tales"
>hurr both Heraclitus and Parmenides "got it right"

You don't owe people you don't know anything. However, that doesn't mean you should destroy their shit either. I don't see how Stirner would fare any better in regards to further generations.

However, I somewhat have a different view. Existence is perpetual suffering, so giving birth to a child is damning that person to a lifetime of suffering. You are selfishly creating life to pass down your own legacy. If you are selfish enough to pass down a legacy, you would want your legacy to survive in the best possible world. This would be a world in which the world is hopefully less shit than when you entered it. This is more my view, since Ayn Rand just had sex, never had children and didn't give a fuck about the rest of the world. But I think it fits.

The unborn don't exist until they are born, just as we don't exist after we die. We only exist when we can impose ourselves.

And we both know that people will continue to have children. I know hardcore individualism is built into Rand and Stirner's philosophy, but this zoomed in focus seems to be a flaw to me. Unless a union of egoists valued the future of "their property" or something like that.

meant for

>And we both know that people will continue to have children.
Maybe. Pure and complete antinatalism is unlikely to ever happen. Though there is a correlation with people having fewer children in the modern world where the struggles of life are reduced. So it's not impossible that people can decide to never have children entirely if they do not feel selfish enough to create life.

Your life in relation with reality is the measure of all values. Having a child means imposing them with a part of yourself as a legacy, making you persist death in a sense. This view can also extent to making art that persist long after a person dies. A person might create art to become rich and famous, but most likely create art so that it can survive the test of time, with a part of themselves.

I'm sure Ayn Rand would agree with this view.

>Ayn Rand
>Philosopher

Read Stirner goddamnit.

I'll pull a Descartes and say "this is just how I did it, take it or leave it"

Descartes -> Plato/Socrates stuff -> scraping Nietzsche/ Kierk -> scraping the surface of other existentialists -> scraping Heidegger -> DIVING/FALLING HARD INTO EXISTENTIALISM OH WOE! OH WOE IS ME! --> breaking down Heidegger's Being and Time --> voraciously devouring Nietzsche --> lots of Jung --> touching on some Wittgenstein/Sellars--> assortment of other stuff --> etc etc