3x3 thread

Daniel Dennett is there for his views on memes and his view that religion is a dangerous meme. Rand is there more so for her ideas on self-interest than laissez faire capitalism.
Nick Land is there because Malthus couldn't forsee how capitalism would counteract the pitfall of increasing populations, and more likely as a population crash is that we will be ruled by capital and or machines.

rate

Dickhead/10

Ok, Francis Bacon is not that much of importance. Simply his idea that nature should be overcome is what shaped my own ideas, which can be connected to Malthus ideas and eventually Land. Timothy Morton is there because the culture and nature divide is fading away.

Hobbes is there because of his view on governance and so is Machiavelli. The first for his view on the populace, the second for his view on other politicians.

Nietzsche is there because we are coming closer and closer to the last man, if we are not already, but partly. There will not be Ubermensch and instead of a will to power there is a will to capital and increasing technology.

Eventually Malthus could be turned out to be right, but it matters whatever we overcome nature in the Baconian sense.

Continued:
Dennets idea of memes are important because dangerous memes could also bring us back into a Malthusian reality.
So it is important that memes like the will to capital and increasing technology prevail but the end result could still be a Landian future.

I took the redpill.

What's the website again where i arrange these?

>religion is a meme

At this point you don't even understand what a meme is.

Not a good redpill. You must have bought the off-brand.

>What's the website again where i arrange these?
Search for Mosiac Maker.
Well to be correct religion would be a memeplex, since it contains several memes

>melonhead
>fucking grimes
HOLY SHIT THE AUTISM IS TRUE

this

What a fucking idiot you must be

So I described my reasons for choosing them. Admitted a bit poorly since I don't take the time to explain it better.

But what would be the problem with these thinkers?

Serious question: what the fuck are you doing on Veeky Forums?

its obvious

Okay, I'll go with the trivial and trite argument because I've lost all hope at this point.

Do you realize Hitler killed over 6 millions of people and almost certainly you would have been among them?

So many morons taking bait in this thread. Sad!

Those guys are so cute

Why would Hitler kill me?
I've taken the redpill, cuck.

I'm sure some of the posts are not bait at all. You forget we're on Veeky Forums, the reign of autism

Because you're a faggot and faggots went to the death camps.

shut fuck up cuck

>You forget we're on Veeky Forums, the reign of autism
Interesting you should say that, Nick Land claimed autism is the next step in evolution
Now there is some evidence that points into that direction, though not autism itself but the genes associated with it

Rethink yourself, child.

>Related at the autism discussion

I don't mean that autism, I mean this

cuck

I am aware that autism as it is used on Veeky Forums is different
But I would like to discuss autism as it shaped my thinking as well

Somewhat in the way of Iain McGilchrist but differently

And I have all the reasons to suspect that some historical thinkers might indeed have a touch of autism

>In a thread you consider to be a bait thread
>posting in said thread

Sad!

I feel like an asshole for putting a youtuber on here but he has had a very large impact on the way I think so whatever.

Hoppe is really the main one for me.

Well if the plug fits...

Who is the youtuber?

Millennial Woes

ama

What's it like being a self-loathing parasite?

pretty good senpai hbu

nice

I like you.
You can drink my beer and fuck my sister

Don't wanna make a 3x3 so:

Spinoza
Aristotle
Sloterdijk
Derrida
Benjamin (if he counts idk)
Kant
Hume
Fichte
Lukacs

Honorable mentions:
St Anselm
St Augustine
Nehamas
Nozick
Schopenhauer

Woops, drop Benjamin to honorable mention in place of Freud, add Danto and Nietzsche to honorable mentions

This was a hasty list

I don't associate thought with an arbitrary array of floating heads

This genetic determinism must stop. We are way past this as a model for human variation. Humans have about the same amount of gene complexity as a fucking fly.

...

Lmao what is this bait?

it's pretty good

>the only other people with Nietzsche ITT are anarcho-capitalists, democrats, nationalists, traditionalists, and pessimists
KEK

You can tell the philosophical fraud immediately from dislike of referencing anyone. But even Heraclitus gives names, at a time when there were barely any names to give. Entirely separate from the millennia-long philosophical and cultural traditions of all the nations, all the fraudsters, pretending to have never heard of anyone else, or of each other, or to have ever cared about the ideas and themes that all the world's greatest thinkers have cared about. And in a sense, it's true. They really don't care about the issues that the thinkers they have plagiarized have cared about. They only care about fame and money, and they go about acquiring them in such a vile and fraudulent fashion that I'd even take the gratuitous name-droppers and hipster intellectuals over them. These mangle the great thinkers too, of course, but at least they respect them enough to mention them.

There is, of course, a lot of merit in the ongoing nature vs. nurture debate, but only for the purposes of practical, everyday applications. For as to the ultimate solution of the dispute, that's already settled. No research or experiments are needed: it is a simple philosophical problem whose solution I can provide with barely 5 seconds of thinking. So yes, culture does indeed influence human development, but who creates culture in the first place, if not humans themselves, and therefore human biology and genetics? It is true that SOME DAY our culture will hopefully get to the stage of directly determining our descendants' genetics, as opposed to leaving them up to the crapshoot of sexuated procreation, but even when that day arrives, it will still be our initial genetics that created the culture that reached the point of being able to directly influence our genetics (as opposed to, for example, the culture of African baboons or Greenlandic Inuits or whatever). In other words, the past, the past, the past, and nothing but the past: The moral in all this is that you can't flee from your past, gentlemen and gentlewomen, no matter how dearly you would like to! (which is what all appeals to the supremacy of culture over biology ultimately amount to). There are no "blank slates" or "new beginnings" — these conceptions are merely the delirious hallucinations of the genetically weak and culturally desperate among us: every step forwards and upwards will necessarily have to be built on every other step taken hitherto — all the way back to the Big Bang — and no wishful thinking or verbal gymnastics have ever or will ever suffice to make up for any deficiencies there. Or do you find that surprising the realization that the ultimate structural soundness of a building depends, first and above all, on the structural integrity of its foundations?

The one you don't know is Saramago

You are clueless
Should probably exchange Einstein for Kant in mine.

>just-cuck-my-shit-up.jpg

mine is btw

Intro to philosophy tier

I don't get why you'd say that. None of those would be shortlisted for an intro unless it was chronological (Heraclitus) or based on popularity (Nietzsche). The rest are renowned, sure, but generally overshadowed by others in the 101 courses.

>With our powers combined...

From left to right, up to down:

Burke: for his ideas on beauty
Gramsci: for the idea of cultural hegemony
Hobbes: for his political theory
Jünger: for his comfy literature and lifestyle
Haushofer: for his political theory
Möser: for his conception of civic liberties within a traditional Ancien Regime society
Dante: for his De Monarchia and the Divine Comedy
Thomas Aquinas: for his theology
Carl Schmitt: for his musings on democracy

Pls r8 no h8 ok?

...

I'm sorry I'm such a mess I can't figure it out either

Taleb, Junger, Houellebecq, Venner, Kaczynski, Carlyle, Linkola, Lycurgus and Baudrillard

Didn't expect to see another Junger reader here. Do you speak German?

>Lycurgus
Which of his works did you like best?

not bad

Ist der Name meines Bildes Unbenannt.png?

is mao worth reading? isn't he just a load of country-folk shit?

Ah sorry, didn't notice the lack of trema on his name. You are a native English speaker, I presume?

Shame about the birth rates.

Maybe I should have put down Plutarch. I've been impressed by him from Plutarch's Lives and from Volume III of Moralia

who is the guy in the top left?

Yes I am so I'm very disadvantaged when it comes to virtually all my favourite authors. Junger is probably my all time most influential. I scrape everything I can that has ever been translated. I've read Eumeswil three times, the Glass Bees twice and Storm of Steel twice as well. I also tracked down a copy of Aladdin's Problem. On Pain and On the Marble Cliffs have all been read a few times as well. Is Junger still well known in Germany?

Edgy faggot, how is highschool going for you?

Assuming I've become aware enough to list them.
>Edward Bernays
>Jesus Christ
>Plato
>Rene Descartes
>Immanuel Kant
>C.S Lewis
>Elias Lönnrot
>Friedrich Nietzsche
>whoever is the retard in charge of ideological poison in our media

>where we are now depends on the past
Uuum... Yes you did not need to write 500 words to make that point. But what's your argument? That we should just accept genetic determinism even though we know it to be half the picture?

This is my biggest problem this conservative mentality, why do you want to draw a line in the sand and pretend like we will not continue moving forward? We can now take control over genetic and environmental factors in creating ourselves as a continually evolving species.

>Jesus and Bernays on the same list
Hmmm

Both have shaped my thinking. I don't like what Bernays did... Stating that he didn't do any damage would be a lie - preferable one, mind you.

Eumeswil is my favourite, but that may be the pleb talking in me. It screams retro sci-fi.

His fame has somewhat diminished since his death and his books are never touched upon in school (which is a shame as his prose is rather simple) but I think he is still thought of as one of the most prolific German writers of the 20th century. He has a cult following among new right types like the identitarians due to his involvement with nationalist activists in the 1920s. They don't do him justice though.

I didn't mention it but I also love his idea of the anarch. He stole that concept from Stirner

Would be just a square picture of Vico, honestly

I actually like the post-war Junger better than the pre-war one. I disagree with his Arbeiter borderline Futurist view of the ideal society he had. I do like Storm of Steel. War as existential experience is fantastic. In the English speaking world all we ever hear is moping. I agree Eumeswil is great. It was the first of his works I read and it made a big impression. His view on the world and our place in it has basically become my own. Though it seems like the anarch is basically a tweaked "unique one" I think the anarch is almost Daoist. It goes beyond simple egoism I think. Contrasting The Glass Bees to Der Arbeiter really shows how much WW2 changed him.

I wish I knew German I feel I can never really appreciate him through translations. Not to mention so much is totally inaccessible to me

Happy 15th birthday, user

>why do you want to draw a line in the sand and pretend like we will not continue moving forward? We can now take control over genetic and environmental factors in creating ourselves as a continually evolving species.
If you actually read what I posted you'd realise I covered that.

last two?

No you didn't, you simply say that you can't ever get away from it, or get rid of it. That says nothing of where to go to now. Using your building analogy, that's like saying that the entire building must look identical to and have the same functionality as the foundations - which would defeat the entire purpose of having a building in the first place.

Good luck with getting decent translations. I can only imagine how horrible it must have been to get a decent version of Storms of Steel. Jünger was infamous for reediting the book over a dozen times.

choppa-choppa-choppa-chopp-chopp. . .

unironically

Wow, do you really think buzztalk makes you look any smarter?

Have you read Heliopolis? That is one I hope gets translated one dau

I tried reading the newest English edition of Storm. and it was terrible. It even won an award for translation. I can't read German so my only hope is to buy an older book and hope it's good ;_;

t.

>The "I don't like Muslims or feminists but I like lesbian porn and video games starterpack"

>No you didn't, you simply say that you can't ever get away from it, or get rid of it. That says nothing of where to go to now.
But determined means that where to go is already determined, we just don't know what it will be until it happens.

>Using your building analogy, that's like saying that the entire building must look identical to and have the same functionality as the foundations - which would defeat the entire purpose of having a building in the first place.
No, it's not. It's like saying you can't place an Eiffel Tower on paper legs.

If my post gives you the urge to respond despite having nothing to say, I can only assume that the intelligence present annoys you (you resent it).

>determined means we have no choice
I know, and that's why I said it has got to stop. At its core, the conservative position of determinism is an absolvence of responsibility.

>cannot build an Eiffel tower on paper legs
So you're saying that the genetic/social foundations were currently have would not permit... what exactly? What exactly is it that you think is out of our reach?

>At its core, the conservative position of determinism is an absolvence of responsibility.
Only for its followers, the leaders like it this way so that they can take full responsibility and push the determinism position into whatever direction they want. Then their followers excuse them because "it was meant to happen anyway." First it was will of God, now it is Will of Genes (or both, or whatever deterministic philosophy they can get their hands on). The irony is that conservative followers think people in other camps are being cucked but the conservatives are the ultimate cucks because their leaders don't actually share the deterministic values they instill in their followers. It's bizarre to watch.

>determined means we have no choice
That's false. I specifically said that we largely don't know what will happen until it does. Because of that there are no absolving factors.. people have to make choices because they are determined to do so. Interpreting it as necessary resignation is retarded.

>So you're saying that the genetic/social foundations were currently have would not permit... what exactly? What exactly is it that you think is out of our reach?
I originally said in everyday discourse the genetic/cultural dichotomy may have good arguments in both sides, but that I was talking about the ultimate conclusions. I'm not going to provide you with a specific example, firstly when I wasn't thinking of any, and secondly because it seems clear to me that you only want me to do so in order to feel offended or to refute it, a sad attempt to deny the ultimate truth.

>determined means we have no choice
>that's like saying that the entire building must look identical to and have the same functionality as the foundations
Also I didn't say either of these two things. I'm going to stop responding now since you're clearly too mentally challenged to be able to respond to someone else without imagining they said what you wish they had said.

>there are good arguments on both sides
>but we should accept genetic determinism because of my ultimate conclusion, my ultimate truth
>you just don't understand
>I am not going to give any examples
>I'm going to stop responding now
Yeah, I would.