Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which philosophers do you tend to agree with most?

Which have ideas and theories that resonate strongly with you, that you agree with, etc.

More than anyone else, I most agree with Jesus. The path he walked and his teachings for me elucidates the very meaning and purpose of life (love) and points out what can mislead us (pride).

But Jesus aside, I've found that there are five other philosophers that really resonate with me:

Plato: The Allegory of the Cave first of all is a really resonant story, as it elucidates much about the nature of reality, and the process of man's ignorance, understanding, reaction to truth, and evolution to higher understandings of reality. Then there's also Plato's Theory of Forms, the argument that forms or ideas (non-physical but substantive things) represent a reality truer than the physical universe.

Saint Irenaeus: Irenaeus set forth the Soul Making theory to counter the argument against God commonly known as the problem of evil. The Soul making theory is that this imperfect universe exists so that the human soul can be forged with its own individual identity and will, and so the human soul can evolve closer to a state of perfection. Essentially, that God uses an imperfect physical universe to bring each of our souls from a state of non-existence (pre-birth), to a state of imperfect existence where we evolve (life), culminating in a state of perfect existence (heaven).

Saint Thomas Aquinas: He set forth the cosmological argument, that based on the nature of causality that our physical universe functions on, the physical universe on its own can't justify its own existence, and that there has to be some transcendent higher power not only above the physical universe but that caused it, and that this higher power would be exempt from the principal of causality because this higher power is what established said principal to begin with.

John Locke: Argued that people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights by God, including our existence, our freedom, and the way we attach ourselves to and make use of this world. He also pointed out the problem of freedom, that each person has power and that our choices inherently interfere with those around us, justifying government as something we conform to to protect our individuality. He also argued that since the government is only given power and justification by the people it governed, it should exist for said people, and function in a way in which the power of the government is influenced by the collective will of the governed.

Alduous Huxley: Argued the merit of perennial philosophy, that you can find universal truths amidst varying perspectives, something that can be applied to drugs and religion. He also argued that mind altering substances have great potential for exploring the depths and gateway of human perception in ways that can allow us to better understand and experience ourselves and the external world. He also argued for the importance of suffering and how that contributes to our understanding and experience of our own existence, as well as our evolution. Finally, he seems to argue that progress is built upon the balance between individuality and conformity.

The teachings of Jesus had a lot in common with Buddha as well. Stuff about the nature of reality and all that is interesting and nice, but the most practical stuff does come from people like Jesus, where the logic is essentially "don't be a dick".

That is actually something I find genuinely depressing about Jesus. Whether or not God exists..a whole lot of bad things were done in the name of Jesus and he wasn't about that.

Originally posted by Surtur
The teachings of Jesus had a lot in common with Buddha as well. Stuff about the nature of reality and all that is interesting and nice, but the most practical stuff does come from people like Jesus, where the logic is essentially "don't be a dick".

That is actually something I find genuinely depressing about Jesus. Whether or not God exists..a whole lot of bad things were done in the name of Jesus and he wasn't about that.
Yeah, too many people try and use their outlook on the world to justify some sense of superiority over other people instead of embracing love.

Friedrich Nietzsche

As a late teens-early twenties college student who just got exposed to introductory philosophimophizing, I have to say that I actually find myself agreeing with Nietzcshe. And sometimes I dabble in Sartre.



Also I can only talk about nihilism in a high-rise terminal. Like everything is a question.

Albert Camus and Emil Cioran.

Lobo

EWC37HIFF2w

That would be the only reason I would watch a Simpson's episode these days.

The great Patrice O'Neal and George Carlin

I agree with bits and pieces from all. "I can see that" is a phrase that goes through my mind while reading about any philosophy.

Most recently it was Sam Harris

Not all of these are academic philosophers but:

Eliezer Yudkowsky and "Scott Alexander"
Sam Harris
To some degree - the stoic and epicurean philosophers, John Stuart Mill, Voltaire, probably a bunch of others I'm missing

I've actually been thinking about looking some into Saint Augustine, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Carl Jung. I might expand my list after I've done so.

i for one, see eye to eye with the prophet mohammed on many issues.

So you, too, would like to murder Jews, have sex with 9-year olds and wage wars in the name of the beloved?

Originally posted by MythLord
So you, too, would like to murder Jews, have sex with 9-year olds and wage wars in the name of the beloved? He didn't say he was a Trump voter.

Interesting thread. I like Alvin Plantiga when it comes to the contemporaries.

I like Kant because with my heavy South London accent it sounds like c u n t. I also like Bacon because it's delicious.

What are you doing here trans hater!

Rude ermm

Originally posted by Blakemore
Rude ermm


Think of it like this:

"What are you doing here you normal cisgendered heterosexual who naturally thinks men are gross, and don't even want to think about men who mutilate their penis's".

Because that's what they're saying.

So much for accepting everyone.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I like Kant because with my heavy South London accent it sounds like c u n t. I also like Bacon because it's delicious. oh, you are a dog.

WOOOOF!!!

C unt bacon? Sounds good 😘

Stefan molyneux, Hans Herman hoppe, Murray Rothbard, Mencius moldbug, Ludwig von mises, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Stefan molyneux, Hans Herman hoppe, Murray Rothbard, Mencius moldbug, Ludwig von mises, Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand.

Every single person you listed is a figure in the Alt-Right. You are not clever, you are a racist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Every single person you listed is a figure in the Alt-Right. You are not clever, you are a racist.

Define alt right.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Define alt right.

If you only chose one Alt-Right figure, then you might have plausible deniability. But since all seven of the people you listed are major figures in the Alt-Right, that is not the case. You thought you were being clever by dogwhistling your racism, but you could not help but tell on yourself. **** off, racist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you only chose one Alt-Right figure, then you might have plausible deniability. But since all seven of the people you listed are major figures in the Alt-Right, that is not the case. You thought you were being clever by dogwhistling your racism, but you could not help but tell on yourself. **** off, racist.

I wasn't trying to deny anything, I asked for your definition of alt right.
It should take about one sentence to define.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
I wasn't trying to deny anything, I asked for your definition of alt right.
It should take about one sentence to define.

If you are not denying it, then you do not need it defined for you.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you are not denying it, then you do not need it defined for you.

Youre going in circles to not define it, so I'll do it for you.

Alt right means alternative right, aka not gop.

That's literally it. It's telling you couldn't tell me that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Every single person you listed is a figure in the Alt-Right. You are not clever, you are a racist. I wouldn't call Ayn Rand "alt-right" she was more of an economist who took ideas from Adam Smith and tried to rationalise the idea that selfishness is the only optimum. In an interview, she was asked where altruism comes into the equation and she replied "it doesn't."

Bold innovative thinker, didn't consider a key part of human nature which destroyed her theory. Oh well.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Youre going in circles to not define it, so I'll do it for you.

Alt right means alternative right, aka not gop.

That's literally it. It's telling you couldn't tell me that.

Nice try, *******:

alt-right a right-wing political movement or grouping based in the U.S. whose members reject mainstream conservative politics and espouse extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I wouldn't call Ayn Rand "alt-right" she was more of an economist who took ideas from Adam Smith and tried to rationalise the idea that selfishness is the only optimum. In an interview, she was asked where altruism comes into the equation and she replied "it doesn't."

Bold innovative thinker, didn't consider a key part of human nature which destroyed her theory. Oh well.

Therein lies my point: one figure in isolation is not necessarily indicative of white nationalism; it is the collection of all seven figures in the deck of Alt-Right playing cards that matters.

Moreover, you need to read about the Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline.

The Alt-Right loves to pretend that they are "enlightened centrists" and "Libertarians" who reject the GOP, and just have "totally valid concerns about Jewish replacement theory."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Therein lies my point: one figure in isolation is not necessarily indicative of white nationalism; it is the collection of all seven figures in the deck of Alt-Right playing cards that matters.

Moreover, you need to read about the Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline.

The Alt-Right loves to pretend that they are "enlightened centrists" and "Libertarians" who reject the GOP, and just have "totally valid concerns about Jewish replacement theory."

People hate the Jews because they're money lenders and people associate money with the anus and shit.

Libertarianism is at direct odds with any form of nationalism

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Therein lies my point: one figure in isolation is not necessarily indicative of white nationalism; it is the collection of all seven figures in the deck of Alt-Right playing cards that matters.

Moreover, you need to read about the Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline.

The Alt-Right loves to pretend that they are "enlightened centrists" and "Libertarians" who reject the GOP, and just have "totally valid concerns about Jewish replacement theory." Libertarianism isn't like that in Europe. Rand was Austrian, I think. Her theories tie closely with Nash's game theory, where if we all act for our own benefit and **** everyone else, an equilibrium is created where everyone is self seeking to the point of insanity, yet, because everyone is doing it, it becomes normal.

Even altruism can be used to manipulate people as part of the game. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying it's an interesting theory that explains how humans operate when it comes to financial gain. The beauty is some people are very bad at it. Even better, Rand's theories were rejected because it was perceived as heartless (dem dam commies) but seriously, I think she was one of the great pioneers of individualism, which I'm assuming you disagree with.

This is why I spend most of time on the fence of the individualism vs collectivism debate.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Libertarianism isn't like that in Europe. Rand was Austrian, I think. Her theories tie closely with Nash's game theory, where if we all act for our own benefit and **** everyone else, an equilibrium is created where everyone is self seeking to the point of insanity, yet, because everyone is doing it, it becomes normal.

Even altruism can be used to manipulate people as part of the game. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying it's an interesting theory that explains how humans operate when it comes to financial gain. The beauty is some people are very bad at it. Even better, Rand's theories were rejected because it was perceived as heartless (dem dam commies) but seriously, I think she was one of the great pioneers of individualism, which I'm assuming you disagree with.

This is why I spend most of time on the fence of the individualism vs collectivism debate.

We are not talking about Europe, we are talking about the North America. That is what it is here.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We are not talking about Europe, we are talking about the North America. That is what it is here. Okay, well, in that case, you'd be right.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Libertarianism isn't like that in Europe. Rand was Austrian, I think. Her theories tie closely with Nash's game theory, where if we all act for our own benefit and **** everyone else, an equilibrium is created where everyone is self seeking to the point of insanity, yet, because everyone is doing it, it becomes normal.

Even altruism can be used to manipulate people as part of the game. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying it's an interesting theory that explains how humans operate when it comes to financial gain. The beauty is some people are very bad at it. Even better, Rand's theories were rejected because it was perceived as heartless (dem dam commies) but seriously, I think she was one of the great pioneers of individualism, which I'm assuming you disagree with.

This is why I spend most of time on the fence of the individualism vs collectivism debate.

Rand was not Austrian, she invented her own philosophy called objectivism. She got along with mises and rothbard loved atlas shrugged, but eventually wrote a play making fun of rand and a paper called the sociology of the Ayn Rand cult, her followers, and their cult like tendencies.

What she meant by selfish and altruism are different than how most people use the word. She meant selfish as self interest and altruism as helping others to your detriment.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Okay, well, in that case, you'd be right.

It is like that in N.A.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Rand was not Austrian, she invented her own philosophy called objectivism. She got along with mises and rothbard loved atlas shrugged, but eventually wrote a play making fun of rand and a paper called the sociology of the Ayn Rand cult, her followers, and their cult like tendencies.

What she meant by selfish and altruism are different than how most people use the word. She meant selfish as self interest and altruism as helping others to your detriment. She literally said in an interview altruism doesn't come into her philosophy.

And I looked it up, she was Russian-American. My goof.

Originally posted by Blakemore
She literally said in an interview altruism doesn't come into her philosophy.

And I looked it up, she was Russian-American. My goof.

Correct, and again her usage of it is a specialized term. Objectivism is her philosophy and how she handles the words selfish and altruism are different than how the words are typically understood.

Yes, she fled because the horrors of the communists.

Soviet Russia sounds like gypsies.

Basically the state creates everything and nobody owns anything. You can steal and fight however way you want, it doesn't matter. It's true anarchy and everything slowly turns to shit. If you're an American think of drug dealers in trailer parks. That's communism. Just steal whatever you can, no education other than trying not to get caught and, if you do get caught, well, again that's communism.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Soviet Russia sounds like gypsies.

Basically the state creates everything and nobody owns anything. You can steal and fight however way you want, it doesn't matter. It's true anarchy and everything slowly turns to shit. If you're an American think of drug dealers in trailer parks. That's communism. Just steal whatever you can, no education other than trying not to get caught and, if you do get caught, well, again that's communism.

Yeah communism is dogshit.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Therein lies my point: one figure in isolation is not necessarily indicative of white nationalism; it is the collection of all seven figures in the deck of Alt-Right playing cards that matters.

Moreover, you need to read about the Libertarian-to-Alt-Right Pipeline.

The Alt-Right loves to pretend that they are "enlightened centrists" and "Libertarians" who reject the GOP, and just have "totally valid concerns about Jewish replacement theory." Yeah, DDM for instance.

Lol The Daily Beast. May as well post Daily Kos while you're using "credible sources".

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Yeah, DDM for instance.

They all pretend to be Libertarians, because "Republican" carries too much baggage now.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
They all pretend to be Libertarians, because "Republican" carries too much baggage now.

I'm a market anarchist, which is the end conclusion of libertarian thought.

Establishment republicans (neo-cons) are all ex Marxists, specifically of a trotskyist slant. No shit I wouldn't sympathize with cucked lefties.

That's why people contrast neo-cons with what's called the old right, which was entirely compromised of proponents of small government and opponents of interventionism.

The shift from the old right to the new right aka establishment repubs aka the gop was largely instigated by Irving kristol, who was a Marxist.

But nice try.

Neo-conservatism started in the 1940s to maintain Western culture after the war. It's very restrictive against any ideology that doesn't fit their very narrow minded view of the good ol' days. This can apply to the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. Reagan, however campaigned under neo-liberalism, which was mostly maintaining neo-conservatism, unless you can make a bigger profit.

Take cannabis for example, Nixon purged all information about cannabis and Vietnam to keep the population ignorant. Reagan's plan was to sell them the tools to publish the information, but invest in prisons to arrest anyone caught using it and force them to work in those prisons for our companies.

It's like picking slavery over genocide.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Neo-conservatism started in the 1940s to maintain Western culture after the war. It's very restrictive against any ideology that doesn't fit their very narrow minded view of the good ol' days. This can apply to the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon. Reagan, however campaigned under neo-liberalism, which was mostly maintaining neo-conservatism, unless you can make a bigger profit.

Take cannabis for example, Nixon purged all information about cannabis and Vietnam to keep the population ignorant. Reagan's plan was to sell them the tools to publish the information, but invest in prisons to arrest anyone caught using it and force them to work in those prisons for our companies.

It's like picking slavery over genocide.

Damn, Blakey. Nice post dude.

Thanks.

Although, I did want to mention the red scare under Eisenhower, which Reagan was a part of to stop socialised medicine. And I wanted to mention more about Vietnam protesters under Johnson and Nixon, but I think we all know that to death. Thank god the 80's showed us so many lovely films like The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon and Apocalypse Now.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The books of the 'New Testament'.

Translation for rednecks:

Matty, Marky, Duke and Johnboy. The gospel of Jeeebus!