fallout

Thrasymachus wrote:
I have not come across any good philosophy, of which I was not already aware, in a long time. Wondering if anyone has found any good philosophy lately? With our own writings I have plenty of excellent material to read, but I would also like to find some new material as well.

Please use this topic to paste any good philosophy, text, links or discussion regarding new philosophy that is of merit (new to us, anyway, or at least new to me).

Philosophers I value

Nietzsche
Heidegger
Camus

Lacan to an extent, as a developer of terms
Zizek to the extent that he explicates Lacan

Schelling for his concept of the primordial

Schopenhauer for his concept of Will

Descartes for his sense of humor before "common sense"

Leibnitz for being right and capable of demonstration

Heraclitus, Thales, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, for intuiting self-valuing logic and, without grasping it fully, still drawing out its implications in such majestic ways as to create Western Reason.


Philosophers I loathe

Socrates for being a fucking world-hating idiot and pedophile bitch and traitor to Athens
Plato for being Socrates' bitch and trying to generalize all the fruits of Greece away into metaphysical goo.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4225
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr


PostSubject: Re: New philosophy? Today at 11:29 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Socrates is the archetype of a Socialist.
Someone who profits from the work of his countrymen, insults his hosts, is out only for sex with kids and goes around accusing every being and force that made his joys possible of ... being.

Socrates truly hated beings. As such he hated himself and impressed thousands of years of idiots with his eloquent rejection of this world and "noble greed for death".

Urgh. What a bouffon.



___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile Send private message Send e-mail Online
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4225
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr


PostSubject: Re: New philosophy? Today at 11:33 am Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Of course this isn't really a response to your request -
But in my experience we, the Pentad, are the only ones making sense these days, at least where it concerns philosophy.
I havent ever read any other modern philosopher that isn't a fucking tool.

Yes I like the suggestions, but they are not new to me. Although I should read more Camu

Yes, read more Camus. And I should read more Descartes. The little I read I did enjoy.

Of course, my list includes Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, especially Chuang Tzu as he was an Anarchist (but realized the need for government).

I like Chuang Zu.
Ive been reading hm a bit, here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/sbe40/index.htm

"When the Tâo was lost, its Characteristics appeared."

Thrasymachus wrote:

Yes I like the suggestions, but they are not new to me.

No, this is why I removed it from the thread. Also considering its location.

Quote :

Although I should read more Camu

The Stranger is utterly brutal, the most powerful novel you may ever read.

I think Camus is the one philosopher-novelist.
Ive only read the Stranger because I must read him in French and the rest was too difficult when I tried. But it doesn't matter what language you read that thing in because it is philosophy. Philosophy rules language.

What else is a philosophical novel.
good question.

Two books come to mind first, Shogun by James Clavell and The Son by Philipp Meyer.

In Tai Pan Clavell kind of retraces the same ethical narrative but in terms of Chinese rater than Japanese. Also an absolute success, that novel, but Japanese culture is just more intrinsically dramatic and by its virtue the lead character Blackthorn takes shape like a Superman.

Japan doesn't need philosophy. Philosophy usually can't endure Japan. But we do have philosophy that endures Japan.

Japan is without any competition from other nations the most maximized valuing capacity. They only self-value purely. Hence their suicide forests. For if it goes wrong for an instance.

Orwell is interesting to read. A dogmatic Socialist with an otherwise nicely keen mind.
Funny how he advocated the very means nature took to get to 1984 as the unquestionable holy Righteousness.

Cicero is an annoying bureaucrat but he is solid at his own game and his game has become important.
Ive read some nice stuff from Greek historians, Thucydides and Xenophon but also Homer is a historian of course.
Homer is just incredible, I find. His descriptions of the roads are American like Greece is like California.

On a suface level Greece really is exactly like California. And what is more nobly superficial! When I was there I actually blinked for a few moments having seen all this before acutely, a deja vu in real life. Also at the Adriatic coast it was precisely the same. The slightly grassbroken spacious parking lots amid the careless opulence of nature, the frivolous massless nature of capitalism in the endless businesses of the same type in the most obvious places, all under an unaccusing, pleasantly warming sky - businesses shabby looking on her expensive land, not caring too much for form only for force, so amounting in the highest for which is character which gives freedom but is above it entirely.

There was freedom once. We took it to become Greeks! Now there is only necessity.

gvdamn this is a lot for the moment. I remember Shogun, topfuckingkek. Yes

Very nice

Plz dont remove any of this , I will read when sober. later

Lol
ALso the bible is cool. I said this already but many people who shouldn't speak at all praise it so Ill say I twice too. To drown their voices.
But really.
Because there is seriously well written verse in the Bible about important shit.
Granted, unfortunately it carries a lot of ... obedience.

But one thing I take from life is that to command one must learn to serve. Responsibility doesn't quite work otherwise.
So we are 3000 years or so ahead, ish. Of these magnificent peasants.

I don't count the New Testament as the Bible, by the way. I am a Jew after all, by kek himself.

Jesus exists in the rosebush on Thursday.
He is the shuddering which is also part of the Thunders meaning.

I like especially the more masculine verses of Solomon. That dude was probably a very lazy spoiled Goethe like son to his warrior father David. But (or thence) he had a serious knack for poetry. Well I can laugh with him, in the shadows of the flames of pure genius which he reveres, where we ultrafutural postnihilists prefer to pursue it.

The Bible is mainly very psychedelic. I think literally also.

When the political competitor was arrested for carrying and possessing with intention to distribute the Mysteries while drunk at night and in the streets.

It was a hectic time that would reverberate until the time it was discussed as such, here, and on - because sometimes a moment is just right, ripe. Reality is either a bottom-line or a hot core. If it is the former, nothing matters, if it is the latter, "mattering" is all there is. Since the two both are held is beliefs, we get the situation that either some things matter and others don't or things matter more or less, in ways.

A third option seems construed, not dramatic enough. Reason can't be exhausted in the pursuit of meaning.

At least Heidegger understood how to fertilize philosophy.
He did not moralize once except when it came to science, which be simply set he should want to tame. And with right. He just handt seen it in its full scope and so couldn't write her with us. He would have seen the light like Nietzsche says of Jesus that he would have retracted his doctrine had he lived to his age.

But Camus is really good.
There are three interesting writers from Nederland which I could mention I think one is WF Hermans, another Harry Mulisch (TOPKEK) and a third is Tonke Dragt. These are for different reasons philosophical.

Not saying there aren't any more. But I think these three have been translated.
The first book I ever found so compelling I literally could not stop reading at all I remember going out to dinner with my parents and sister and reading it in the tram and through dinner and finishing it before sleep that night was De Donkere Kamer Van Damocles, (The Dark Room of Damocles), by WF Hermans.
Mulisch is relativeert to that a pompous fool but still a genius of life with quite amazing literary reconditions of his genius, which does, weirdly, exist. His book "The Discovery of Heaven" has a good opening 2/3rds but none of that made it into the movie. LOL but true.
The third is a children's books writer of Knights.
Argh, she is too chillingly brilliant at soul, and a mans soul at that. Of course Jung was keen. She also wrote a book about colonies on Venus in great glass domes, where one pilot begins to dream about the living mist outside where plant like intelligence grow in the blistering toxic fog.

Roald Dahls children books always felt like the revelation of the world-conquering English spirit. The cruelty in them is unmatched. Just the cruelty doen tot he heroes, especially, haha, and their revenge is so evil. I lived along the end of his writing career its seemed, new books that came out were certainly feasts. I had forgotten about that. Of curse we read the in translation. I could never read them in English. Thats weird, and it uncomfortably makes me understand somewhat the people that have grown attached to the dubbed movies they've seen as teenagers.

cant even read any of this right now. But will later. daymn

we rule this univerze

Of German writers only Goethe really digs in it like a novelist, and that turns to berserker psychology like The Suffering of Werther.... Jesus fuck man. Why. But memorable indeed.

Russians..... but they knew how to dig. Dostoyevski, he is the greatest of soul and Toergenjev, he is a masterful color-artist of the soul of Russia, and Gorky is very sly and has much feeling and then there are the absurdists who waste their talent. And then there is fucking Tolstoy who has such a great name but who has failed to appeal to me. I won't say he had no talent because he is still good at writing novels. But what he says and highlights in them - and that is what he does, he is like a film director - ah yes. But Dostojevski is linear, the character follows the thought and the thought kills him.