What philosophy schools are /fa?

Stoic.

>>10918889
why?

>>10918872
Egoism obviously

>>10918889
Stoics like Epicureans are just a bunch of lazy fucks

Nihilism, Absurdism and Zen are best schools
Also, Spinoza

File: 1450749659078.png (442KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1920x1080px

Phenomenology

File: Mistrust talks about justice.jpg (39KB, 431x543px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 431x543px

The will to power, Nietzsche school.
aka make your own values, don't give a shit about what others think about you, think for yourself and live life how you want it since it has no inherent meaning anyway.
/thread

>>10918908
>nihilists
Stoics who can't handle the bants.

>>10918872
I feel like if i'd be rich af, i would live a full blown hedonistlic life.

File: albert-camus.jpg (202KB, 1381x874px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1381x874px

>>10918908
Albert Camus is /fa/ as fuck, and by extention absurdism and existentialism. Actually reading The Stranger right now, took me far too long to pick it up after I finished The Plague. It's refreshing that he's far less marxist than his contemporary Sartre was, he was just mainly anti-authoritarianism which is something I can really get behind.

>>10918955
Philosophical hedonism =/= personal hedonism

>>10918969
I recently read those two too, he's my new fav author now. The contrast between how the main characters act in there two stories shows how his personal outlook on life changed too. Man also posed for Vogue.

File: image.jpg (201KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1000x1000px

>>10918969
Sartre was /fa/ af, perhaps even more so than Camus.

>>10918969
Absolutely love Camus, Myth of Sisyphus is probably my favorite philosophical work I've ever read. However OP, don't base your whole fucking worldview on what's "effay," research different schools and authors and read what interests you and decide for yourself what you like. Personally, I love Absurdism, but not everyone is gonna look at the world that way and being as it's philosophy there's no objective truth.

>>10919019
Tfw I will forever be confined to translations of his work unless I learn flawless french.

retarded thread.

>>10919038
>thinking you can cruise on /fa/ looks alone

Being familiar with philosophy is a boon in pretty much any circle that isn't straight up anti-intellectual.

>>10919026
Being a fan of absurdism (and existentialism to a similar extent), it bugs me that people tend to misunderstand it. I don't think the lack of an intrinstic meaning to existence is bad in and of itself, it's actually the contrary. If existence has no definite meaning, it leaves it up to me to decide my own fate which is a very liberating thought. We're dropped in the world with no real purpose, so let's try to define our own and make the best of it.

>>10918908
>Epicureans are stoics
>Nihilism, Absurdism and Zen are best schools
meme tier

and what the fuck do you know about Spinoza you pretentious buffoon?

>>10919056
I don't know what your greentext means.

I studied philosophy in university. I suppose it's like any of those other threads like '/fa/ movies' or whatever else gets discussed in a similar manner. At best, it seems disingenuous, at worse it reeks of immaturity to even ask a question like 'What philosophy schools are /fa/?'
It would be a different and probably a more fruitful discussion (which is where the thread looks like it is going anyways) to recommend books, not because they're fashionable to have in your bag, but because they're thought provoking, but I would imagine /lit/ would give you a better answer anyways if that's what people were looking for.
Have a good day.

>>10919122
My point was that some knowledge of philosophy (and any other subject, really) is a boon to your personality, and being familiar with it is great for when you actually open your mouth. The idea that a philosophy can be fashionable the same way clothes are reeks of immatury as you said. Anyway; I tend to interpret "what <x> is /fa/?" as a more general question about what's interesting or in good taste rather than what's trending.

>>10918908
>>10918969
>>10919019
>>10919022
>>10919026
>>10919069
camus, sartre, absurdism, and other varieties of existentialism are basic and pleb as fuck. philosophical equivalent of wearing uniqlo. anyone claiming that absurdism, existentialism, camus and the like are superior to religion or nationalism sound exactly like someone claiming that having a wardrobe of uniqlo and H&M is superior to commoners who wear the gap and old navy. l o l

>one must imagine sisyphus happy

its astonishing to me how many people can't find the glaring problem with this line, but at the same time claim to be independent critical thinkers.

stoicism is pretty good. nietzsche as well, but many of his concepts are misinterpreted. some people use his writing as an ideological basis to support their obsession with accumulating power. you guys are just slaves to power. no better than others who are slaves to money, pleasure, or whatever else.

relevant survey:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/06/gender.books

>>10919148
Tell me, what is the error with that line?

File: 81d8e04619693acd670bf0a803b37d5b.png (70KB, 204x278px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 204x278px

>>10919148
If you say so.

>>10919148
Although I am not accusing you of doing such, I wish people would stop equating Absurdism and Existentialism; as well as lumping Sartre and Camus together,

>>10918939
Nietzsche is dead tho. Outdated

>>10919144
Fair enough, that's usually the interpretation I take as well. Like a wardrobe, a personal philosophy is something to be cultivated. I can't imagine that a thread of /fa/ would be more informative than one on /lit/ on this subject, that's all.

File: tumblr_o1bm3bRZyE1swbakio1_1280.jpg (119KB, 760x1140px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 760x1140px

Don't listen too these plebs

Zen and Tao is the only right way desu with u senpai

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics

Immanuel Kant insisted that aesthetic concepts are essentially subjective, but have some objectivity since feelings of pleasure and pain can be universal responses to certain stimuli

Most of you are such fucking idiots here

>>10919183
You should check out Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory. The PDF is easy to find, and it provides a pretty interesting discussion of the Frankfurt schools critique on the Kantian position, and aesthetic theory more generally.

Existentialism was really cool when I was 14.

Take the leap of faith and join the rest of functional society, you'll thank me.

t.kirk e. garde

>>10919161
there is no reason to prefer happiness over any other emotion. happiness and pleasure are extremely overemphasized as desireable and fulfilling emotions in our present cultural era, which reaches from present back to the 1600s. we are heavily influenced by european enlightenment thinking, which privileges happiness over everything else, the very word is written into the founding documents of the US. the only shade of difference from the 1600s to present is that while enlightenment and proto-enlightenment thinkers found science, freedom, and such to be of and ultimately about God, we have been secularizing over time. now it is secular humanism, scientism, and existentialism. ie, the same values but without the god part.

>>10919183
>pleasure and pain can be universal

yup, that's why what most people conceive of as pain is actually pleasure to a significant portion of other people--ie BDSM.

>>10919193

Alan Watts it is then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reADV4zdhDg

File: 3366445_silhouette.jpg (265KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 720x960px

>>10919202
AW is cool. Teaches buddhism better than most people

>>10919201

That's what happens when anorexics try to form a thought , delusional and dumb at the same time.

is Evola /fa/?

>>10919201
You've actually misinterpreted what Camus meant when he said "We must imagine Sisyphus happy."

People assume that the eternal drudgery of having to roll a stone up a hill only to have it tumble down perpetually -- never reaching the top -- that Sisyphus would forever be in a state of sadness/agony/et al.

Camus is, instead, saying that Sisyphus can find his meaning in rolling the stone up the hill eternally, even if it never amounts to anything -- i.e. rebelling against the absurd.

It's not him saying we must prefer happiness, but that one can find their own meaning and be fulfilled by it even within the face of monotony/sameness/etc.

>>10919265


Lol you think he will understand this? He's just run of the mill dedicated idiots who pretend to be intellectuals.

>>10919183

Essentially empiricism vs. rationalism. Locke/Kant/Berkeley were all on the side of the /fa/ as fuck philosophy of empirical thinking.

hedonism and egoism are genuinely the least /fa/ basic bitch thing you can be.

there is a hindu saying that goes something like
"all wise men speak the same truth, but in different languages" and i sincerely believe that

>>10919265
your reply fits exactly into the interpretation i was responding negatively towards.

>People assume that... Sisyphus would forever be in a state of sadness/agony/et al.

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with being in this state. people are not wrong to assume that sisyphus would be in this state, they, you, and camus, are only wrong in assuming that sadness, agony, 'et al.' are worse than happiness.

>It's not him saying we must prefer happiness

then why the fuck would he use the term happiness

>one can find their own meaning and be fulfilled

call me the mystery machine because i'm haunted by spooks

'being fulfilled' is just as illusory as happiness. there is no reason to prefer being fulfilled as being unfulfilled. there is no reason to rebel against the absurd as there is to accept it. you've only kicked the can a little further down the road. the desire to determine meaning is just as arbitrary as preferring happiness. one could abandon the question of meaning. its an absolutely insignificant question really. self-proclaimed absurdists admit there is no definitive answer on meaning, purpose, or whatver they want to call it, but continue to prioritize the question in the face of there being no answer.

sameness, monotony, and "etc." are no more or less preferable than novelty, dynamism, and whatever other opposites are implied. camus writes that

>the struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.

camus here and you (and many others) still take a great deal for granted. the glaring error here as in other lines rand logics remain. he prefers having one's heart as something to be filled. emptiness is just as desireable. there is no reason to prefer one over the other.

>>10918889
Certain aspects of Stoicism are really fa, i.e., not giving a fuck about anybody else, but other aspects, not so much.

>>10919276
i understand perfectly well, unfortunately you and many others are quite protective when the answers to 'babby's first existential crisis' are questioned. sorry, your dude in the fashionable trench coat smoking a cig are not the be-all end-all of your existential problems. i suppose you can rest easier knowing there are other people who feel the same way you feel about life. that doesn't suffice however for proof that absurdism, existentialism, or camus are ultimately and universally true. i have tried to explain that they are historically conditioned and limited, insofar as they prefer certain particular emotional states over others.

i'm astonished as i was before, that you haven't realized that one emotional state isn't preferable over another. we experience emotions, all different kinds. becoming attached, preferring, or chasing happiness, fulfillment, or meaning can be just as destructive and illusory as becoming attached, preferring, or chasing sadness, distraction, or emptiness.

>>10919410
I don't think anyone is saying any specific philosophy is ultimately and universally true. Even if they were, you'd be doing exactly the same thing as them by criticising their views based on relativism, yet another school of philosophy.

I'm just glad there's an actual discussion going on for once.

>>10919428

Told you he's retarded

>>10919440
>>10919428
sorry, you guys are neglecting the universalizing and normative language of camus, which is what in particular i am critiquing. the privilege of happiness pleasure, or whatever 'positive' emotion you'd like to call it, over anything 'negative.' the splitting and ordering of emotions into some kind of difference as positive and negative is illusory, let alone the ordering of positive as preferable to negative.

>All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is a thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

>joy
>torment
>shadow, night

i dont know how you guys aren't seeing this

>>10919201

if you have to pick an absolute, i think that "happiness" is a much better one than... god? what's right? truth? all of those are irrelevant in defining philosophy. rather, philosophys reason is to define them.

>>10919488
I'm seeing it and I get your point. I just don't agree with you.

>>10919491
>better

there is no better or worse, there is no right.

>>10919498
what in particular do you disagree with?

>>10919519
>better

exactly the point im trying to make. therefore the only possible absolute, and an absolute is always necessary in this relative universe, is human happiness. in whatever shape it may come.

>>10919519
Having experienced a pretty decent range of human emotions, I can (subjectively, I suppose) say that I definitely prefer happiness and purpose to the opposite and that's why Camus appeals to me. Treating everything as relative truths might be interesting when discussing philosophy, but I can't apply it to myself. my situation or my daily life. I reckon there's some merit to every school of philosophy, but a majority of them don't click with me the same way absurdism does.

And no, I'm not saying I live my life according to some philosophy. It just that this one is more in sync with my feelings on the matter than the rest of them.

>>10919535
>the only possible absolute, and an absolute is always necessary in this relative universe, is human happiness

an absolute is not at all necessary. nothing is necessary in this universe. human beings haven't even been in existence for a fraction of the universe's timeline, it is not necessary that we as a species or you or i as an individual continue to exist, let alone that we elevate one emotion that we experience over all others. further, you haven't considered that many people can't even experience hapiness or pleasure. have you heard of a thing called anhedonia? major depression? further, not all living and conscious things are mammals, and don't experience happiness or pleasure as we do either. like i said, there is no reason to privilege happiness over other emotions, or more broadly interpreted, as an experience. there is no reason to even privelege experience over non-experience. its just one emotion on a list. other cultures distance themselves from emotions entirely, or do not even conceive of themselves as individuals who are compelled to seek a particular emotional experience.

>>10919549
yes, that is subjectively. it is something that speaks to you as an individual. as long as you recognize that. and your awareness and preferences as an individual, as well as those of camus and other absurdists, are also conditioned relative to a particular time and place in human history. my objection is on many levels, but in particular i am met with incredulity yet no real argument against the notion that absurdism is a historically contingent view. a legitimate argument against my position is possible but has not been attempted, which tells me something about most absurdists, that they dont critically reflect on their conclusion or research its basis: as something created by the time and place in which they are living

>>10919645
you say that happiness is no better than sadness or despair. that "there is nothing wrong with this state."

Humans are no different than animals.

When you apply a harming stimulus to an animal it reacts badly, it tries to get away. The same is true for humans. If you apply a stimulus of sadness/pain/despair to a human it will try to get away, in some way decreasing or offsetting the stimulus.

It goes against our fundamental nature as humans to be content with being in despair.

Sure if you look at it from outside the perspective of a human no emotion is better or more valuable than another. But you are a human and there is not the reality you live in.

File: 137580330_w.jpg (36KB, 240x300px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 240x300px

who /post-modern/ here?

>pic related: d wally wearing a bandana around his head

>>10919775
>happiness is no better than sadness or despair

objectively, no. subjectively, yes, of course i understand that most organisms have a conscious or unconscious desire to live and protect themselves.

>it goes against our fundamental nature as humans to be content with being in despair

there are a lot of things we do as humans that go against our fundamental nature, from an invidual level (suicide) all the way up to global and species-wide (global warming). my disagreements are as follows: a) that our 'fundamental nature,' if there is one, changes over time, b) there is no universal human 'fundamental nature,' because we have such a diversity of human history and present to show otherwise. humans can be said to be fundamentally altruistic or selfish, desiring survival or annihilation, pain or pleasure, life or death. and c) that what one assumes is 'human nature' is not what must determine meaningfullness in an existential sense. we were not always 'human' to begin with, nor will we remain. even beyond biological determinism, i don't find it unreasonable for anyone to find meaningfulness beyond biological impulse

i dont think i will change your mind in this thread, nor you me. i've put forward my major arguments and thoughts, and am content to exit the thread. i wish you the best.

File: whatiswrongwithyou.gif (2MB, 371x331px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 371x331px

>>10919803
bro
the most absolute gutter trash bottom of the barrel pseudo-philosopher of all time? he wasn't even post-modern in his philosophy, just his literature (which i actually like)

>>10918872
None. Thinking isn't fashionable. If you have to think about something, that's effort, and effort isn't attractive. The whole nonchalance thing is bullshit but it's attractive precisely because it doesn't look like something unnatural. Discussion isn't fashionable. Politics isn't fashionable. Books aren't fashionable. Art isn't fashionable. The only thing that is is Attitude. Attitude is fashionable but even then only when it's genuine. I know a lot of people won't agree with this and that's okay.

>>10919148
>Sartre (not Camus) is pleb
>Nietzsche is good

Kills yourself

File: 42557276f9a8781aa35b8ee8bbd5febc-zero-fucks-given.jpg (43KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x800px

>>10919889
sartre
>entire life's work is a shoddy ripoff of heidegger with none of the depth and all the insufferable condescension
nietzsche
>along with marx and kant, the single most influential philosopher on the 20th century
>works still inspire volumes of serious academic criticism, while existentialism is used exclusively as a punchline

>>10919860
this post isn't fashionable

>>10919860
Yknow, I disagree with you. I will say that all those 'unfashionable' things are more important than being fashionable, but like anything else fashion and the unfashionable all have their place.

Though if art isn't fashionable, what about fashion designers? Is the design of fashion not inherently fashionable? Surely these designers are artists.

>>10919921 here
I meant to say that I mostly agree with you. If it weren't for my question at the end of the post.

>>10919916
I agree. I was going to say nihilism isn't fashionable either but oh well.
>>10919921
>>10919924
I definitely see fashion designers as artists. To clarify, I don't doubt the existence of art or artists, nor do I think of them as being pointless. What I was trying to say is that I think anything genuine and true is what I'd consider to be attractive and/or fashionable.

Nietzsche.
Some of this >>10918939
But not so nihilistic. Always focus on love for truth. Nietzsche dedicated his whole life to finding out the truth. (You can then correlate to Badiou's interpretation of truth as a process like art, love, politics or science). Today, when we have the bigger picture, as we look back we can see he spoke the truth trough his works which are works of art. That's why Nietzsche is considered good.

fashionable nonsense ITT

>>10919832
I think it is unwise to assume that Camus thought happiness was some kind of absolute good, oblivious to his own historical context. It is more likely that he simply sought fulfillment and so tried to reconcile that desire with an apparently unfulfilling world. I do not think he believes himself to offer an absolute solution to humanity's existential problems, but rather some sort of salvation to those who want to find fulfillment in an absurd universe.

I also wonder what your problem is with people choosing to pin their colours to emotions such as happiness. I agree that mindless pursuit of emotions without regard for the implications of that attitude is something of a philosophical dead end, but do you object to those who seek contentment whilst acknowledging there is no absolute reason to do so?

File: swag.jpg (53KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x360px

>Not worshipping the all mighty Allah

Fuck philosophy. Accept Allah in your life and you will have eternal happiness. Muslims dress /fa/ af too.

>>10919845
yeah and he killed himself,,,
like what a faggot lol

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Jacques Lacan. GWF Hegel with a Nietzschean twist. And an ample helping of James Joyce.

>>10919410

Do you even believe your own crap? It's very easy to dismantle your argument, just answer this question. Would you rather be in a perpetual state of happiness or sadness?

>>10919369
it is a safe assumption because sisyphus was punished, and so should hate to spend eternity like that

File: Jean-Baptiste_François_Joseph_de_Sade.jpg (114KB, 339x431px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 339x431px

Sadism

>all these existentialists, absurdists, nietzcheists

y'all need some aristotle in your life. Why don't you stop pushing boulders and start valuing the worth of aesthetic and social political status? Being effay is one step closer to eudamonia

>>10923822
Reality

speculative realism desu
pamela rosenkranz is a qt

>>10919201
>happiness and pleasure are extremely overemphasized as desireable and fulfilling emotions in our present cultural era, which reaches from present back to the 1600s.

are you serious
what is hedonism
am i feeding the trolls?

>>10918872
anything that doesn't buy into fedora pleb shit.