What is the least criticisable and at the same time most meaningful

There's always a single concept to be found at the bottom of every philosopher's philosophy. With Heraclitus it's flux, with Schopenhauer will, with Stirner the ego, with Kierkegaard faith, with Nietzsche power, while with Baudrillard it's seduction and with me immersion. But what is the quest for power if not the way in which the immersed ego maximizes its influence in the flux by having faith in itself while following its seduced will? And I could easily add Plato's forms, Spinoza's Nature, Hegel's spirit, and all the rest. Hell, even Wittgenstein's silence (via way, perhaps, of Shakespeare) will have a place in my elaboration of the ultimate form of thinking by the time I am done. My masterstroke will be the inclusion of even all the abortive half-concepts and pseudo-concepts floating around in the swamp of the subhuman brain — they too will have a place in the grand scheme of things (though as befits the ideas of small, tiny creatures, theirs will naturally be a very small, very tiny place) — and all the rest, beyond that point, will be silence.

>>9127015
Thank you anon, this was a really inspring post and something more preciously than expected after making this thread.
So this comes down to a synthesis of all the greatest elements of thoughts that have been discovered or invented so far with the intent of creating some kind of superconcept that contains all noteworthy there is that our mind is capable of.

Sounds like a task that only the giants among the thinkers could even try to approach. The way you say it, it seems easy to simply reduce each philosopher to its very core concept. But I think that all these single morsels with nice, appealing names need all the context and structure built around them otherwise they are worth nothing. It would be like a child saying that for him everything is made of cake which certainly by itself can not be taken seriously.
Or maybe you are joking when saying that you want to contribute to that?

Not an argument.

>>9127099
>But I think that all these single morsels with nice, appealing names need all the context and structure built around them otherwise they are worth nothing.
That's why you have to read them. And really, my example prioritised the power philosophy - since it is the one with the least errors - and used it to explain the rest, that would otherwise contain errors by themselves.

>>9126984
>>9127015
>>9127099
>>9127139

Stop talking to yourself

>>9127116
Argument for what? Your comment doesn't make sense to the given question.
>>9127139
Yeah, some of the authors I have read quite a bit so I know what the idea is about while others remain merely a shell. However, to connect these as you do and not simply contrasting them is an encouraging approach giving me motivation to read more.
The demotivating aspect of modern literature about philosophy is that most times the theorys are played against each other to value which one is be the best or to show why a certain disposition is wrong. Another demotivating aspect is that the attempt to ever write a comprehensive system of thoughts again commonly is abandoned.
To mark the possibility of an comprising emergence that is yet to be written opens a whole new perspective to the subject at stake which is nothing less than the entirety.

This is so sad.

>>9127116
Why did you assume people keep wanting to start an argument with you, you antagonistic fuck

>>9127201
The mind is not always a happy affair.

>>9127204
Why do you falsely assume they werent providing an answer to OPs OP, you antagonistic fuck