/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

[Make a Post]
[X]





/pppp/ Philosophy of Politics and Political Philosophy Nanonymous No.3827 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>7214
File: bbe664fdd5a8f75d6a13bfd945f48706e235a47fbbfaad23df11abc35ce794ba.jpg (dl) (146.80 KiB)

Welcome to /pppp/ Philosophy of Politics and Political Philosophy, also abbreviated to /p/atrician.

This is a thread dedicated to the discussion of philosophy and politics. The current state of politics discussion on imageboards is embarassing, since the focus is just on memes, news/happenings and shitting on the other side, there is no place for constructive discussion anymore, if you add to the mix the advent of post-ideology politics and identity politics, what you get is the current mess where it's really easy for bad actors and trolls to engage in bad faith posting. Sometime i ask myself what great men such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would think looking at this, i say let's go back to discussing the basis of politics, such as the ethics, the place of liberty in a society, how justice and laws should be implemented, how should a community of people should be shaped, be it a city or a state and what is the place of the individual in the community.

The pursue of the sophía, wisdom, is not a battle fought against an opposite team, but is instead a journey conductead with people with different ideas from yours.

Political Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy
Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Western Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_philosophy

Nanonymous No.3831 [D][U][F] >>3842
File: c094c42c3518390795aaba0ec925530ef8ba6331817d0538ce049eea4242edda.jpg (dl) (325.53 KiB)

I am the best philosopical philosopher this world has ever fucking seen and I tell you what, OK?
The political philosophy is basically we take them GUNS (BIG guns) and BLAST them shitstains BACK TO THE FUCKING STONE AGE!
In case they have similar GUNS, we suck up to them and probably even run away like GURLS, but only to come back in FORCE.
There might have been some other philosophical philosophies in the past, but they all have proven to be beaten by GUNS.

God Bless Amerrica BTW xDD

Nanonymous No.3842 [D] >>3847 >>3921 >>7162

>>3831
I'm gonna take your shitpost seriously just for tha sake of it.
Quoting from my previous post:
>The pursue of the sophía, wisdom, is not a battle fought against an opposite team, but is instead a journey conductead with people with different ideas from yours.
The objective of philosophy is to get closer to the truth(note that it's impossible to reach it), politics is kind of philosophy applied to the real world, in the realm of politics getting closer to the truth may be interpreted as having a stable country, or an happy population, or well kind of depends on what you're trying to do, anyway the way you get closer to the truth is by making theories/having opinions and comparing them to people with different theories/opinions in a simulation environment, so in other words you don't win debates with guns and screeching.
Bonus round, even if you go full nazi and kill all the indesiderables you still have to manage your country, are you gonna keep rounding up people and shoot them until there's nobody left or are you gonna wise up and join the search for the truth? :D

Nanonymous No.3843 [D] >>3847 >>7855 >>7859

Local retard here, never read a philosphy book in my life and never spent more than 2 seconds on /lit/, reccomend me the best entry level foundation to start at and I'll read it and come back and argue about it. I wanted to read nick land because of cool cyberpunk aesthetics but I heard you need to know your basics to understand what he's saying. Start with the greeks or whatever

Nanonymous No.3845 [D] >>3846

I'm not the best person to recommend literature, but may want to start with these:
Republic by Plato - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato) - http://libgen.io/search.php?req=978-0872201361
Politics by Aristotle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle) - http://libgen.io/search.php?req=978-0226921846
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince - http://libgen.io/search.php?req=9780872209190
Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book) - http://libgen.io/search.php?req=0684842955
Two Treatises of Government by John Locke - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government - http://libgen.io/search.php?req=0300100175
The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract - http://libgen.io/search.php?req=9780300091403
Now these are not exactly entry level, i would define more as classics, if you feel not prepared to delve deep into them, read about the terminology and main concepts on wikipedia first.

Nanonymous No.3846 [D]

>>3845
I went and found an audiobook for republic and it's around 12 hours long so depending on how well I can keep my attention on it I'll get back to you in a couple days probably

Nanonymous No.3847 [D][U][F] >>3849 >>3855
File: e2281badc24696418a9cdda98dbf9d913f8d0b1806deb1dcb6ffe5b4523f0aa1.webm (dl) (5.27 MiB)

>wisdom
<wisdom is the most conformist thing you can imagine, pagan and anti-philosophical
sofia is on the other hand beatiful name, based bulgurs bulgur is based too oh, and don't read žižek
>>3842
I won't reply as it would take more time than I'm willing to sacrifice, but next time either write it in imperative tone denying discussion or imply things that it implies and on which I wanted to react.
>>3843
if you want, feel free to skim through this http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/lit/res/6881.html I have serious problems with some tho, maybe one day I'll make mine haha

Nanonymous No.3848 [D][U][F] >>4045 >>7268
File: 185c53a9f9a6929c0a18937c7f7290c76bab61efe069eabe762a618d9007f36c.jpg (dl) (1.13 MiB)

>>3483

Nanonymous No.3849 [D] >>3850 >>3859 >>3869 >>4904

>>3847
>about webm
Sure you may trick weak minds by talking in a way as you have authority, people do it all the time, but i would argue that a better name for that is "manipulation" instead of wisdom, now as i was saying you can't really get to an absolute truth, so if you make a statement, another philosopher may come and justify an opposite statement using arguments and both statements may be considered "wisdom", this is a problem in philosophy derived by the fact that you cannot quantitatively define "wisdom", luckily for us in applied philosophy(or politics) you can quantitatively define "wisdom", now i'm still don't think you can get to an absolute truth in politics either, but for example you could test two opposite statements or ideologies in a fictional city and argue what would produce the better results and therefore what of the two is the wiser.

Nanonymous No.3850 [D][U][F] >>3852
File: bf81797f1c8824feffa377d35a95ff7957765d0b97caf3c12225234f85e04bdc.jpg (dl) (755.62 KiB)

>>3849
Yeah, I don't know, wisdom is basically aphorism, it's common sense, general truth, it usually doesn't involve thinking, but observation(mostly it doesn't), I think, and more than anything it's phrasing; pretty much what may appear to be truth but in reality isn't, highly used by normalist moralists and other dumb niggers. It's "btfo opponent with this one noncontextual phrase because I think complex thoughts can be expressed simply and thinking is overrated". Wisdom is God. Wisdom is "why is this book so long when he can just say it in one phrase".
Minimalistic, simplistic bullshit if you ask me, like, it's suitable for dealing with idiots or if you are an idiot who wants to appear smart with them, but for me wisdoms have no place in philosophy.
reading this little nigger makes me puke

Nanonymous No.3852 [D][U][F]
File: 56d50db941c18852572a3dd40c920668f249624de42c946e54ff9d7e8dd7f466.png (dl) (49.04 KiB)

>>3850
It's the same with quotations too.
Also
>wiser
Wisdom, since its invention, has this chastity, order, fairness connotation pandering to masses, reductionist "no bullshit" fashion highly praised by niggers of its age, romans. Like, look at athena or minerva. Wisdom seems to have served the dead. Philosophers have no god but all.
Philosophy, on the other hand, makes wisdom, it loves wisdom for the sake of it, regardless of it being "truth", "for" it being wisdom; philosophy is very much proper art and greeks were sophists par excellence, nation of critiques in the land of boredom. Philosophy is aestheticism. You don't seek "truth" but you seek truth, any and all, because you love truth. Philosophers are above both truth and "truth". "Truth", and by extension wisdom, is for politicians, moralists and insufferable practicians.

Nanonymous No.3855 [D] >>3859

>>3847
Damn there's a lot in that thread.
Thanks
What are the parts you most have a problem with?

v jednom ohni Nanonymous No.3859 [D][U][F] >>3861 >>3869
File: 4771ac508d8869538f19d14040f0c3ca066437d4ee87211a8bc5c6af3dd7f5d3.jpg (dl) (961.81 KiB)

>>3855
Probably won't answer your question at all as half of the thread is 404.

Everything is anglocentric as hell, like, impossibly anglocentric, everything, and the anglos/americans are the fuckin' kings of kitsch and honesty, for ages being saved by the irish, immigrants and outright foreigners(like I don't know the symphony from the new world from dvořák and they at least don't seem so fuckin' much out of place)
Recommending, of all nabokov wrote, the lolita as a starter book. Lolita isn't worth reading compared to his other novellas with the invitation to beheadeing being arguably better than proces.
muh orwell muh huxley, implying everyone is retard, shamefully everyone is as retarded as them so we are now livin' in age created by their fortune telling Мы was already mentioned there and is better
americans, without their own culture hopelessly imitating european traditions etc, casting their spirits in forms which are not for them, in /patrician/core when they should belong in /commercialism/core at least there's no hemingway also no balzac in /patrician/core lol
>pessimist starter pack
>doesn't have mysterious stranger
muh dostojevskij, omit galdós, I can't even hahaha
>melville
muh exaggeration, muh common men; this faggot can't even lie, literally typical englishman, his books are ode on mediocrity, no wonder patriots and nationalists love him
the /czech/core featuring filmed books, boring retards like lustig, havel, ota pavel(who has given name as surname ffs) and vaculík, seriously overrated seifert, němcová(her only value is in she writing during national revival), čapek and hrabal, nezval is seriously underrepresented there's mácha but no karel sabina, s.k. neumann, bendl-stránický, no nebeský, why the fuck americans do charts on national literature when they don't even speak czech? why? I wouldn't recommend anybody to read spalovač mrtvol, ostře sledované vlaky or valerie a týden divů as the films are better, too.
I can recommend nezval, neruda, ladislav klíma(better namesake), březina and hiršal, will post commented chart later.
>rilke, kafka
if anyone of the german-writing inhabitants of czech is more czech than german or austrian it's werfel being weird crossover between austrian and czech torn between beliefs inclining to czech.
I also have problem with giving you to read aristotle collected works which probably none of them read I didn't so you can read their two suggested writings is peak of stupidity. make sure you don't miss poetics though
at least the /pol/ charts are very accurate
>exit-level
>no wilde
camus chart is cringe for absolutely no reason but retard don't getting he wasn't philosopher, moreover camus isn't worth his own chart, he's literally "hoi I'm edgy universe studying philosophy *oink* wanna fuck baby", although his aesthetics are still compelling
>essential poetry
>ginsberg
haha
>>3849
>in applied philosophy(or politics) you can quantitatively define "wisdom"
How? Like, you can, I guess, but why would you in the first place?
>argue what would produce the better results and therefore what of the two is the wiser
>the better results
>implying there's "better" and the better can be measured
You know, this also kinda implies, in this century and previous century, hmm, applicability and probability of, hm, desired outcome and that's always dead end and 9/10 times not even mediocrity.
ANSWER ME!

Nanonymous No.3861 [D][U][F]
File: 82ba83803bf2aff1760d9dd95262726c5e8fd20241c7575a2ffcd18596dc3519.jpg (dl) (1009.35 KiB)

>>3859

Nanonymous No.3867 [D] >>3874

>epic poetry
Cringe

Nanonymous No.3869 [D]

>>3859
Quoting myself from >>3849: i still don't think you can get to an absolute truth in politics either
Defining what's "the better" may already require an ideology, that's true, for example for the left the better is equality, for the right it's more like meritocracy, but it's also true that if you apply an ideology to a city and another to another city and you come back 20 years later you can compare the changes, if you compare capitalist America and communist Russia it's obvious what worked out better, compare the amount of people killed, abuse of power, corruption, how the resources we're managed, etc, these are all quantifiable. Now i don't think there is a catch-all for politics, even if America performed better in the 20th century it doesn't mean that it will work well forever, or the same way with different starting variables, so we should keep things in discussion with changing times and conditions.

Nanonymous No.3874 [D][U][F] >>3875
File: 107cf72f46ca3c424a93ee58509f8698ccb17ca92b6cf292c1647ab62c7e29d5.jpg (dl) (580.22 KiB)

>>3867
Why?

Nanonymous No.3875 [D] >>7162

>>3874
I mean if you unironically and wholeheartedly are passionate about it then that's awesome just be warned that it comes off as pretentious for good reason. Poets often use many words to say a simple thing and I feel that it can sometimes be a bit presumptive in the way that it presents itself.

Poetry is not philosophy so you are correct. (I'm just not a fan of poetry, most people aren't)

I believe that a lot of talk about politics and philosophy is superficial because it is not honest with itself.

People like to argue from something taken as a fact that is in fact taken from their feelings and the only way to have a logical and conclusive argument would be to argue from the same premises but that rarely happens.

Nanonymous No.3921 [D][U][F] >>3926 >>5033
File: 09afda31b41767b36a2885156725f426dedbe3a7de5b20645ba7744822f554f5.jpg (dl) (449.61 KiB)

>>3842
>in other words you don't win debates with guns and screeching.
The FUCK did you just say, bitch?
Do you try to win DEBATES or the GAME of LIFE in the real world, hmmm? Jesus Christ you're retarded.
>rounding up people and shoot them
WTF?
We kill our enemies, not our friends! Why the heck are we supposed to "round people up"? This makes no sense.
We fight our enemies fair and square, preferrably when we're strong.
I call our philosophy BROFORCE. We're bros. United we stand. Divided they fall.

Nanonymous No.3926 [D] >>3928

>>3921
>Do you try to win DEBATES or the GAME of LIFE in the real world, hmmm? Jesus Christ you're retarded.
Debates happens on another plane of existance, that one of ideas, no matter what kinf of power you have IRL that won't help you win a debate, an imageboard user should understand that, or what are you gonna do to me, let's see.
Keep screeching then like an ape.
>We fight our enemies fair and square, preferrably when we're strong.
And who do you think the enemy of the state are? Without external enemies to blame, the enemy are the citizens.

Nanonymous No.3928 [D][U][F] >>3929
File: 0b1645a77da038878a9224e6215b8dc49026f951567333fd3adaa2b8ea2caa13.jpg (dl) (301.39 KiB)

>>3926
>what are you gonna do to me, let's see.
>winning a debate
I dunno, call you a loser who will never achieve anything in life because of the failed worldviews?
Not that I would do that though, as I am gentle AF. xD
>And who do you think the enemy of the state are?
Non-bros.
>Without external enemies to blame, the enemy are the citizens.
Citizens are not warriors, so they are not the enemy even. Call me when there's an actual threat.

Nanonymous No.3929 [D] >>3930

>>3928
>I dunno, call you a loser who will never achieve anything in life because of the failed worldviews?
you see that that doesn't really work xD
>Non-bros.
define
>Call me when there's an actual threat.
the citizens are protesting, they want less taxes, they want all the money that the bro-army uses dedicated to more useful stuff like schools and hospitals, they want a democratic system instead of the bro-oligarchy, they are trying to take the bro-statue down, what do?

Nanonymous No.3930 [D][U][F]
File: 1fd501c2d8ee8586c87dfdcfb69d69223e49131c1f4531b9ddafda456d554cd2.jpg (dl) (266.09 KiB)

>>3929
>you see that that doesn't really work xD
Yeah you have yet to show that your philosophy works, buddy.
Broforce is how this world works. Loyalty to the cause, honesty, kindness showed to your friends, and ruthlessness to your enemies.
>the citizens are protesting, they want less taxes
Bros ain't taxing nobody. Only donations allowed. xP
>bro-oligarchy
Brotherhood.
>bro-statue
What a shame.
Well, let them chimp out.

Nanonymous No.4039 [D][U][F] >>4045
File: 4547b04972df31f15958fb60bc6bbd5cbe2d046b45c5e22c4d6f7bd8644bd392.jpg (dl) (1.06 MiB)

For those just getting into philosophy I advise you:

burn virgil, not proust Nanonymous No.4045 [D][U][F]
File: cce1823ed4950c458695e698af66d52986161ecc314b74208ea45b6f832d5edf.jpg (dl) (12.06 KiB)

>>4039
report yourself, see >>3848
Some are pure and american retardations for retards like the left column and the one on the right is "get into greeks" column. The only ones worthy for this thread are plato without the bullshit and aristotle.

Nanonymous No.4904 [D]
>>3849

gb2 reddit

Nanonymous No.5033 [D]
>>3921

No. Fuck off you retard.

Nanonymous No.7162 [D][U][F]
File: 2df30fdd9c4d4b95b60b68498342d5d92ca727b31098c788663b8d88aa70e6c5.jpg (dl) (152.81 KiB)
>>3842
>you don't win debates with guns and screeching
Purpose of any debate should never be to win, or at least said purpose shouldn't be consciously intrinsic and in some way manifestating its presence to the point you or the other one know. If you go to debate with the purpose [of winning] you already lost, hell, you didn't even enter it.
Digression: I think that good indicator whether debate is good or not is whether it has any purpose. There's too many purposes in everything; I think that acting with purpose or certain goal set in mind is the point when you need to go back and start anew.
>>3875
>it comes off as pretentious for good reason
Explain. I'm holding de rerum natura.
>would be to argue from the same premises but that rarely happens
It's possible here on the internets thread-wise; if you define the premise(which is of course open to criticism and change) in the start you can have solid debate based on the very premise you defined. Little bit of samefagging to make the current and you are good.

Nanonymous No.7214 [D]
>>3827
Violence solves all. The end.

Nanonymous No.7268 [D]
>>3848
can u tell me the web link?

Nanonymous No.7316 [D] >>7648
What if I proposed to you that reality is very much within our realms of choice, and that something has been casting a veil over your version off reality for as long as you remember?
Have you dreamed within a dream? Can you really trust your senses? Start looking at things in a different light, change your perception on everything. WAKE UP.

Nanonymous No.7648 [D]
>>7316
What is reality? Is there even any?
>something has been casting a veil over your version of reality for as long as you remember?
What is that something?
>Have you dreamed within a dream?
I feel like it right now but I won't do anything because I don't believe in anything.
>Can you really trust your senses?
I trust them only when it's pleasurable.

Nanonymous No.7670 [D]
What about just doing "what works"?
Do-what-worksism you could call it.
If you don't know what works, apply the scientific method to it until you do.

This way you don't caught up in if something Left/Right, Libertarian/Authoritarian or Capitalist/Socialist.

Then you need only achieve consensus on the fact that the problem exists, and do things until it is solved.
If method a fails, then try method b, and so on and so forth.

Some constraints would need to put into place to insure basic liberty and human rights, of course, to prevent things from getting out of hand.

Nanonymous No.7671 [D] >>7686 >>7864
That is called utilitarianism, and it has its own problems, like how should you even define what works and what doesn't.

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

Nanonymous No.7686 [D] >>7856 >>7865
>>7671
Utilitarianist aesthetics are definition of braindamage.

Nanonymous No.7687 [D][U][F]
File: 5d3b08bc0a8219c7a1d83707ccb7257c4d204b66416b312a074856b72fc76c74.jpg (dl) (129.37 KiB)

Nanonymous No.7855 [D][U][F]
File: c3eb89610e84f417777882b0d4a61701c98090937d3d5fc722b6af6f39debe4e.png (dl) (131.13 KiB)
>>3843
Read a book called Sophie's World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_World
It gives a pretty general explanation of the history of western philosophy framed in a story about a girl receiving letters from an old man who lives out in a cabin in the woods that shes friends with.
Its about 300 to 400 pages and keeps from being dry which is what (in my experience) turns most people off from philosophy initially.

Nanonymous No.7856 [D]
>>7686
But beauty is utilitarian.
If everything is ugly and depressing, people will be depressed.

Nanonymous No.7859 [D]
>>3843
The only book i can recommend is "The null hyphotesis of politics: A direct republic"

Nanonymous No.7864 [D]
>>7671
Utilitarianism is a Nietzsche having an autism fit at best, and a great danger whenever it reaches normalfags at worst. When it reaches normalfags either they don't like it and any and all attempt at progress is "utilitarianism" and bad or they genuinely want people to become industrial machines.

It's also a reaction to the fact that indeed people seem to have forgotten reality exists and never consider the actual practicity of any idea put forth, instead let's somehow herd the niggercattle into doing that.

Remember all that philosophy is useless if it never trickles down to the masses. And if it does not have this goal then it's just a pun on the words "mindless entertainment"

post-pascal philosophy is basic cope, literally No.7865 [D]
>>7686
The problem with (socratic) utilitarian aesthetics lies in that he states that everything that is useful is beautiful, everything that is good at and for something is beautiful and the moment it's used for something that it's not good at, say, fork is used to cut or phone can't handle calls, it's not beautiful.
That's basic, that's mere springboard.

lol Nanonymous No.7866 [D] >>7867
>everything that is good at and for something is beautiful and the moment it's used for something that it's not good at, say, fork is used to cut or phone can't handle calls, it's not beautiful.
the every philosophical thought in a nutshell
gas those idiots tbh

lol twisted fate No.7867 [D]
>>7866
Where can I talk with somebody on the topic of philosophy?

Nanonymous No.7868 [D]
there's no escape
>>>/oven/ is as shit as this cringey board of shit because (((they))) made it so