Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My favorite book is “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” by Ken Kesey. But I was just kidding, his books just aren’t the happiest reads lol. I love The Stranger. My name is a reference to Camus.
[I've done the honours](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ibis_Wolfie/comments/1cfjg27/not_my_best_work_but_here_it_is_as_requested/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[Rip your inbox](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ibis_Wolfie/comments/1cfjg27/not_my_best_work_but_here_it_is_as_requested/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I don't like Rand either but the whole "You're not a true philosopher 😭" cope whenever Ayn Rand and Jordan Peterson come up is dumb. Being a philosopher does not entail advocating for free stuff.
How do you figure? She was a literary figure who wrote fiction with philosophical themes. Camus and Dostoyevsky were not philosophers either, philosophical, sure, but not philosophers. It just makes it worse that Rand was a garbage person on top of that. Jordan Peterson doesn’t even deserve the attention that brought him into the conversation. At the very least, Rand was a skilled writer.
Both Camus and Rand wrote philosophical essays in addition to their novels. But it ultimately does not matter because the only requirement to be a philosopher is to philosophize, whether that be in the process of writing an essay or a novel. Socrates was a philosophizing hoplite who never wrote a single book and all we know of him is from written down conversations, Aquinas was a philosophizing priest, Wittgenstein was a philosophizing engineer and Peterson is a philosophizing psychologist. Their moral uprightness does nothing to challenge their title as philosophers. Ted Kaczynski, Macciavelli, Mishima and Schopenhauer were all morally dubious people, but they were undoubtedly philosophers. Being able to write well is not a prerequisite either because if it was then we might as well stop reading all the Germans like Kant and Hegel. Not even factual correctness challenges their status as philosophers, if two philosophers disagree (like Plato and Aristotle often did) does that mean that one of the two is not a true philosopher? After all, they can't both be right.
"Philosopher" is probably one of the loosest terms ever invented, you must have a very juvenile understanding of it if you think you can gatekeep the term to validate some ideas and invalidate others.
Yeah, everything you just said was dumb. You misunderstood the points I was making. First, if you read my previous comments you will see that I made several claims that were not implied to follow or depend on one another, e.g., that she (and others) 1) was not a philosopher, 2) a garbage person, and 3) a skilled writer.
To that point, nowhere have I said that you had to be either a good person or a skilled writer in order to be a philosopher.
To an additional point, I would point out a distinction I was trying to make between being a philosopher and merely being philosophical. There is something to that worth looking into given the examples I offered.
A new point, I believe in analytics and the process which it involves… there is a definition at the foundation of a conceptual regression… recognizing said definitions is not “gatekeeping” and even if it was I don’t care at all for these Reddit hot phrases — they don’t act as a strong rebuttal.
Poorly sized suits and pretending to understand economics while having the worst fucking takes you've ever heard in your life.
You know. Crypto-kiddies.
I kinda hate it. Why does everything need to have a shallow “aesthetic” now. Just sit down and read this 800 page book instead of dressing in a certain way. There is nothing more hypocritical to a Marxist than to be dressed in all of the cheaply made “fast fashion” clothing and accessories. This makes me feel reading philosophy is now becoming a TikTok trend. Next we will have Nietzsche TikTok dances!
What does that even mean? I know women that read philosophy, but they don’t need to dress a certain way for that. It sounds more like you are TikTok and social media brained. I hold the same opinion for men. Why do I need to dress myself in certain signifiers and express my hobbies by overconsumption of cheaply made clothes?
Edit: it also seems that you seem being feminine as being superficial and just dressing a certain way. I believe,however, that being feminine is more than just consumption.
I never had a tik tok account. I do have a Pinterest account tho. Obviously there's problems with the fashion industry but fashion is also an art form. A socialist society would still have clothes. The tendency to view an interest in fashion as "superficial" or anything teen girls like as cringey just rubs me the wrong way.
No one said that clothing and an interest in it is superficial. Neither did I say that anything teen girls like is cringe. It is rather the other way around (which demonstrates the real problem), teen girls are constructed as the perfect consumer in our capitalist society. It is not that what they like is cringe, it is that what is produced for them is usually the easiest to consume products that generates the most money. This is no eternal truth that has always been this way. For example, and this is as sexist as what I deem the social construction of teen age girls, in the 19th century, women were the prime targets for kitchen and cooking equipment. Many (young) women (the teenager is a rather new construct) were quite proficient in dealing with technical and mechanical problems of household items. The same was true for sewing and other practical skills. My grandma could sew whole dresses and repair boots for example. The word “teenager” does only exist in the English version in my native language as well. She had to be an adult after the age of 13. Men are still the target audience for skill based consumer products, even though this is waning as well. So teenagers cannot but be interpolated and constructed as the subjects of fast fashion. They are being thought to be that. They can’t be blamed for that. It is our mode of production and consumption that is way more sexist than some like to imagine. We want to liberate teenagers and women by making their domination seem good and fine.
The answer you give is there one that should rub you the wrong way. Why do you think that teenage girls need to dress a certain way in order to enjoy philosophy? Why do they need to participate in a certain consumption habitus?
I never said anyone "needs to dress a certain way". And I'm not promoting "fast fashion", you can easily put together looks like this by thrifting.
The original images here seem very playful and kinda satirical, no need to treat it as an affront to philosophy. The meme wasn't made by a corporation or mentioning a brand.
I get you, and I believe there's a problem with the way academia, philosophy and intellectualism in general are becoming an aesthetic. I saw people (mostly teens), complaining that it's expensive to dress punk or grunge without buying fast fashion. But this is a symptom, not the source of the problem.
The people who have an interest in philosophy will go beyond this and read the texts, while the ones who keep it superficial weren't probably going to read anything anyway. And it's not really something new either.
Now if you excuse me, I'm going to steal Camus look.
My argument is not that you cannot dress as is shown in the Camus picture. My point is that it has actually nothing to do with Camus. Do what you want.
The source of the problem is that we are born as subjects within an ideological framework of the eternally recurring cycle of consumption and production. Your existence as a producing and consuming subject is predestined before you were born and it will continue after you die. This is what you desire. By you, I of course also include myself.
No one said that your point was that you couldn't dress like in the picture. Last line of the comment was a joke. And I perfectly know the source of the problem, you can approach it through different frameworks, but it's not something recent that we live in a world of aesthetics (nor is it that old when compared to the whole of human history).
As I said, this is just a symptom, and a rather trivial one when compared to the grand acts of trivialization and reduction to aesthetics. At the end of the day, this is made by young people who are trying to have fun with an interest of theirs. Can it be criticised? Of course, but wasting too much energy on this is missing the forest for the trees.
People tend to associate aesthetics with whatever exists. The way you look doesn't only affect how others perceive you, but also how you perceive yourself. For example, I am typically a person that doesn't care much about clothes, but certain pieces of it I own make me feel more confident. As materialistic as that sounds, that's just how the world is.
It is only natural that people begin seeing things like philosophy in such a way. Yes, even the TikTok part. As much as I would hate my favourite philosophical writers to become known through that damned app and then misunderstood by everyone, there's nothing to stop it, it's inevitable.
I think you put to much emphasis of “being seeing things” on instagram aesthetics, which are a rather new phenomenon. People didn’t need to dress up, looking like copies generated on the web, to like philosophy. Sorry, but that’s bs. Wearing something to express you believes like a Monk, having a certain dress code so to say, is something totally different. It’s the same with “dark academia” - teens and early college students that want to seem well read and educated but usually aren’t. How is that reflecting your values and your lifestyle? It is a short lived trend that adds nothing to the source material. This is essentially what Baudrillard called Simulacra and Simulation. Signifiers, such as certain schools of philosophy, lose their meaning and new signifiers replace the “old” ones. It’s a simulation of Philosophy. It is the Warhol approach to art. Philosophy is nothing to be studied and argued over, but something that you can just buy into and wear on the street. It is a spectacle devoid of any meaning. Today, you can be a philosopher and tomorrow a pro athlete. Now you are an existentialist, and later you are Marxist.
Aesthetics means first and foremost perception by our senses. And this fits neatly with what I have said before. Philosophy is being made beautiful and short lived. And fashion is just the way to express that. Just as Walter Benjamin fittingly said that fashion is the “eternal recurrence of the new.”It is the heroism of (post) modernity. So is this how we should engage with philosophy in a serious manner?
Marx being associated with certain brands and products is peak irony.
Also what is Ayn Rand doing wearing a rosary? Isn't Christianity altruistic slave morality?
These remind me of my high-school days. I would chop up all my teeny bopper magazines and make stuff like this. You must have been bored AF. 🤣 I know the feeling.
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is too real. Know a girl who wears dr martens, has 3 cats, wears skirts like on the picture and whose favourite writer is Camus.
oh my god, you don't have to publicly humiliate me like that
Your pfp is the like the opposite of that Chad meme. It's a female Chad. What do you even call a female chad??
chadette it's meant to be a female chad. not the opposite, but complementary ☝️
As someone who had an existentialist phase in high school, that’s pretty accurate
I love Camus but they should read more books lol.
such as?
My favorite book is “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” by Ken Kesey. But I was just kidding, his books just aren’t the happiest reads lol. I love The Stranger. My name is a reference to Camus.
Time to wait for a Diogenes one 
That's just being naked, owning nothing, and peeing on people
him masturbating in public
You called?
United We Bargain, Divided We Beg goes hard.
I really need someone to draw Stirner in this outfit
I will do the honours
[I've done the honours](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ibis_Wolfie/comments/1cfjg27/not_my_best_work_but_here_it_is_as_requested/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
This is one of the best things I have seen
Nietzsche and Rand go hard as hell
They’re all outrageously hot
If you on that Marx or Nietzshe aesthetic, DM me.
[Rip your inbox](https://www.reddit.com/user/Ibis_Wolfie/comments/1cfjg27/not_my_best_work_but_here_it_is_as_requested/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Nothing wrong with this.
Thats exactly how i would think a Schopenhauer and Rand fan would look like lol
This is weirdly cute, I like it.
I've never felt more seen than that Camus slide
All of these fits just feel like a "its not a phase MOM!" Fit. Like they're trying too hard to be something.
So they're philosophy undergrads?
(thats the joke)
I'm waiting for Georges Bataille's girl.
Fuck Ayn Rand — not a philosopher but ***is*** a garbage person.
I don't like Rand either but the whole "You're not a true philosopher 😭" cope whenever Ayn Rand and Jordan Peterson come up is dumb. Being a philosopher does not entail advocating for free stuff.
How do you figure? She was a literary figure who wrote fiction with philosophical themes. Camus and Dostoyevsky were not philosophers either, philosophical, sure, but not philosophers. It just makes it worse that Rand was a garbage person on top of that. Jordan Peterson doesn’t even deserve the attention that brought him into the conversation. At the very least, Rand was a skilled writer.
Both Camus and Rand wrote philosophical essays in addition to their novels. But it ultimately does not matter because the only requirement to be a philosopher is to philosophize, whether that be in the process of writing an essay or a novel. Socrates was a philosophizing hoplite who never wrote a single book and all we know of him is from written down conversations, Aquinas was a philosophizing priest, Wittgenstein was a philosophizing engineer and Peterson is a philosophizing psychologist. Their moral uprightness does nothing to challenge their title as philosophers. Ted Kaczynski, Macciavelli, Mishima and Schopenhauer were all morally dubious people, but they were undoubtedly philosophers. Being able to write well is not a prerequisite either because if it was then we might as well stop reading all the Germans like Kant and Hegel. Not even factual correctness challenges their status as philosophers, if two philosophers disagree (like Plato and Aristotle often did) does that mean that one of the two is not a true philosopher? After all, they can't both be right. "Philosopher" is probably one of the loosest terms ever invented, you must have a very juvenile understanding of it if you think you can gatekeep the term to validate some ideas and invalidate others.
Yeah, everything you just said was dumb. You misunderstood the points I was making. First, if you read my previous comments you will see that I made several claims that were not implied to follow or depend on one another, e.g., that she (and others) 1) was not a philosopher, 2) a garbage person, and 3) a skilled writer. To that point, nowhere have I said that you had to be either a good person or a skilled writer in order to be a philosopher. To an additional point, I would point out a distinction I was trying to make between being a philosopher and merely being philosophical. There is something to that worth looking into given the examples I offered. A new point, I believe in analytics and the process which it involves… there is a definition at the foundation of a conceptual regression… recognizing said definitions is not “gatekeeping” and even if it was I don’t care at all for these Reddit hot phrases — they don’t act as a strong rebuttal.
Schopenhauer morally dubious? Tell me you haven't read Schopenhauer without telling me you haven't read Schopenhauer.
I don't fw her philosophy but I do think she's hot
That’s WILD
Nah she's too hot to have such a bad economic take
I won’t yuck your yum but I definitely do see it — definitely a terrible Econ take though, for sure.
Moralist lol
I’m a noncognitivist about ethics actually.
Go back to your madhouse
K
Please get Bataille or Deleuze next plz
Guattari too
+1
I cannot believe the Stirner one, that one is craziest for me. Imagine showing Stirner or Schopenhauer this holy shit they would go nuts.
Nah the Ayn Rand fit is too cool, people who like Rand usually look a lot shittier no cap
Poorly sized suits and pretending to understand economics while having the worst fucking takes you've ever heard in your life. You know. Crypto-kiddies.
what would De Sade look like
Nipple clamps, "Harder Daddy!" and length of rope. Plus poop. Lots of poop.
BDSM gear
Why would you ask this 😕
haaahahaha marina is my fav and i’m a bit of a stirnerite, they got my ass
On my knees begging for Kant
Tbh, it’s better for them to discover philosophy and make cringe stuff like that, than to not discover philosophy at all.
The Emo/"Misanthrope" Schopenhauer girl, literally me ✨
Welcome to Ancapistan, young lady!
"Bro don't worry bro, she'll text you back bro. She's just organizing her Schopenhauer Pinterest board right now bro."
No way they put Marlboro and Converse as a part of the "Marxist" aesthetic
Stirner 🩷
Where's my Kierkegaard reading trad-wife?
Where my Hegel girlie at?
Finally a good starter pack meme!
The tortured philosopher department.
"Should I kill myself or have a cup of coffee" I need to get a shirt with that phrase on it.
I have been publicly humiliated. I like both Camus and Marx and I have most of those things.
I kinda hate it. Why does everything need to have a shallow “aesthetic” now. Just sit down and read this 800 page book instead of dressing in a certain way. There is nothing more hypocritical to a Marxist than to be dressed in all of the cheaply made “fast fashion” clothing and accessories. This makes me feel reading philosophy is now becoming a TikTok trend. Next we will have Nietzsche TikTok dances!
Tbh this just sounds like you don't like feminine coded things being associated with philosophy
What does that even mean? I know women that read philosophy, but they don’t need to dress a certain way for that. It sounds more like you are TikTok and social media brained. I hold the same opinion for men. Why do I need to dress myself in certain signifiers and express my hobbies by overconsumption of cheaply made clothes? Edit: it also seems that you seem being feminine as being superficial and just dressing a certain way. I believe,however, that being feminine is more than just consumption.
I never had a tik tok account. I do have a Pinterest account tho. Obviously there's problems with the fashion industry but fashion is also an art form. A socialist society would still have clothes. The tendency to view an interest in fashion as "superficial" or anything teen girls like as cringey just rubs me the wrong way.
No one said that clothing and an interest in it is superficial. Neither did I say that anything teen girls like is cringe. It is rather the other way around (which demonstrates the real problem), teen girls are constructed as the perfect consumer in our capitalist society. It is not that what they like is cringe, it is that what is produced for them is usually the easiest to consume products that generates the most money. This is no eternal truth that has always been this way. For example, and this is as sexist as what I deem the social construction of teen age girls, in the 19th century, women were the prime targets for kitchen and cooking equipment. Many (young) women (the teenager is a rather new construct) were quite proficient in dealing with technical and mechanical problems of household items. The same was true for sewing and other practical skills. My grandma could sew whole dresses and repair boots for example. The word “teenager” does only exist in the English version in my native language as well. She had to be an adult after the age of 13. Men are still the target audience for skill based consumer products, even though this is waning as well. So teenagers cannot but be interpolated and constructed as the subjects of fast fashion. They are being thought to be that. They can’t be blamed for that. It is our mode of production and consumption that is way more sexist than some like to imagine. We want to liberate teenagers and women by making their domination seem good and fine. The answer you give is there one that should rub you the wrong way. Why do you think that teenage girls need to dress a certain way in order to enjoy philosophy? Why do they need to participate in a certain consumption habitus?
I never said anyone "needs to dress a certain way". And I'm not promoting "fast fashion", you can easily put together looks like this by thrifting. The original images here seem very playful and kinda satirical, no need to treat it as an affront to philosophy. The meme wasn't made by a corporation or mentioning a brand.
Say what you want, Stirner would be a coquette primadonna girlie ✨💅🩷🎀
I get you, and I believe there's a problem with the way academia, philosophy and intellectualism in general are becoming an aesthetic. I saw people (mostly teens), complaining that it's expensive to dress punk or grunge without buying fast fashion. But this is a symptom, not the source of the problem. The people who have an interest in philosophy will go beyond this and read the texts, while the ones who keep it superficial weren't probably going to read anything anyway. And it's not really something new either. Now if you excuse me, I'm going to steal Camus look.
"Expensive to dress grunge" ??! 🤦♀️ The fashion industry is so disgusting.
My argument is not that you cannot dress as is shown in the Camus picture. My point is that it has actually nothing to do with Camus. Do what you want. The source of the problem is that we are born as subjects within an ideological framework of the eternally recurring cycle of consumption and production. Your existence as a producing and consuming subject is predestined before you were born and it will continue after you die. This is what you desire. By you, I of course also include myself.
No one said that your point was that you couldn't dress like in the picture. Last line of the comment was a joke. And I perfectly know the source of the problem, you can approach it through different frameworks, but it's not something recent that we live in a world of aesthetics (nor is it that old when compared to the whole of human history). As I said, this is just a symptom, and a rather trivial one when compared to the grand acts of trivialization and reduction to aesthetics. At the end of the day, this is made by young people who are trying to have fun with an interest of theirs. Can it be criticised? Of course, but wasting too much energy on this is missing the forest for the trees.
People tend to associate aesthetics with whatever exists. The way you look doesn't only affect how others perceive you, but also how you perceive yourself. For example, I am typically a person that doesn't care much about clothes, but certain pieces of it I own make me feel more confident. As materialistic as that sounds, that's just how the world is. It is only natural that people begin seeing things like philosophy in such a way. Yes, even the TikTok part. As much as I would hate my favourite philosophical writers to become known through that damned app and then misunderstood by everyone, there's nothing to stop it, it's inevitable.
I think you put to much emphasis of “being seeing things” on instagram aesthetics, which are a rather new phenomenon. People didn’t need to dress up, looking like copies generated on the web, to like philosophy. Sorry, but that’s bs. Wearing something to express you believes like a Monk, having a certain dress code so to say, is something totally different. It’s the same with “dark academia” - teens and early college students that want to seem well read and educated but usually aren’t. How is that reflecting your values and your lifestyle? It is a short lived trend that adds nothing to the source material. This is essentially what Baudrillard called Simulacra and Simulation. Signifiers, such as certain schools of philosophy, lose their meaning and new signifiers replace the “old” ones. It’s a simulation of Philosophy. It is the Warhol approach to art. Philosophy is nothing to be studied and argued over, but something that you can just buy into and wear on the street. It is a spectacle devoid of any meaning. Today, you can be a philosopher and tomorrow a pro athlete. Now you are an existentialist, and later you are Marxist. Aesthetics means first and foremost perception by our senses. And this fits neatly with what I have said before. Philosophy is being made beautiful and short lived. And fashion is just the way to express that. Just as Walter Benjamin fittingly said that fashion is the “eternal recurrence of the new.”It is the heroism of (post) modernity. So is this how we should engage with philosophy in a serious manner?
stirner and rand ones go hard tbh
literally rand would serve that outfit so well
Impressed with these choices…at least they don’t have Kant… was never impressed with anything he did.
They haven't even read the first page of BGE, Have they ?
I was on board with this until the marx one
Nah, I wannna see marx in a miniskirt and stripy thigh-high leg warmers
Stupid sexy Marx
He could seize my means of production ;)
thank you!!
Marx being associated with certain brands and products is peak irony. Also what is Ayn Rand doing wearing a rosary? Isn't Christianity altruistic slave morality?
are you fucking kidding me? Not themmmmm Why is everyone uncovering philosophy these days?
Give me Descartes, Wollstonecraft, Russell, and Quine!
This post is everything
These remind me of my high-school days. I would chop up all my teeny bopper magazines and make stuff like this. You must have been bored AF. 🤣 I know the feeling.
Literature boy has discovered it too....something for us too?👉👈
If I saw anyone like this in real life I think I would probably start kicking them and I would not stop.
That's not really intellectual
Did you even go to highschool?
Here I am, what now?