Karl Popper is based as frick. homie literally buried hegel forever and all most people know about him either comes from college classes on the scientific method or his open society book.
his falsificationism has never been refuted. it's the only place to go after hume. any ideas about why some methods of forming hypotheses produces hypotheses that are harder to falsify than others is just useless speculation.
Or you could just not be in a classical foundationalist tradition in the first place and avoid the obvious problems with empiricism that Hume was responding to altogether
Look up The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory theism
Nietzsche. There are other philosophers I equally despise like Hamann and Kierkegaard, but for me Nietzsche is #1 simply because the ignorant masses admire him the most.
Kant
Not a real philosopher
Ripped off eastern philosophy and medieval scholastics. His fanboys think read about rhizomes and think they're Neo.
Aristotle. Spbp.
spwp
I detest John Rawles
Why's that? He seems kind of inoffensive.
He thought that people would naturally converge towards secular liberalism if given the opportunity. Doesn't get more moronic than that
Opinion on Nozick then?
Different side of the Enlightenment coin. Less nauseating than Rawls though
They literally do. Look at Saudi Arabia.
my early stuff though, right?
you probably haven’t read anything of mine since 2020.
You haven't read my shit
Just look at him.
Kant was based
Fisher was more of a failed cultural critic than a philosopher proper
Ok if he doesn't count then I guess this will do
who?
Judith Butler, author of Gender Trouble
Lol, have you read her books? I absolutely refuse to. What points does she actually make?
you know the bs hw you had to do for your diversity req in college? add a couple hundred pages of filler
Good thing I'm an autodidact.
what little i've read of foulcault was trash
karl popper
EPBP
Karl Popper is based as frick. homie literally buried hegel forever and all most people know about him either comes from college classes on the scientific method or his open society book.
>literally buried hegel forever
deleuze does it better and less annoyingly
also he's THE arch-liberal, all the damage of today can be traced back to him
What damage?
his falsificationism has never been refuted. it's the only place to go after hume. any ideas about why some methods of forming hypotheses produces hypotheses that are harder to falsify than others is just useless speculation.
Or you could just not be in a classical foundationalist tradition in the first place and avoid the obvious problems with empiricism that Hume was responding to altogether
Look up The Contingency of Knowledge and Revelatory theism
And then realize only the essence energies distinction makes the creator/creation dynamic work epistemolologically
But muh demarcation
Nietzsche. There are other philosophers I equally despise like Hamann and Kierkegaard, but for me Nietzsche is #1 simply because the ignorant masses admire him the most.
>anti-Hamann and -Kierkegaard
Whoa we have a bugman over here!
I can't decide between Russell and Adorno. Though they are bad for very similar reasons.
I hate him too but Hegel is still in the top.
Hegel. No Hegelian has ever adequately responded to asking “who cares?” or “why bother?” with regards to Hegel and his systems.
You sound more like an existentialist
By far Bacon, who is the West's Ur-Bugman.
And an ~~*Anglo*~~, but of course, m'lad.
>no one posted Marx yet
If Furberg hates him, I hate him.