WHAT PHILOSOPHER, IN YOUR OPINION, CAME CLOSE TO THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING?

Serious answer only.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How so?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Hegel just repackage Jakob Bohme

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not exactly, no. It would be just as reductive and myopic to say that Boehme just repackaged Heraclitus.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ‘totle

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pyrrho

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      refutes himself

      all positions are equal given doubt, so to privilege dual ambivalence is just positing a third thing, if pyrrhonism is true all positions are equally invalid

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Define “truth” and “everything.”

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a muslim, let alone a shia, but Ali in Nahj Al-Balagha.

    My favorite was when he described God in the 185th and 186th sermons, but the 5th sermon was cool af.

    >O People! Steer clear through the waves of mischief by boats of deliverance, turn away from the path of dissension and put off the crowns of pride. Prosperous is one who rises with wings (when he has power) or else he remains peaceful and others enjoy ease. It (the aspiration for Caliphate) is like turbid water or like a morsel that would suffocate the person who swallows it. One who plucks fruits before ripening is like one who cultivated in another’s field.

    >If I speak out they would call me greedy towards power but if I keep quiet they would say I was afraid of death. It is a pity that after all the ups and downs (I have been through). By Allah, the son of Abu Talib is more familiar with death than an infant with the breast of its mother. I have hidden knowledge, if I disclose it you will start trembling like ropes in deep wells.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thank you for this post, gonna check that out.

      answering OP, i believe it is Baruch Spinoza, he is very persuasive.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Buddha.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    R. Scott Bakker.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Kant, Hegel, Rene Guenon

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But...
    if I'm the one deciding...
    then that makes...
    me...
    the arbiter of truth...
    and everything...
    ...whoa.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No it just means you have an opinion.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes.
        THE Opinion.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Confucius and it's not even close. Read the analects.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I did, it's a decent philosophy for dogs and maybe small children. Not so much for men.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What are your issues with it?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It tells you over and over to mindlessly worship and obey authority figures at all times without question. The opposite of a thinking man's philosophy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not all philosophy is epistemology and ethics, anon. Some of us are into politics. There's nothing stupid about what he's saying, you need to consider how the pieces fit together.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            t. moron who would be at the bottom of the hierarchy

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    S. Maximus the Confessor and it isnt even close

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    UG Krishnamurti (pbuh)

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stefan Molynuex

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Hes still around? last I heard he was running an online cult.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas, though he stands on the shoulders of Christ, Augustine, Aristotle and Plato. Truth isn't a difficult matter for the pure of heart.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lev Shestov and Heraclitus, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading other philosophy

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Niklas Luhmann

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bertrand Russell

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's way up there, and one of the very few philosophers born rich who will freely say things that are against the interests of rich people. Truly unbiased guy except for his love for humanity itself.
      Overall it's Schope because he's free of even that last bias.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Bertrand Russell

        nobody takes russell seriously who isn’t a complete midwit. I can’t think of one positive thing he contributed to philosophy at all. positivism is pretty much dead and him with it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Love this dude

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's way up there, and one of the very few philosophers born rich who will freely say things that are against the interests of rich people. Truly unbiased guy except for his love for humanity itself.
      Overall it's Schope because he's free of even that last bias.

      Love this dude

      reddit moment

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >posts content-free downvote
        >reddit moment
        I concur.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          +5 gold added to your account for that snappy comeback

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >made fun of for downvoting instead of having something to say, on lit of all places
            >shits up the board with more downvoting
            I know the perfect website for you.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Plato, Lao Tzu, Confucious

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Heidegger

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Correct answer

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evola

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I consider now, which light falls on hopes of finding a simple rule of Nature by which sex is regulated. Surely this also stands under an ethical principle. But there cannot be a biological rule of Nature for a process, that deals with either the incarnation of a soul or the development of an evasive, delusion- and lie-painting act, as woman is. And it can at the very least be influenced experimentally by other factors. This applies again for men. Intervention is quite impossible here. Just as unthinkable is a mechanical principle for the prevalence of the manly birth

    >Constipation is indicative of being charged with mental and bodily impurity, without being directly expressed in a lasting pain. Diarrhoea is the releasing of all the waste; it relates to constipation like mishap to discomfort; it is symbolic for de-routing, chaotisization of the whole person. — It is why an artificial induced diarrhoea (especially through the most purgative agent, calomel) can, as known, protect from epilepsy: Diarrhoea conducts by other means what would otherwise remain stuck and bring the individual to fall.

    >The moral is always above the intellectual; for the sorcerer can know everything, but not the good (God, the idea)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The moral is always above the intellectual; for the sorcerer can know everything, but not the good (God, the idea)
      Most based quote ever

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Le Bon but he was more of a psychologist

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+f Zhuangzi
    >0 results
    Are you homies even trying?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >moron orientalist #9 billion shows up
      Cool, now shut the frick up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "Yet the stupid believe they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman – how dense! Confucius and you are both dreaming! And when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. Words like these will be labeled the Supreme Swindle."

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Swindle supreme numba tree, that come wi' fry rice?

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche or Heidegger

      Also a good duo. Only reason I would say Heidegger over Schopenhauer is that Nietzsche is descended from Schopenhauer anyways and Heidegger further augments Nietzsche

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jean Gebser, Fu Xi (I Ching), and James Joyce.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Based
      Mind would be Ken Wilber for his Integral Theory, J.J. Hurtak for his vision of the Celestial Hierarchy, HHDL for his insistence upon love as the basis of all world religions, L. Ron Hubbard for his auditing process, and my mother for bringing me into this world

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not sure if bait but
        >Ken Wilber
        Like a pop sci version of the G man

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Hubbard
        Came here to say this.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Hubbard was right
          >CoS needs work
          >CoS says it doesn't need work because Hubbard was right
          Wat do

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Look into the independent clearing field. http://freezoneearth.org/

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wittgenstein and it's not even close

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no one

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >THE TRUTH ABOUT EVERYTHING
    You'll have to grow up on your own sooner or later, no one is going to swoop in and become the dad you need

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel via Lacan via Zizek

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mike ma!

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Deleuze had the best metaphors.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My as yet unfinished philosophical magnum opus, which begins without any presuppositions whatsoever (including the presupposition that thought is even possible) and which unifies substance and process/being and becoming through a phenomenological application of Peirce's tripartite semiosis mapped to a Trinitarian process-relational world of meaning-as-becoming, comes the closest.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      if thought is not possible, then your entire philosophy is useless, you cannot justify logical arguments or say anything meaningful without presuppositions zoomer

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The presupposition isn't that thought is impossible, but that you cannot immediately trust that thought is truly taking place from a phenomenological perspective.
        I think it's funny that you throw around generational terms like they have anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And from what perspective can you trust that it takes place? I rightly called you that because only a zoomer has the hubris to say that they have come closest to the truth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is a presuppositionless way for thinking to take place but I'm not posting it here. It's deeply unintuitive and I need to precisely define my terms before it's ready to publish. In either case you aren't someone worth making effortful replies to since all you seem to be capable of doing is seething about the fact that people under the age of 30 post on this website.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Keep going zoomer, you will eventually figure out how to fry an egg and independently do your taxes, but first you must show everyone how smart you are, that's the priority.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    literally the post modernists

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Leo Tolstoy and Norm Macdonald

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Normie MacDonald's

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    De Tocqueville. What sets him apart from other people is that he doesn't need to invoke some metaphysical woo-woo to get his point across, it's all very concrete

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Adolf Hitler and it's not even close

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He came a little too close to the truth.

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Shankara

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Auguste Comte.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    white

    Kierkegaard

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    None. Philosophy relies on reason which in the end is always for knowledge.

    If I absolutely had to pick one on the basis that they were ultimately wrong but came the closest, it was obviously Aristotle.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cheng Hao

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Parmenides simplified everything, y'all had to go and invent new self refuting systems.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    nothing is true

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Cioran.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Spinoza-Nietzsche

    I think they are very close to the bone

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it has to be Leibniz, it will always be Leibniz. Leibniz is literally proof you can have material minds, but they don't want you to know that. Leibniz is proof animals are different from plants, but they don't want you to know that. Leibniz is proof 'complete' knowledge is better than analogy. they really want you to know that. Leibniz is proof that the difference between concept and proposition is irrelevant except for that sense that a concept can't be infinite and you can have as many propositions as you want.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >they
      >they
      >they
      Are "they" in this thread with us right now? I don't have anything against Leibniz, but you seem a bit strange.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Are "they" in this thread with us right now? I don't have anything against Leibniz, but you seem a bit strange.
        they is not here right now. they shows up, simple as.
        the ideal CAN ONLY BE REAL in a non solipsistic world, else it is merely the idea. that is the whole caprice of reason solipsist think makes them start

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The only correct answer. Midwits mogged. Goethe is a close second in terms of mythical-experience.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it has to be Leibniz, it will always be Leibniz. Leibniz is literally proof you can have material minds, but they don't want you to know that. Leibniz is proof animals are different from plants, but they don't want you to know that. Leibniz is proof 'complete' knowledge is better than analogy. they really want you to know that. Leibniz is proof that the difference between concept and proposition is irrelevant except for that sense that a concept can't be infinite and you can have as many propositions as you want.

        I wish everyone wrote as clearly and concisely as Leibniz does in the Monadology. It's such a dead-simple and elegant work that anything else seems ridiculously obscure in comparison.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          AYO WE FINNA PUT DEM PROPOSITIONS IN DEM TRUTH-PREDICATES N SHIEEETT.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you underline everything?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >underlines the entire page
            what's the point in underlining anything then?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Youre a gay for picrel

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's not color-by-numbers like Newton. Plebs wouldn't understand.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Dont care about the ranking, its gay to, on a literature board of all places, let someone else’s list of numbers do the work your own synthetic-evaluative faculties are supposed to do. You are gay

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think you're a small person, living a small life. A man whose greatest achievements will amount to nothing of significance. I expect you will waste away in you later years surrounded by no one but passersby who have nothing to offer you but looks of derision.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Probably. But so did most of these guys (of which I do not equate myself). Van Gogh had bipolar I with psychotic features and passed away at 37 after his brother died and couldn't support him and everyone hated him in his life. You're on IQfy, dood. Did you really expect the board to be filled with celebrated brain surgeons and rocket scientists? Or are you going to give me the boot-straps talk?

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This guy. He is a present day Heraclitus.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20130914033033/http://www.paul-almond.com/

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nagarjuna, Hegel and Heidegger

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ibn Arabi

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      One of the greatest schizos of all time.

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pseudo-Hippocrates/ unnamed doctor from Cos

    >Wherefore I have not thought that it stood in need of an empty hypothesis, like those subjects which are occult and dubious, in attempting to handle which it is necessary to use some hypothesis; as, for example, with regard to things above us and things below the earth; if any one should treat of these and undertake to declare how they are constituted, the reader or hearer could not find out, whether what is delivered be true or false; for there is nothing which can be referred to in order to discover the truth.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nagarjuna

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      *blocks you're path sirs*

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This meme seems to misunderstand the way eastern philosophers engage with each other. Many important eastern philosophers are highly "unoriginal", because they view the process of philosophy as a kind of conversation. For example you can find most of buddha's ideas in the vedas and early upanishads, like the concept of a middle way, karma, rebirth, meditation, enlightenment etc... some of the other things like jhanas were not really his ideas either, eastern philosophers just respond to and reinterpret things for the most part, except for a few like Zhuangzi or Matsyendranatha.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >some of the other things like jhanas were not really his ideas either
            Iirc seven jhanas were already known in Shakyamuni’s time, him being the discoverer of the eighth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is dependent origination in the Vedas and Upanishads?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alex Wayman has argued that the ideas found in the dependent origination doctrine may precede the birth of the Buddha, noting that the first four causal links starting with avidya in the Twelve Nidānas are found in the cosmic development theory of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and other older Vedic texts.[119][118][120]

            According to Kalupahana, the concept of causality and causal efficacy where a cause "produces an effect because a property or svadha (energy) is inherent in something" along with alternative ideas of causality, appear extensively in the Vedic literature of the 2nd millennium BCE, such as the 10th mandala of the Rigveda and the Brahmanas layer of the Vedas.[121][note 36]

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/P2Kc7iU.jpg

      *blocks you're path sirs*

      Did western painters copy how jesus' hand gestures from the buddha

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The epicureans agreed with modern science in a surprising number of ways. Their ethics doesn't seem that bad either.

  54. 3 weeks ago
    doubtposting

    Jordan Peterson
    Unironically

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hegel but he's kind of cheating

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nagarjuna

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For a person who practices ascetism, you'd think they would be thinner.

      • 3 weeks ago
        doubtposting

        He's well regarded
        To refuse alms is bad manners

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        He's well regarded
        To refuse alms is bad manners

        In Thai tradition: Katyayana was a very handsome monk who used to tempt many girls and even men so he took a boon to become fat l so he could focus on meditation

        Katyayana sutta is also the sutta which the Mulamadhyamakakarika is a commentary on

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I haven't really seen any buddhists with a good counter argument to this

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Confucians literally argued that buddhism erodes their way of life

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    John Zerzan

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    for me it's prof dr. winklers magnum opus 'antwort auf die träume'.
    absolutely unique and instinctively precise in his analysis of truth and wisdom of life.

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Friedrich Nietzsche, annihilated all charlatans like Hegel, Schopenhauer, Christ etc.

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *