Who is the most technical and precise, yet vividly imaginative and descriptive philosopher? I'm looking for super tight arguments, razor sharp analysis, precision-grade definitions, super-glue syntheses, 1080p intuition, etc., etc., etc.
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Langan... but you won't care, will you? You, with the iPhone filename? Nah... unless? Oh, who am I kidding...
too high iq for me
>Nah... unless? Oh, who am I kidding...
go on...
read this https://warosu.org/lit/thread/21900057#p21901519
i din't get it. am i a brainlet?
lmao, the peak pseudery of the first paragraph!
And heckin cute how he tries to use (or namedrop) math to look like a big boy.
>Since, when one goes up, the other goes down... informational invariant similar to that enbodied in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
LMAO! Overselling a bit aren't we?
ok so who do you think is the answer to OP?
I would agree with
>promising "substantial fare" for those "on stricter intellectual diets"
>proceeding to rebrand trivial concepts like cardinality, mapping, basic vector space concepts in his own completely superfluous language
>suggesting that some antiproportional relation is "similar to [...] the Heisenberg uncertainty principle" for no reason except to sound fancy
>garbling some basic linear algebra to then describe "knowledge" as vectorial input of symbols. Truly a cognitive science revolution!
>...
>snarky jibe that anyone not putting up with this gibberish is too stupid for """mathematical""" notation
Yep, definitely pretentious pseud.
>promising "substantial fare" for those "on stricter intellectual diets"
He didn't "promise" anything and this is an extremely loose paraphrase. Regardless, this is merely a criticism of tone.
>rebrand trivial concepts like cardinality, mapping, basic vector space concepts
Point to where this happens.
>suggesting that some antiproportional relation is "similar to [...] the Heisenberg uncertainty principle" for no reason except to sound fancy
Extremely loose paraphrase again. When criticizing an authors writing, it's generally preferred that you present readers with sentences the author has actually written, rather than plucking excerpts from said sentences and interspersing them in your own. This isn't an attempt to hound you over trivialities, because for whatever reason, you chose to exclude important information from this sentence. The necessary context reads as follows: "they are related by an informational invariant similar to that embodied in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle". First, there's an inversely proportional relation in the HUP. You know this if you know the first thing about the HUP. But the relationship between freedom and constraint is not being compared to the HUP on the basis of *mere inverse proportionality*. That would trivial and unnecessary. Rather, we have a specific comparison on the basis of *informational proportionality*. As information typifying [freedom / constraint] is gained, information typifying [constraint / freedom] decreases. Similarly, in the HUP, as information on the [position / momentum] of a particle increases, information on its [momentum / position] decreases. Thus, the original statement constitutes a completely justified and crystal clear analogy between two binary relationships on the basis of... you guessed it, an informational invariant! Incidentally, I believe there's a rather pictorial story about a certain labyrinth dweller and his whereabouts presented on the very next page illustrating the nature of one of these relationships.
>garbling some basic linear algebra to then describe "knowledge" as vectorial input of symbols.
Point to where any of this happens.
>snarky jibe that anyone not putting up with this gibberish is too stupid for """mathematical""" notation
Looking at the word you chose to put in quotes, and considering your failure to comprehend the relatively basic analogy above, I have no need to comment on your mathematical prowess. You've done a very good job of personally demonstrating it.
I'm afraid you didn't specifically identify what's actually wrong with the writing. I'm also afraid that you did this for fear of being corrected. It's tempting to paint authors as pretentious pseuds when they've written something you don't understand (the fault lies with their communication, not my reception), but when invoking and dealing with *mathematical subjects*, such as "automata theory" and "Newcomb's Paradox", one usually uses *mathematical symbols*. Scary, I know, but this hardly makes the one who uses them a "pseud". So what exactly is it that you don't understand? The numerous roman variables? That's because these 2 pages are excerpted from a larger work. As for the other symbols... I'll let you figure out what's wrong with them. Go ahead and explain how these symbols constitute incoherent gibberish, or are just being "namedropped" in a context where English would normally be used. But before you do, would you care to wager a couple hundred bucks on your being correct?
>The necessity of this follows from the inability of the human mind to understand anything except by virtue of intellectual computation.
lmao, bugman philosophy
Oh, so you know or intuit things which are non-informational in nature? Please do inform us of what these things are.
I can't stand listening to Langan talk.
Not only is the idea of mathematically proving God's existence impossible (and in fact undesirable for both theists and nontheists alike) it's such a specifically stupid thing that only an approval-seeking-via-intellect autist would do. He's let the "my IQ is super high" shit go to his head and all his intellectual work can be neatly framed by the idea that he's compensating for the fact that he couldn't pretend to be normal long enough to even get a bachelor's degree.
I don't care if his IQ is 190, the guy's still a pseud with an equally large ego.
with that list of descriptors, it's gotta be hume. the other answer is marx or freud but you don't wanna hear that
Extremely good answer
how are you people not saying Hegel?
He stole pretty much everything from Fichte and once you get into the details his system is more poetry than anything of substance or anything that is actually relevant to reality (think astrology) but of course he gets all the attention because his writing looks flashy and more poetic. It's a shame, but just imagine, without these people, where would the stack threads be?
Really, you didn't notice a pattern among those quotes? A shared way of looking at the world? Look harder.
Peter Wessel Zapffe: a norwegian philosopher who got influenced by Darwin, Freud, and Schopenhauer. Highly recommended. Seriuously The Last Messiah hit me so hard but left me with profound knowledge and insight on human condition.
Marx, he's also rather witty.
I like the Anglos personally. David Hume, John Rawls, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, George Berkeley, Bertrand Russel (especially The Analysis of Mind), Frank Ramsey, etc.
Also like Wittgenstein and Heinrich Hertz (especially the introductory chapter of The Principles of Mechanics, which discusses concepts of physics and the images we form in our minds to represent those concepts).
Are you an atheist? Hans Urs von Blathasar, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and Bl. Duns Scotus and even sloppy Protestants like Paul Tillic offer much more systematic and interesting depictions of the world than anyone you listed. Also, in terms of sheer volume, atheist thinkers are non-entities (harder to think in lies I imagine).
what about Albertus Magnus and Johannes Trithemius and Francisco Suarez? are OP qualified?
Haven't heard of them - good post
Ellul
wittgenstein, Spinoza
Spinoza commits obvious fallacies in his work and was furthermore BTFOd by Kant. I don’t understand how he passes the “super tight arguments” aspect. I admit, he is imaginative.
Spinoza? Maybe. Probably some scholastic if not.
There are certainly no 'technical and precise' philosophers in your image, save for Kant ...somewhat...
St. Thomas Aquinas. Read his definitions of lying and you will literally spend your entire life remembering them.
>super tight arguments, razor sharp analysis, precision-grade definitions, super-glue syntheses, 1080p intuition, etc., etc., etc.
This sounds like Anglo "philosophy", purely autistic logic puzzles that miss the big picture
Diogenes
Kant.
One of the few philosophers where there's no (well, very little) debate over how to interpret him, because his explication of his philosophy is so precise and laborious. He's also one of the most original philosophers of all time.
Spinoza is another good one
>One of the few philosophers where there's no (well, very little) debate over how to interpret him
my sweet summer child,
? It’s true. Absolutely there is little interpretative dispute over Kant compared to the vast majority of other philosophers in history.
>Kant is a philosopher there's no debate over how to interpret him
There is a very known debate among subjectivist vs. objectivist reading of his transcendentalism, psychological vs. logical interpretation, also debates concerning his position with the things in themselves.
Undoubtedly Schopenhauer fits your description here best.
Leibniz's letters in the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence remind me of this. He does a little bit of everything and, IMO, runs circles around Clarke. Unfortunately, I think Leibniz was the wrong guy for the wrong time, because almost every contemporary thought that Clarke won. Which is weird, because it certainly doesn't look like that in hindsight! Idk, I guess you had to be there. Clarke looked like a rank amateur who didn't know anything about theology and didn't think about the implications of what he was saying.
shut the frick up stop spamming this worthless trash b***h