Who was the greatest philosopher ever? What is your hottest philosophical take?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Who was the greatest philosopher ever? What is your hottest philosophical take?
me tbh
Who?
Descartes?
Schopenhauer or Spinoza or Leibniz
mine?
I have a few
"the very fact that so many people are more readily concerned with advancing themselves over the collective ideal of a society centered around chartible acts towards others is very troublesome and it could be well put that the material world is an evil place because it does not force humans to think of others as themselves"
"the belief in a self-correcting state is on par with a "self-correcting economy" believing that just like Adam Smith's invisible hand, somehow the state will correct itself from being dysfunction to functional when in the real world, both need propped up by internal forces in order to ensure both are working for the people they both serve"
"the entire concept of historical materialism denies a prime mover and is harmful to moral discourse, not only this but ontologically, it implies if something came from nothing and everything is a result of physical action, then all morals are based only upon the presumption of consequences, that is, the result of things happening, and not why they're wrong in the first place"
decent pick
>Spinoza or Leibniz
What's so special about these philosophers?
you probably don't read so, you're never going to find out
I read
Spinoza posited the concept of interconnected monads (pieces of the universe) that ultimately culminated in one substance, not only that he saw nature as on par with man and believed that God was right in front of us with his creation. Leibniz was similar but was closer to Christian Orthodoxy and was a polymath in his own right, mastering dozens of disciplines alongside philosophy.
One of the unconscious destroyers of the West. Cool contributions to math though.
Right, the one person so unsure of everything, he had to build an entire reasoning to be sure to exist.
Nope.
>being unsure
already a good philosopher
Nasu-Hakola disease
>Who was the greatest philosopher ever?
I don't read and philosophize often
>What is your hottest philosophical take?
I should read and philosophize often
Nietzsche and it’s not even close.
Amboß
Turrini
kapai
>Who was the greatest philosopher ever?
Parmenides
>What is your hottest philosophical take?
Hegel is the biggest con-man in the philosophical canon and the phenomenology of spirit has been the most catastrophic book of all time.
Probably Jesus, Plato, and Schopenhauer in that order.
lúthchleas
boxes are good but you shouldn't stack them
>thomas jefferson above marx
you share a board with these people
Congzi F. Shit list my dude.
Schopenhauer or berkeley
Ἀρσένῐος
you posted him
I like to say Heraclitus because it sounds cool and all your favorite philosophers loved him. He is apparently one of the main influences for the later development of formal logic.
That doesn't mean I understand him much.
aнacoн
レㇷ゚
You are a moron if you need to get such opinions chewed and spit on you by others.
Diogenes
I would have put Nietzsche first but this meme made me laugh
>confusing the realm of being with the realm of becoming
Diogenes was a midwit
What on earth are you rambling on about?
>look I changed something that was initially fundamentally different so it kind of matches an earlier heuristic you gave
>that means its the same!
Diogenes accidentally stumbled into the Kantian critique of metaphysics. I say accidentally because Diogenes was a well-known coomer, and we all know that coomers never make intellectual progress.
>the smartest Diogenes fan
>What is your hottest philosophical take?
There is no such thing as "studying philosophy", only "doing philosophy". At the very best, you can study the history of philosophy, but not philosophy itself.
Interesting
Its Heideggerian thinking. Based.
Hot takes?
Monkeys are people.
I would still eat one.
pic related
Descartes?
I read plenty, much of it was remarkably fake and gay. What I read and understood from Heraclitus was authentic and straight.
Descartes is way overrated in comparison.
stop breathing through your mouth
I mean, c'mon, its Zapffe.
He dismantled the whole pursuit in a few pages. He named what we all knew deep down inside. We're of the animal kingdom, blind fate gave us a mean processor, the processor learned a terrible trick, and now we're here. The best we can do is build monuments to all that we'll never understand.
What good is consciousness to the survival of the animal really? It tells a perfectly healthy animal to slit its wrist before breeding. It convinces whole scores not to breed. You can call that defective consciousness, but you must accept that these things come out of that same arena that gives you cathedrals and monorails.
Those closer to animal will always be more content. The rest of us need to work. We need elaborate frames just to get by, just as an excuse to keep going. Nothing else in nature does this. This was clearly an overgrowth.
He even suffers from his own conclusions. Don't breed? Why not? You said yourself that this outgrowth is quite useless for our welfare, so why listen to it? I look at Zapffe as a reason to give up pursuits of truth and just start a family with the status quo.
The answer to Zapffe, the last philosopher, is quite honestly to flee back to monke.
>What good is consciousness to the survival of the animal really? It tells a perfectly healthy animal to slit its wrist before breeding. It convinces whole scores not to breed.
I never quite understood this point. From a purely Darwinist perspective wouldn't that be incredibly eugenic? The way I see it consciousness is what truly weeds out the weak from the strong and gives rise to complex hierarchy. No other animal even comes close to the organisational complexity of the modern human and this is incredibly beneficial for a species on a macro level. You can say that a tiger can outrun us and kill us in almost any scenario sure, but not when we have guns. This line of thinking seems to stem from the idea that nature is stupid and we have outsmarted her when that could never be the case since we are an extension of her in the first place.
I think he means that even the most intelligent, successful, etc people have suicidal thoughts which makes improving the breed seemingly impossible
Then are they not by definition less fit to reproduce than someone who doesn't have those thoughts? Even someone less intelligent and successful
I'm no expert on eugenics and Darwinism but if you have to make people dumber or less conscious to make them healthier, are you really improving the species?
That seems to be the difficulty in human eugenics in relation to consciousness - striking the right balance between mental and physical health
Peirce. He’s the real proper American philosopher. He was educated as a European in every sense of the word. Spoke Latin, Greek, German, read all works in original languages. By not having any loyalty to Europe, his ideas were free of original sin, of pride, of dogma. He was of the same wild-spirit kin as Emerson and Hawthorne but with a mastery of tools and weapons forged by Aristotle, Augustine, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel. He created his own vocabulary that still remains untainted because not much use have been made of them. Apart from that, he was raised a modern scientist and mathematician. His work in logic parallels Frege, his work in language parallels Saussure, his works in metaphysics are act as a foundation for some of the leading theories of today.
*first proper American philosopher
Why was he such a moronic mess in his personal life then?
>moronic mess
That’s how normies perceive over men
>What is your hottest philosophical take?
I’m an ethical egoist but also an open individualist, so really a utilitarian. The only thing that exists is experience, and all experiences are equally real. Experiences are not possessed by experiencers, they simply exist.
>Experiences are not possessed by experiencers, they simply exist.
This seems to be the crux of your belief and unless you can properly show how you reached this conclusion your post is pseud tier.
The alternative requires more assumptions. What exactly is the self? Does it change throughout life, or remain the same? If it remains the same, what composes it? If it changes, then the self doesn’t exist, and all experiences belong to no particular self. Practically speaking, no self and one universal self are the same thing. In the same way that my past experiences are real, just not being experienced within my current experience, all other experiences that exist are also real, and “mine.” Taking all experiences as a whole, there is no reason to partition them into unique selves. It is simply the case that there exist sets of experiences that have common elements, and when common elements are perceived and remembered, the illusion of self is formed. If the body constantly changed, or could be inhabited by multiple minds, then it would not be considered strictly yours. If multiple bodies could have the same mind, then the same would be true for the mind, and memories as well. If you were genetically engineered and had your memories taken away, then the only thing that would stay the same would be consciousness. Consciousness is the only thing that never changes. If all your experiences were completely random, but you could remember them, then you would only identify with being an experiencer. And if you took away memory, you wouldn’t identify with anything all. You would become the experience itself.
You did not exist before you were born, you will not exist after you die. For some reason people think this is a closed process. It is always happening, you ate being reincarnated at all times in all locations.
This sounds an awful lot like Whitehead's process philosophy from what I've seen of it.
You seem to make this logical leap from "cogito ergo sum" to "my experiences are all that exist" when the latter is antithetical to the former. When it comes to the object of pure consciousness, identity and self-reference, and therefore experience, are irrelevant and ephemeral. They might be coded in the reality that your illusory (according to you) pure consciousness is merely sifting through and thereby arising as a result, but you can never really confirm that without a leap of faith as your only true knowledge is that you exist.
>you will not exist after you die
You don't actually know this. I'm not asserting anything dogmatic here.
Where did I say that I exist? I don’t believe “I” has a real meaning, unless maybe you consider experience itself to be the self. There is no such thing as non-experience, or lack of consciousness, especially since time is a dimension like space, and all moments in time are real, just not accessible from within an experience. There is no sifting, no cosmic DVD player, no order of reincarnations. It’s just that experiences require such illusions to be experienced. Yes this cannot be known, and perhaps the traditional view is true that I will die and not exist for eternity, but even saying this sounds absurd to me. This body will die, but why can’t conscious beings in the future also be me? Just because I won’t remember my past life, or have a soul, doesn’t mean it’s still not me. I just see no reason to make such assumptions, and there’s no good basis for it. The self is not defined coherently. So I just believe the simplest view of self, which is that consciousness itself, or awareness, or experience, is the self. Again, no self and a universal self are the same. Momentary self and eternal self are the same. Open individualism and empty individualism are the same. We SHOULD have faith in this, since it could be true. If it’s true, then everyone’s preferences should be treated equally. This is the only possible basis for a sort of objective morality. People would not purposely cause immense suffering if they believed that all suffering is their suffering. Of course people will still find ways to justify their actions, but it would reduce careless actions and help supplement a lack of pre-existing empathy.
>So I just believe the simplest view of self, which is that consciousness itself, or awareness, or experience, is the self
This is where you go fatally wrong, do you not see? How the hell do you equate consciousness to sensory experience? You fail to justify this. In actuality, consciousness logically must be a layer deeper than experience (hence the "meta" in metaphysic) since it creates sensation (once again, that is all we can know without dogmatic assertion) so all you're doing is begging the question.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. I use consciousness and experience synonymously. I don’t believe in a self so of course self-consciousness is just a higher level of pattern recognition. Dogs and snakes are still conscious, in my opinion. They just don’t have the illusion of self. Animal suffering is just as real as ours, it doesn’t matter whether they believe in a personal identity.
>I use consciousness and experience synonymously
I just explained why that's moronic.
>I don’t believe in a self so of course self-consciousness is just a higher level of pattern recognition
The self is not a matter of belief. It is the only thing that is not a matter of belief.
Define self
Not possible with language. As an "ethical egoist" (not a real thing btw) you should know this.
You have to define or describe it in some way to show why experiences should be closed off from another. There are various thought experiments about this. Again, consider the possibility of your being genetically engineered, memories taken away, de-aged…at what point do you become a different person? At what point can you say that the suffering experienced is no longer experienced by the same entity that lived before this process? I think the only way to be consistent is to say that the self is always changing, and that there is no permanent, lasting self (empty individualism) or never changing, even across time and bodies (open individualism). These are both practically the same thing. But closed individualism assumes that the self only exists between birth and death. But it should be explained why that is.
Also, what is necessary for self to exist? Do animals have self? Or does it only exist as a sort of perception, as an idea? But isn’t that just a construction, an illusion? If you admit that animals experience anything, yet don’t have selves, then you must believe that experience is not dependent on a self. Self is just another perception or sensation within experience.
You're still looking from top-down at the self as an object. That is contradictory because the self is the ultimate or final perceptible subject. That can also serve as a definition for it to answer your early question. This sort of approach is the problem with naturalistic philosophy. In reality, all of your sense perceptions are formed on top of a substratum layer of the subject/self so if you double down and try to observe that observing self you're only deluding yourself.
if the self can’t be observed, then how can we anything about it? Thoughts are observed, desires are observed, the body is observed. So what is self? How can a knife cut itself? How can the self see itself? I’ve asked many questions but you can’t answer them
We cannot say anything positive about it, like I said. But we cannot ignore it. What I've said is it must be taken into consideration and things must be oriented outward from it to maintain a consistent epistemology without any logical leaps. To put it simply, this is the only method we have of constructing a science that actually works. The knife is a tool, but we are not tools. The animal mind naturally tends perceive of everything as a tool for biological reasons and very few people are able to see through this. Cats and dogs have no sense of being and for this reason they are not fully self-aware, but they still operate on intuition. They simply don't have the mental ability to be able to cognise or "notice" that process taking place.
To clarify, language is techne that arises in the world of experience that I just said is in causal order beneath consciousness/self so you cannot define the latter with it.
Conciousness is suprasensuous.
Not that guy and I don't think I agree with him exactly but maybe you'll find this interesting or elucidating, or not.
"I think, therefore I am" assumes the existence of an "I" that thinks. But while it does seem self-evident that there is at least experiencing of thought, it's not self-evident that an "I"—as in a person or being or self with thoughts, beliefs, memories, character, preferences etc—is the one experiencing or thinking. It requires less abstractions to say that this self-evident experiencing is not different from the thinking.
That is: I am not a being that thinks, nor am I an observer separate from thought that observes thoughts arising, but that the thoughts/experienced are themselves the experiencer; or rather that there is neither experiencer nor experienced but only experiencing. When there is experiencing, an experiencer and experienced is delineated, but this delineation is not as obvious as it usually seems to be. When you next have a thought or imagine something or perceive anything in general, look for where exactly the perceived supposedly is and the perceiver supposedly is.
But this experiencing can't really be said to be an "I" or S/self or experiencer, any thought or feeling of identification with it as an I or a self is not thought or felt by it, it is it.
I think the better question is what your being consists of: is it the rationally justifiable self or the empirically justifiable phenomenal experience?
>you ate being reincarnated at all times in all locations.
This is objectively incorrect. What you don't seem to realize is that the logical consequence of your negation is that the opposite affirmation becomes exactly equivalent, so that by asserting there is no self is the same as asserting that there is one. In other words there is no difference between affirming or denying the self, so we might as well affirm it based on common sense.
Kant is the greatest philosopher and, as Schopenhauer said, perhaps the most original mind nature ever produced.
Schopenhauer and Plato are second to Kant.
>you should be moral because…uh…oops! I didn’t explain that yet
It's you ought to do what is good because it's good. The good is, by definition, what you ought to do.
You're presuming the correctness of consequentialism.
So Kant begged the question. Absolutely brilliant!
You're a moron. Figuring out that the good is by definition what ought to be done is not begging the question.
Every ought assumes a good, or goal. If you want to be in shape, you ought to exercise. So any ought presupposes some personal goal or preference. You can’t say that I ought to do x unless x is some sort of goal which would satisfy me through attaining it. The “good” is whatever I value or prefer. The categorical imperative is hopelessly founded on thin air. It is completely arbitrary, and incoherent
not only is this circular, but you haven’t even defined “ought” or “good.” Hegel already destroyed this moronicness
It's Hegel.
The nameless sages who transmitted the timeless wisdom of the Upanishads. It takes some effort to translate the archaic and imprecise poetic language into analytic terms, but all the answers are there.
>It takes some effort to translate the archaic and imprecise poetic language into analytic terms, but all the answers are there.
Why not share some of these answers then like the OP asked?
There's too much, but to list a few . In general the Upanishads are like an abridged version of the total of western philosophy. Some of the more accessible notions of the Vedanta can be understood by connecting them to western parallels which were worked out laboriously thousands of years later . I don't have space to get into detail so I'll just breeze through some that come to mind from a sweeping perspective.
-One is the idea, somewhat related to Wittgenstein, that language is not the royal road to knowlege. Indeed, language and symbolization can lead to a certain false knowlege or Avidyā. Similar to the "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" which closes the Tractatus, certain truths are inexpressible and can only be directly apprehended. Otherwise, it's possible to verbally concoct an infinite variety of metaphysical systems which might be internally consistent but which have no bearing to reality. Similarly, many critiques of Russell and Frege's theory of names appear. It's impossible to pin down the essence of something in words .
There is also an aspect of late Wittgenstein's philosophy as he sought to interpret language performatively as speech acts. The meaning of language is not inherent to it but is derived from the speaker.
>It is not the language but the speaker that we want to understand.
-You can also find a variant of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, stated in the inverse.
>Whatever is outside this universe is a complete system.This universe itself is also a complete system. Only a complete system can emerge out of a complete system. If a complete system is taken out of a complete system, whatever remains is also a complete system.
-This plays off of the relationships between completeness and consistency. What is inconsistent with this universe (or formal system) is a complete system, even if it is incompatible with this universe. (One might view this as an argument for multiverses as well.) Similarly, according to the incompleteness theorems, what is true but unprovable in one axiomatic system can be provable within another, corollary axiomatic system (i.e "whatever is outside this universe.") Just as there might be multiple universes with different laws of physics, the all form a higher system that binds them all.
-There is also a notion of Hegelian dialectic, or as he put it, "that which negates the negation" in the concept of neti neti, "not this, not that."
-Spinozan pantheism is almost synonymous with the central teaching of the Upanishads, "that art thou"
Plato's cave analogy is also implicit in what much of the Upanishads have to say about the unreality of appearances and the idea that sense data should not be taken at face value. And that there is a deeper structure to reality beyond surface formations.
-Elements of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM
-Scophenhauer would be the first to admit that his philosophy is largely a plagiarism of the upanishads.
>-There is also a notion of Hegelian dialectic, or as he put it, "that which negates the negation"
That's called apophatic theology, it was in use by Christians and Muslims 1000 years before Hegel was born.
Apophaticism was employed in the Greek metaphysical tradition and in the Advaita Vedanta school of thought too.
Thanks a lot anon. If this post is still up tomorrow I'll make sure to respond in detail, good night.
>-Scophenhauer would be the first to admit that his philosophy is largely a plagiarism of the upanishads.
Actually he'd be the first one to deny it, but this is more like a mens rea. The lady doth protest too much.
“I might express the opinion that each one of the individual and disconnected aphorisms which make up the Upanishads may be deduced as a consequence from the thought I am going to impart, though the converse, that my thought is to be found in the Upanishads, is by no means the case”. See Schopenhauer vol. 1 (Preface to the first edition), xiv.
>hot take
We do not live in a society.
Our collective observance of ritual obedience to some vague concept of law and justice and order and decorum has factually no impact on the material circumstances of our lives. If no one showed up for jury duty the courts would continue with barely any difference what so ever.
Each of us has always lived in a state of nature, the supposed pre-society state of our ancient forefathers. And every human who was ever born has found themselves as we do now, at the cusp of new and dangerous technologies and radical ideologies that threaten to upend the social order that has been forged in thousands of years of our history. And every one of us was wrong, there never was a designer, there never was a grand machine of interdependent parts, only an ecosystem. Niches where humans have scratched out a way to make things work.
And each of us is enticed into adopting certain norms and expectations and beliefs, and we call these norms Culture and the works that convey those biases and expectations either by example or simply by adoption and exultation by that group, "Thats what we like, that's who we are, we're the people who like this kind of stuff." Any and all media or performance that tells you what it is to be that culture, that's Art. And when you get a bunch of people consuming that art and adopting those behaviors what you end up with, what it turns out that results in for all those people is their society. But people aren't just in one single culture, they're in dozens. And every single choice you've ever made or will ever make will hinge on which society you care more about at that moment. Who's opinion you think of finding out what you did.
And everyone is going around under this mistaken delusion that it's all one cohesive coherant whole. That it's designed and planned and intended and that wise and intelligent people could put all the pieces together and predict the way things would be and carve out a space to fit you and if only you work "towards the good of society" and you're"doing your part" then "society" wont leave you behind. It wouldn't make any sense to build a machine that destroyed itself, so it must be true that this one won't.
And its all a farce. We're all just in a jungle, none of this is your fault nor are you ever going to be in a position to change it. Even the presidents and prime ministers of the worlds most powerful nations simply tweet that something must be done by someone, because the sad truth is that they cannot control anything, they are just as ignorant and afraid as all of us. They've built up some idea about how this is meant to go and as long as they stick to what it looks like the plan is it will work out. And so they wring their hands and all nod and agree that its well past time for SOMEONE to get on with fixing things.
Its all a fraud, embrace it, ignore it, do as you like, what ever society you decide is most important to you is as valid as any other.
if you thought more you would write less. You didn’t say anything
You're not as smart as you think you are
I'm starting to feel like Nagarjuna's MMK more or less endgamed philosophy almost 2000 years ago. This isn't exactly what Nagarjuna said but I feel like while philosophers and works before and after him can definitely have immediate value and use, they are arguing about and trying to solve entirely artificial problems that need not be created. So the way to solve a philosophical problem is not to "answer the question", but to properly disassemble the question in a way that does not require coming to hold a philosophical view about the question or its propositions/assumptions. The goal is not to arrive at a philosophical conclusion but to reveal the insubstantiality of the question, and when the question is seen through the need for answer dissolves too. But maybe I'm just kinda moronic.
My hottest philosophical take? It’s all vanity
It’s just Socrates.
>What is your hottest philosophical take?
That I am the only being in existence and everything is just a self-imposed illusion to spare myself the crushing solitude, even limiting my own power just so I can be fooled into believing there is something other than me after drinking from the Lethe.
That everything is true and the apparent incorrectness of that fact is merely its mediation and division through time (doctrine of striving possibles).
That I will personally suffer for every creature in existence, the mass of animals hooked up in slaughterhouses are all just instantiations of myself that I will have to live through in exchange for a life of comfort.
etc.
If solipsism is real.. then why do you feel the need to argue that it is real?
>then why do you feel the need to argue that it is real?
I explained that in my post.
You perceive or know yourself, right? You know your own being? If everything you perceive and know is an illusion created by you then what about this being/self/you that is perceived and known? If all you perceive is an illusion then where are you? You might think simply what you truly are is the perceiver, the subject knowing itself as the illusion, but if all that is known is illusory then so too must be this perceiver/subject and the identification as it, because it is yet another thing perceived/known.
Notice also that it is the illusory person, the illusory mind, thinking about these things and disliking them. The being itself that you are and everything is must necessarily be without attributes, that being itself does not think at all nor concern itself with these philosophical problems, it can not have preferences nor consider anything good or bad. Take the slaughterhouse animals as an example: you and those animals are the same being, yet because those animals don't have the same kind of mind that you do (if they have such a thing at all), as far as we can tell they aren't pondering ontology. If the world is an illusion, then so are all thoughts, feelings, emotions, preferences, etc. What is saying "I am the only being in existence ... I will personally suffer for every creature in existence" is not that one being, it is the illusory mind.
I've read about 120 philosophy texts. Jesus and Plato are the best and final philosophers.
>I've read about 120 philosophy texts.
Post the list
Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Laozi, and the era they lived in, hold that title.
Ethics is the only branch of philosophy worth pursuing, and one does that with actions not words. Other branches such as metaphysics and epistemology have what amounts to trivia value.
Diogenes.
Other philosophers theorized, guessed, and pondering the great questions of the universe.
He went out and did his beliefs, pissed on the system (quite literally, he publicly peed and a political speech), and showed people the flaws in their society.
No matter what, practicality is always better than theory, and a man who can demonstrate his conclusions and live by them is greater than a million who can only theorize and hope they're right.
>"American intellectual": for 500 years a contradictio in adjecto. In America (and to a lesser extent in other Anglo-Saxon nations) there is a profound and undeniable CONTEMPT FOR THOUGHT which disguises itself as "realism" and "pragmatism". The incapacity for thinking, for looking beyond tomorrow and one's immediate environment, tries to create a good conscience for itself with a lie (the lie that theory is not pragmatic and realistic, while it is in fact the absolute zenith of both those things).
>A: "At the end of the day, it's merely a theory." B: "But quantum mechanics is also 'merely a theory' and we make lazors with it." O subhumans! There's no higher thing ever accomplished by a human being than theory! What a mistake it was that my ancestors tried to teach you how to speak! You'd still be living in your caves without us and our "mere theories"!
That's not original nor insightful at all. That's just normie academic perception which is all too pervasive these days.
non-argument
Don't care. Dilate, homosexual
Spinoza
>Who was the greatest philosopher ever?
Thales, for being the first one with the balls to do philosophy rather than continue making appeals to tribal perceptions like everybody else up until that point had been doing.
in my opinion, Plato. I once said that the history of western philosopher is effectively footnotes to Plato
Whitehead browses IQfy now?
Plato and it's not even close. There are so many levels on which Plato can be understood. Any idea you could possibly have and every idea that every philosopher after him has had, the shadow of it was present in Plato. I'm working on a post-Kantian modern reformulation of Plato that will revolutionize the religion and culture of the entire world.
Wouldn't say he's the greatest but he's definitely my personal favourite
It's obviously Plato. If you disagree you're just wrong
Philosopher: Plato
Take: Science does mental masturbation better than philosophy
The Eleatics, obviously. If you have to pick the "greatest" you may as well go with the founder, Parmenides. Although I think they're all pretty good.
based!
this is now a tier list thread
https://tiermaker.com/create/realphilosophers-1112774
Plato is a great deceiver who couldn't handle the supreme truth of Eleatic philosophy. Aristotle is a seething dandy who couldn't handle that Melissus killed Aristotelean metaphysics before it was even put down in writing. I will end there because at least you put Parmenides in the S tier so you're not a complete piece of shit.
lol moron Plato made Eleatic philosophy stronger by synthesizing it with Heraclitus and Protagoras. The Forms are a direct consequence of a Parmenidean understanding of Being applied to appearances and cognition.
No. You can see in his Sophist that Plato is actually the real sophist and completely incompetent at metaphysics. He does well following the Eleatic philosopher, but then when he explicitly parts ways with Parmenides he descends into incoherent gibberish.
Athenians weren't built for metaphysics.
Did you read Parmenides's fragments? They are overtly Platonic. Also, almost our entire understanding of Parmenides comes from Plato in the first place, so for all we know most of the Eleatic philosophy you have in mind was an invention of Plato's, and it definitely wouldn't exist with the reputation it has today without Plato.
cope seethe dilate
I have read parmenides and the other extant eleatics. You are dead wrong if you think "almost our entire understanding of Parmenides comes from Plato in the first place", clearly YOU have not read the fragments of any Eleatic thinker. Parmenides would exist with his reputation intact even if you took every extant work of Plato and placed it in an incinerator.
The history of metaphysics is just a series of copes to Parmenides.
This. Plato and Aristotle simply couldn't contend with the Eleatic doctrine.
If it weren't for Plato writing The Parmenides, none of you chodes would even know Parmenides ever existed
it will never not be funny to see peoples expose themselves as pseuds by clinging to some platonic dialogue when discussing Parmenides and other pre-socratics.
You sound like one of those men that think philosophy is like an MMA game or something
Finally, a good fricking tier list.
cringe
better, Foucault doesn't deserve to be ranked.
Cuckcault
Sad where the reputation of Deleuze is now.
Foucault.
My take: Put all the criminals in jail. Then put everyone else in jail just to be safe
None of your thoughts matter if they can't survive a punch to the face.
Ink, pixels, ideas.
Hate, glory, reason.
Make your stand for your own ideas or be overcome by nothing but spouting faces.
We are soon to die either way, might as well persist as yourself.
Not a general hot take but I realized that for me philosophy is just an early form of psychology. I really just want to find an insight that will reframe my worldview to make me happy and end my anxiety. I don't even hope to find objective truths anymore.
That's the rub. I'm a pessimist and while I can achieve personal happiness, I can't just shut-out the misery, especially living in a violent city. Even if society were to somehow get its act together, now I cannot remove the brutality in nature. Thats why the ad-hom attacks are particularly useless. You can surmise whatever about my personal life, but my beef is with everything but my personal life. Even on payday, the suffering in nature persists. Getting laid? Still a cacophony of screams in the world.
Its like the only way to truly be happy is pretend nobody else matters. I honestly think that the more you kill the parts of you that feel, the better off you'll be. I don't think this is any great revelation.
metaphysics is not therapy
shortblade
broadside
prefine
let's hear it for someone
/GH: παλαίστρᾱ
στᾰ́δῐον? κνῑπολόγος? ὄλβῐος?
ἐλεφᾰντῐ́ᾱσῐς!
McDojo Tucker telephone
I keep reading posts on IQfy that say that Plato had a better grasp on the nature of the world, has a better philosophy and made more contributions than Aristotle did.
As a brainlet stemgay I can't wrap my head around Aristotle doing anything but eternally BTFO'ing Plato forever, so explain philosophygays, please and thanks
Read Heidegger and you’ll understand why
Have you read Plato or are you only getting his ideas through Aristotle and secondary sources?
Kept it.
Nietzsche, nobody else comes close.
All philosophy thats not based on history in some way is largely useless. I dont care to read what you thought up by observing you 3 friends
Marx and it's not even close.
>creates an ideology that kills hundreds of millions of people
what makes this guy so good again?
Solving philosophy.
Mike Mentzer aka Mr Universe
Thinking sad nerd thoughts is killing your gains. Thinking happy buff guy thoughts is orexogenic.
Dukkha religion is lierally anorexia
Best philosopher: The apostle Paul
Hot take: philosophy is pretty gay
Pyrrho of Elis was the goat.
I am not sure what my hottest take is, probably that humans cant actually make good philosophy because they falter in computing pure logic or lack the memory to fully employ the data they have as humans, even assuming they have all the information