Official /his/ philosopher tier list:
Literally a meme philosopher.
And Kant should be Transcendental
>being derogatory about memes
>literally imposing on me memes
Also, stoics, shit tier? Come on man. They may have had some weird ideas, but their ideas for dealing with the stresses of life are pretty goddamn good. They at least deserve Wtf tier.
Well, obviously, because Stirner would be much lower then. But influence should count for something, at least when you're talking about philosophers whose works formed the basis of western philosophy.
>Cool guys tier
>Shoulders of giants tier
>Absolutely haram tier
This is objective and you cannot refute it.
Camus just seems more of a literary writer than a philosopher as such to me. What I derive from Camus is closer to Hemingway or Kafka than Kant or Spinoza or Husserl etc.
I prefer Camus to Sartre although the latter wrote works that are not narrative in form (eg L'etre et le Neant) that place him more firmly in the philosophical category.
>inb4 autists going "ACKSHUALLY..."
Yes, I know many philosophers have employed narrative modes as well, but unless you're retarded it's pretty easy to see the distinction between the didactic, argumentative style of philosophy on the one hand and novels and plays on the other.
Yes, the distinction isn't absolute, black and white, but it is real. Deal with it, you tedious hairsplitting faggots.
Yes, this board is actually this bad with the kneejerk contrarianism that I need to elaborate an innocuous statement like this so you fucking pedantic morons don't get triggered by it.
I do understand that, but to infer that a form exists as an actual thing rather than just a potential to be realised for the entire period prior to it's realisation, whenever that may occur seems like an inaccurate theory to describe reality as it exists rather than just what may exist.
>Actually do philosophy tier
Philosophers who debunk, who point out what's wrong and who use omission to remove what is wrong in philosophy
>Bullshitty woo-woo tier
Philosophers who 'confirm' what is 'true' and 'moral' and who use naive intervention to shove these 'truths' and 'values' down people's throats and completely ignore that they don't know everything and could be wrong about what they believe
>implying there are concepts without philosophers
>implying philosophy isn't just an unconscious memoir of it's author
There is no uncontextual idea. Please stop with the "ideas can be distilled" memery.