Who is the greatest philosopher of all time?

File: image.png (59KB, 500x402px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x402px

>>8609179
Philosophy peaked and ended with Schopenhauer's 'On Woman'.

File: 1474120772721-r9k.jpg (9KB, 300x275px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x275px

Hi.

anaxagoras

>>8609179
ideology man desu senpai

My boy Kierkegaard

>>8609191
yes
although she gets her ideas from others before her

Lao Tze

File: BN-PU300_RUSMAR_GR_20160912142644.jpg (80KB, 573x810px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 573x810px

>Anyone other than hegel

Socrates

File: avatamsaka-sutra.jpg (311KB, 1000x800px)

311KB, 1000x800px

The "greatest thinker of all", thought of as a thing in isolation, is an illusion born out of your own selfishness, in order for you to rob them of their perceived greatness: if the supposed great be the master, then he only matters for his disciples; if he be the disciple, he necessarily depended on there being a master. The thought of one man by itself is irrelevant--it's by its relationship to others' thoughts that it can gain any leverage--no greatness is factored in, no thing can be taken away without loss. All phenomena are dependant of and conditioned by the rest of existance, and lack an essence in themselves.

Now please try to ask more precise, more careful questions.

Oh yeah, now I remember why I stopped coming to /lit/.

Thanks to everyone in this thread for reminding me, bye!

>>8609179
Molyneux

File: image.jpg (82KB, 461x346px)

82KB, 461x346px

>>8609179
Antony Zyrmpas, more commonly known as the Overman.

>>8609845

One of perhaps 3 persons ever in the history of mankind who understand Baudrillard and Nietzsche. Spends his time playing video games and being abusive to his hypersubmissive internet fanboys.

Truly the hero of our time.

>>8609845
is there anywhere i can read his shit nowadays? been a while

>>8609856

http://orgyofthewill.net/

Some of the gold nuggets contained:

>660. Pick-up game condensed down to one word: Approach.

>340. Betas follow rules. Alphas make the rules. Sigmas laugh at rules. It is clear which group the philosopher belongs in, and in which he'd like to belong.

>585. Precisely the thing that "alpha PUAs" think qualifies them as alpha — skirt-chasing — is what disqualifies them from alphaness forever. You think Borgia chased skirts? You've never opened a history book in your life. The PUA thinks like a woman. Does a tree fall in the forest if there's no woman around to see it? And the answer of the PUA is: no. Alpha PUAs are fags, by the technical definition of fag, even. Fagotry thought through to its ultimate conclusions: the culmination of feminism as a complete philosophy of life. It is here that woman reigns supreme and makes the rules. And the goal of the "alpha PUA", is to discover them.

Truly the heir to Nietzsche.

File: hegel.png (144KB, 309x309px)

144KB, 309x309px

>>8609242

File: image.jpg (20KB, 285x237px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 285x237px

>>8609868
This is genuinely one of the funniest things I've ever read.

>>8609868
>Alphas make the rules, betas follow the rules
Jesus Christ

>>8609905
Well, he's not wrong.

>>8609179
Obviously Descartes you fucking plebs

Gorgias
My personal favorite sophist

>>8609905
the weak should fear the strong.

also, the only acceptable answer to OP is Diogenes

File: nietzsche horse.jpg (67KB, 517x809px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 517x809px

Neez-Ché

>>8609191
>>8609245
American teenagers gtfo

>>8609868

>ctrl+f
>subhuman
>204 results

It's like if Raskolnikov never committed the murder but wrote a self-congratulatory blog instead.

obvs wittgenstein

>>8609891

>95. Oh for the days when gentlemen walked around with swords and guns! The often unbearable tediousness of everyday existence could at least be shattered at any moment by a challenge for a duel.

>84. The answer to any problem: from grand politics, to mastering the environment, to combating pseudo-intellectualism and the artfag plague, is always one: death. Violence is the answer to every problem — the only answer. The first and last solution. Everything else is compromise; which is to say retreat, bargaining, defeat.

>85. Why is violence always the solution? A solution is a way forward, and the way forward by definition flows. But violence is also flow. The proposition is a tautology: flow is always flow — and if you want to be even more obnoxiously obvious about it you could add, "because it flows". The best solution, because it flows the most.

>161. I've no idea what it's like to scribble rubbish that will be instantly forgotten; how could I hope to ever truly understand anyone else? And how could they hope to understand someone whose every word, the moment he has set it down, becomes immortal.

>188. You are never closer to someone, than when you are fucking or killing them.

>>8610339
Again this all true, even if it's ridiculously cringeworthy

>>8609365
>postmodernist reporting in for his daily shitpost

File: 1475231726435.jpg (226KB, 700x1060px)

226KB, 700x1060px

>mfw this thread

/lit/ is the fakest board in this cesspool

>>8610649
We are just a Baudrillard experiment.

>>8610649
What replies would you have needed for /lit/ to be 'real'?

>>8610632
Zizek looks like one of those really sad dogs that can barely breathe.

File: kolakowski.jpg (45KB, 443x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 443x640px

Leszek Kołakowski of course.

File: Hezi.png (34KB, 604x175px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 604x175px

>>8610631
What's postmodernism got to do with anything?

>>8610477

Nah man, the violence one makes no fucking sense whatsoever, equivocating violence with flow.

I mean jesus fucking christ, how does this guy go about his daily life if the solution to literally everything that needs to be solved is violence?

And the fucking dueling pistols, jesus.

>>8610658

My entire life is Baudrillardian performance art.

EPICTETUS

SIMPLE AND POWERFUL

>>8610776
Those aren't even the best ones:

>378. The only sensible way to travel to third-world countries is as part of an occupation force.

>349. "And why, then, must I ultimately die?" Because that is the only way to be reborn.

>313. This "we", this fatal "we" is mankind's greatest error.

>662. Why does it feel good to talk to a girl while fucking her? It's yet another level on which to touch each other, and if you don't you are seriously missing out.

>386. With Heraclitus something begins, while with me that something ends, and that something is philosophy.

This guy's ego is the size of Jupiter.

>>8610806
>true
>true
>meme
>true
>meme
eh, seen much worse

>>8610806
Oh, and:

>658. The first minute or so of Michael Mann's Blackhat captures the concept of the flux better than any other work of art so far. That's exactly how I think; but to think like that you have to be a genius.

This is some extreme self delusion.

>>8610817
lol

>631. Why all the racial and ethnic and sexist slurs, many of you will wonder? Because it's every man's responsibility today, to go around calling people fags and gooks and niggers, and so on. Because none of them are equal to us, end of story. And the sooner they realize this, the sooner they can start trying to catch up. So please lend me a hand and help me help them do so. Calling people fags and niggers saves lives

>>8610208
>sophist
You mean rhetorician? Or am I being baited?

>Any philosopher ever saw himself as the greatest, rather than one of a great community striving for universal rather than subjective truth in a morass of plebeian reductionist retardation.

Fuck you, OP, fuck you.

>>8610756
What did he ever write other than dude marxism sucks lmao and dude religion rocks lmao

>>8610918
There are writers who feel like they should point out that marxism is shit? Isn't it like common sense?

Does anyone else think that the West still never surpassed Greek philosophy?

>>8610942
Why do you think this?

>>8609231
This, just sweep me up desu.

>>8610977
Because he started with the Greeks, had no idea where to go from there and Hegel, Kant and all the others are much too complicated

>>8609179
It's me. I'm taking my secrets to the grave though.

>>8610873
That's an odd form of racism or prejudice. He believes that they're inferior but could possibly be up to his level even though their race stays the same. Usually racists just think they're born that way and aren't capable of changing.

>>8611029
An ASTUTE observation my fellow redditor XD

File: pepe punch.png (65KB, 500x482px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x482px

>>8609179
>Philosophy is objective

File: 1475905460885.png (272KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 785x757px

>>8611382
>philosophy is subjective

HHH.

>>8611392
>>8611382

>>8610771

>>8611401
If I see that slimy hipster on the street I'm going to bash his skull in

>>8611392
>>8611382
dumb frogposters

>>8611429
shut the fuck up

>>8610776
It's not that everything NEEDS to be solved with violence, but everything WILL be solved with violence.

Violence, or the threat of violence, is the only thing that will restrain most human beings. And the one's who legitimately don't need that, would be driven by violence under the right circumstances.

Religious morality is still defined by the threat of unimaginable violence in the supposed afterlife.

It's not really difficult to understand why people should want to solve problems with immediate violence (avoiding beating around the bush). It seems more genuine.

I don't think anyone can honestly admit they don't want to beat the shit out of people of whom they disagree with politcally and/or philosophically.

The beauty is that on a macroscopic level, the correct mentality will prevail through violent intervention eventually.

I browsed reddit.
Found r/badphilosophy

It's like I'm on /lit/, they tear down Sam Harris every other post.

>>8611590
They just circlejerk zizek and repeat the same exact fallacies that still get repeated here to this day

>>8611610
What's their core philosophy?
Are they SJWs?

>>8609179
Top few:
Plato
Aurelius
Hegel
Kant
Schopenhauer
Wittgenstein

>>8611638
>Plato
>not Aristotle

>Aurelius
>not Zeno who actually developed Stoicism

b8 harder

>>8611638
Can't believe I forgot Soren - he should be one there too. I guess Stirner too because he is essentially the person who proposed a system that is (theoretically) a response to any other philosophy.

>>8611624
There's no "core" philosophy, but they circlejerk zizek even more than here

>>8611641
Aristotle didn't exist :^) and Aurelius over Zeno because he presented a collection of Stoic concepts.

>>8611646
I mean, are they SJWs?

>>8611649
Don't seem like it, but they're pretty close I'd say

Ayn Rand
either her or Lao Zhu

>>8611658
Idk they always seem to make fun anyone that tries to ridicule feminism or SJWs in general.

They never ever say anything bad about countless feminists.

>>8611670
Probably because it's a counterculture of a counterculture, when you go so far /pol/ you go full circle and revert to being a commie

>>8609245
Don't basically all philosophers get ideas from others?

File: Ayn-Rand-.png (346KB, 451x451px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 451x451px

>>8611675
The only thing /pol/ has in common with commies are collectivist ideas.

>>8611698
There have been recently full communist threads on there though
/pol/ aside
realistically speaking, isn't national socialism actually better than communism?

>>8611721
Both depend on the head of the state, but communism has a higher chance of failure and at least national socialism isn't infected by passivist idealogies that tell you to not worry if your national identity, culture or race is getting wiped out, because they're all "pure ideology"

>>8611756
>passivist

keep your national identity to yourself, for the sake of your countrywomen.

>>8611756

>higher chance of failure
youre not falling for a gambler fallacy, are you? im sure you arent referring to bayes theorem either. too mad about minorities having sex with "your" women. gtfo plz.

and yes, samefag as >>8611765

>>8611765
It's a word I guess, why are qouting that?

>>8611774
>too mad about minorities having sex with "your" women. gtfo plz.
lol grow up you literal retard

File: socialism.jpg (96KB, 850x400px)

96KB, 850x400px

>>8611721
Not really.

>>8611782
but capitalism is bad, zizek told me so

>>8611774
please tell me this is b8

>>8611785
Crony capitalism is bad.

no love for my nigga spinoza?

File: Spinoza.jpg (174KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 720x720px

>>8611865
Love that guy.
His view on God is essentially how I see God; simply another name for causality.

When you deny the need for an entity that created the Prime Mover due to the endless chain of who was the first mover and relating it to another previous mover with the axiom that existence exist and and leave it at that, there is nothing to suggest the existence of an entity that can break the chain of causality.

Leibniz tried to correct him but just argued from a bottom up view whereas Spinoza looked at nature from a top down. Both basically ended up arguing the same point in my opinion.

>>8611556
>Religious morality is still defined by the threat of unimaginable violence in the supposed afterlife.
Top kek, no it's not.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 1747x2586px)

2MB, 1747x2586px

Not sure if it's possible to select a single greatest, but any group of greatests would probably have to include Kant.

How can the human mind think of or imagine existence apart from the human mind's powers for thinking of and imagining existence?

File: ayn rand+.jpg (24KB, 288x288px)

24KB, 288x288px

>>8612096
By existing.

>>8611890
Finally a sane man.

Dawkins

File: Nietzsche187c.jpg (2MB, 1956x2940px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1956x2940px

Not even a debate

File: ayn rand will eat your soul.png (37KB, 225x225px)

37KB, 225x225px

>>8612212
>it is your duty to help the weak

File: st-thomas-aquinas.gif (106KB, 320x420px)

106KB, 320x420px

>>8609179

File: 1461885759985.jpg (145KB, 500x453px)

145KB, 500x453px

refer to this image

File: image.jpg (957KB, 2110x3257px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 2110x3257px

>>8612096
>>8612127

> How can the human mind think of or imagine existence apart from the human mind's powers for thinking of and imagining existence?

> By existing.

Seems like that might just beg the question. In the course of your existence as a human subject, you are only conscious (thinking, imagining, sensing) of things via your innate mental capacities for thought, imagination, sensation. How can you possibly have knowledge of X, or even imagine X, as X would be independently of those subjective mental powers?

>>8611890
>When you deny the need for an entity that created the Prime Mover due to the endless chain of who was the first mover and relating it to another previous mover with the axiom that existence exist and and leave it at that, there is nothing to suggest the existence of an entity that can break the chain of causality.
what

File: 1452373556330.jpg (133KB, 717x508px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 717x508px

>>8612096
>Implying the human mind is presently complete.
>Implying the human mind as we know it isn't just an abstraction.

>>8612271
See >>8612253

Who created God? God always existed or was created by another God, etc. Unmoved mover.
What created the Big Bang then? etc. Causality always reverts backwards ad infinitum. So you just cut it and say existence exist. The only way to obtain that knowledge would be to go outside of reality. For nature to venture outside of the realms of nature.
There is only reality as your axiom and leave it at that.

God is simply an entity that can manipulate causality. The God of the sea, the God of the win, ect, are all aspects of causality. God is simply the embodiment of all of causality. And if someone is able to manipulate or break causality (say a miracle like parting the red sea) that makes such an entity a God for being able to change causality in a manner that is outside the possibility of causality. Unless it is within the means of causality, like someone using some science-y gizmo that makes it indistinguishable from magic.

When someone prays to a God for something, they are simply praying for the causal events to benefit them in a way they desire in the hopes that an entity can manipulate causality in a beneficiary way that is indisguishable from the natural world operating within its natural means.
This is why a true miracle is considered to be something that is impossible within the natural laws of reality. Or when some patient somehow survives despite scientist, people who understand and can replicate causality, are unable to understand how this has happened. Was it the act of an entity that can manipulate causality or an unknown causal link?

Spinoza claimed that God is nature but I just go step above that and claim that God is simply causality. Everything that man wrote was great.

>>8612259
you diogenesfags truly are the worst

inb4 "rank order is a spook"

File: image.jpg (101KB, 437x600px)

101KB, 437x600px

>>8612273

> Implying the human mind is presently complete.

Good point (if you meant the following) that the human species is continually evolving, and "the human mind" is not necessarilyan everlasting constant. But does this mean that your individual mind - the foundation of the private and immediate experience of your whole living existence and knowledge - is not complete?

> Implying the human mind as we know it isn't just an abstraction.

Not necessarily; any generality is an abstraction. "The human mind" is an abstract term - but each individual mind is a real, non-abstract thing. (In fact, abstraction only occurs as accomplished by an actual, individual mind - no?)

File: Ayn Rand.png (305KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 512x512px

>>8612269
All knowledge is derived from perception, and a judgment can be “validated” only by tracing it to its foundations at the perceptual level. Rationalist hold that we can deduce knowledge from concepts acquired without the help of perception, whereas empiricism holds that we can gain propositional knowledge from experience without the help of concepts. Neither is possible, while the senses provide the raw material of knowledge, conceptual processing is needed to establish knowable propositions.

The acquisition of knowledge is a process of differentiation and integration of discriminating among objects of awareness on the basis of their differences, and then uniting the discriminated phenomena into a cognitively graspable whole. The process begins at the perceptual level as sensations, when entities are differentiated from their surroundings and integrated as unified wholes

Attributes and actions are secondary; they make sense only as actions and attributes of entities. This does not mean, however, that entities are bare substrata underlying their attributes. There is no such thing as existence other than as some definite thing with a specific identity; identity is the form that existence takes. Hence an entity just is the totality of its attributes

There are two senses of entity. In the narrow sense, an entity is an object whose unity is independent of our consciousness. The comparison of entities is similar to Aristotelian primary substances and can be regarded as the basic ontological constituents of reality. In the broader sense, an entity is anything we choose to consider apart from its surroundings, even if it has no more unity than what we give it in so considering it as when we attend either to parts of entities or to groups of entities.

Entities in the narrow sense have their entity status metaphysically, and presumably intrinsically apart from their relationship to our consciousness. Entities in the broad sense may have their entity status only epistemologically, only in relation to consciousness. Their status as existent however, remains metaphysical. They really exist apart from our manner of considering them, even if they do not exist as entities apart from our manner of considering them. Our perceptual faculties place us in direct contact with reality. The objects of perception are extramental entities

The validity of sense-perception is not susceptible of proof, because it is presupposed by all proof, since proof just is a matter of adducing sensory evidence. Nor can its validity be denied or questioned, since the very conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data and so presuppose their validity. Hence perceptual error is not strictly possible though it is possible to misinterpret perceptual evidence and phenomena that many would regard as perceptual illusions or as correct perceptions misinterpreted like optical illusions) or as non-perceptions mistaken for perceptions like dreams

>>8612332
>But does this mean that your individual mind - the foundation of the private and immediate experience of your whole living existence and knowledge - is not complete?
If it were already complete then none of these experiences c/would happen. Existence is necessarily a game of two. The closest thing you can approach to completion is death, but that's only for the personal aspect of being, and even then only a specific part of it.

>"The human mind" is an abstract term - but each individual mind is a real, non-abstract thing.
Abstract things are not unreal. They are simply general, directory things; of course there's a pattern the abstraction responds to, but patterns are by definition plural. But let's not get into body-mind dualism here: echoes are still sound.

>abstraction only occurs as accomplished by an actual, individual mind - no?
In what sense? The mind is a thing, but it's isolation is obviously not total. Otherwise how would it even come into contact with anything else?

>>8612305
I understand, but why do you find enlightening about it? Most of it seems pretty evident.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 453x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 453x600px

>>8612337

Firstly, have you read in any depth (about) any philosophers besides Rand?

Secondly, why don't you cite your sources when you copy from them?

Thirdly:

> In the narrow sense, an entity is an object whose unity is independent of our consciousness.

This seems to assume that a physical, spatiotemporal object can exist independently of human consciousness - and this is thevery assumption that Kant argues against in depth. Again, the Randian position here seems to be simply begging the question.

> The comparison of entities is similar to Aristotelian primary substances and can be regarded as the basic ontological constituents of reality.

For Aristotle, primary substances are physical individuals - particular objects in time and space. These are the very objects that, according to Kant's arguments, do not exist independently of human minds; Kant's arguments aren't necessarily flawless, but if we're to expose his flaws we need more than mere assertions to the contrary. If the "similarity" (as opposed to an exact recapitulation) between Aristotle's and Rand's metaphysics allows for Rand to overcome Kant's arguments better than Aristotle could, then I'd be interested to read some details about how this is so.

> Entities in the narrow sense have their entity status metaphysically, and presumably intrinsically apart from their relationship to our consciousness.

> presumably

>>8612470
I dunno. I just find it cool that someone who lived more than 300 years ago has the same opinion as I did on the nature of God.

>>8612474
>This seems to assume that a physical, spatiotemporal object can exist independently of human consciousness
Absolutely. Existence exist.
If a tree falls and humanity is dead, it will still make a sound even if there is no one there to hear it.

Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Existence is identity and consciousness is identification.

>These are the very objects that, according to Kant's arguments, do not exist independently of human minds;
Because Kant can't (hue hue) accept that existence exist independent of man's consciousness, even if we need consciousness to perceive existence. He denies that existence cannot exist without the presence of consciousness.

Kant cannot give proof that existence does not exist without human perception, only supposes that existence would not exist without being perceived.

All time greats:

Plato

Spinoza

Hume

Kant

Nietzsche

Wittgenstein

Heidegger

File: image.jpg (605KB, 2000x3177px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 2000x3177px

>>8612548

If you are the anon who posted >>8612337 then I'm still interested in responses to my first two questions:

> have you read in any depth (about) any philosophers besides Rand?

> why don't you cite your sources when you copy from them?

Moving on...

> Existence exist. If a tree falls and humanity is dead, it will still make a sound even if there is no one there to hear it.

I don't think you appreciate the way in which Kant distinguishes between two senses of "existence" (or, more technically, two senses of "being"). Namely, being-as-appearance (phenomena, basically) versus being-in-itself (noumena, basically). Phenomenal existence is the domain of physical reality, in which trees fall and makes sounds even if nobody is there to hear it - but that does not mean that trees and sounds, being physical objects/processes, are independent of human minds. If space and time are only ways in which human minds organize raw sense data, then the existence of everything within space and time will depend on human minds. This is what Kant argues in detail for - that space and time are only organizing functions innate to human minds, and not existing apart from human minds. Apart from human minds (thus apart from space and time), there are beings - but such beings are not physical, not perceived, not known. These are things-in-themselves.

> If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something.

Kant actually agrees with this - but he incorporates these principles into a different philosophical system from the one you're defending.

> Because Kant can't (hue hue) accept that existence exist independent of man's consciousness, even if we need consciousness to perceive existence. He denies that existence cannot exist without the presence of consciousness.

This isn't quite right. Again, we need to distinguish the physical (empirical) level from the transcendental level. Kant *does* accept - insists, in fact - that there is a domain of being that does not depend on human minds; this is the domain of things-in-themselves. What Kant does not accept, based on his arguments, is that the domain of being-as-representation (spatiotemporal reality) exists apart from human consciousness. The physical earth, the sun and stars, the flow of time and even the human body are only the way that the domain of being-in-itself appears when mediated by, structured in, the innate forms of human cognition.

File: image.jpg (615KB, 2000x2562px)

615KB, 2000x2562px

>>8612548

> Kant cannot give proof that existence does not exist without human perception, only supposes that existence would not exist without being perceived.

Are you even familiar with the different arguments Kant gives to defend the thesis that space, time, and all of physical existence is only representation within human minds? Do you think he just asserted, without defense, that the spatiotemporal universe has no being apart from human conscuousness?

>>8612694
Remove Plato
If Nietszche is there Hegel and Kierkegaard also deserve to be.

>>8611721
When you realize Fascism was the beginning of something great and when you see the inevitable end game of Fascism as something beyond even Fascism itself then you have to accept the fact that this is why both the powers of Mob and Money - Communism and Capitalism sought its destruction.

It is the only ideology that would have spared humanity its annihilation as we now face.

File: image.jpg (21KB, 281x451px)

21KB, 281x451px

>>8612444

> If it were already complete then none of these experiences c/would happen.

Then I think we're using different conceptions of "completeness." In this conctext, I think of a "complete" human mind as one that functions with all the necessary capacities for experience of the physical world, memory, imagination, etc. one that, in other words, has no deprivations that we'd diagnose as atypical, unhealthy.

> Abstract things are not unreal

By "real" I mean not merely imagined and not merely conceived (as "Pegasus" or "golden mountain" could be), but actual; a real thing exists even when it is not separated in thought from the rest of reality, and not invented in some fantasy of imagination. I think it's clear that your ondivudal consciousness, your personal self, is "real," is "actual," in this sense; that is, your self precedes all acts of imagination and abstraction - in fact, it performs such acts.

>>abstraction only occurs as accomplished by an actual, individual mind - no?

>In what sense? The mind is a thing, but it's isolation is obviously not total. Otherwise how would it even come into contact with anything else?

In the sense that there are no bare abstractions floating around out there without minds that are doing such abstracting; there are no brute generalizations, brute concepts, that are not a function of some mind. No thinking without a thinker - the former being a modification, a state, a determination, of the latter. This doesn't imply (in any way that is obvious to me) that any abstraction, or any thinking, or any mental process of any kind occurs without something that is independent, "external," to the mind in question. If there were only a single, individual mind, with nothing apart from it with which it could relate, then I don't see how this mind could imagine or think or be conscious in any way.

I think Hegel might disagree - but maybe only regarding a mind that is universal and/or absolute rather than "individual." I haven't read his original works to be more sure.

File: bodhidharma-quotes-2273.png (11KB, 485x1285px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 485x1285px

>>8612756
>I think of a "complete" human mind as one that functions with all the necessary capacities for experience of the physical world
My point is that the physical world is one of those requirements. That the form of the world implies that of the mind as much as viceversa. As such, the mind is can't be said to the "whole of the world", because to go to such extremes would be to render the statement pointless, a non-statement. Therefore, as it's not total, the mind is necessarily partial: that is to say that it always perceives only a part of the whole, and this gets proven when you go back or forwards into time--and it is only though the factor of Time that this happens. This is why it isn't "presently" complete.

This of course has physical ramifications. Certain conditions will affect the mind like they do the body. So when you say "all the necessary capacities for experience of the physical world", what are those capabilities? How do you know that you know all of them? If we're talking about private experience (in the political sense), then of course, non-private experience is a requirement of it, it is its boundary--and here we see how deep the ramifications of our history go into deeper thought: the concepts of ownership, of personhood, individuality, are very specific ones, developped through religious, artistic, economic relations. We only need to change the metaphores with which we think to shake the whole foundation.

Conditioned. Thoughly conditioned.

>a real thing exists even when it is not separated in thought from the rest of reality
Could you reformulate this? I can't finish grasping it.

>No thinking without a thinker - the former being a modification, a state, a determination, of the latter.
I disagree that thought is a modification of the thinker. The arise together. To suppose otherwise is to bring about a third party that mativates the thinker, or to go back into the infinite retraction of the prime mover.

>If there were only a single, individual mind, with nothing apart from it with which it could relate, then I don't see how this mind could imagine or think or be conscious in any way.
Precisely by generation something it lacks, then something that is complete can be conceived.

>>8609191
My mom is a leftist SJW democrat the people's history cultural marxist feminist multicultural refugees are welcome din do muffin, and all the other bad words, who unironically likes Rand because she is a woman. Life in America.

>>8612945
That just means she cares more about her genitals than her masters--or more precisely that she's more of a slave to her genitals.

>>8609179

Jesus Christ.

>>8612827
>>8612756
>>8612717
>>8612701
>>8612548
>>8612474
>>8612444
>>8612337
>>8612332
>>8612305
>>8612273
>>8612271
>>8612269
>>8612127
>>8612096
Holy shit just give me a TLDR

Anaximander

>>8609179
Virtue ethics is an interesting ethical theory and I think easier to work with as a theory if everyone in a society adopted it ahead of Consequentialism and Deontologism.

>>8609188
I haven't read it, but I read a few chapters of The World.

>>8609191
I have only read We and I remember it being interesting.

>>8609200
Who

>>8609231
Are you Christian

>>8609242
In theory he's awful

>>8609252
Not that great

>>8609633
I figured as much. I've never been here before though

>>8610339
Well, not necessarily death itself, but the possibility of death is what makes life worthwhile again, what seizes it sharply into focus. It's what Fight Club film was about.

161 is pretty egotistical, not that that's a bad thing. 188 makes sense in theory, but not solid upon inspection. A soldier in the field is not close to their target but is close to the man beside him who shares in his peril, who is just as close to the brink of death as he himself is.

>>8613079
>188 makes sense in theory, but not solid upon inspection. A soldier in the field is not close to their target but is close to the man beside him who shares in his peril, who is just as close to the brink of death as he himself is.
I think he was reffering to the fact that you never actually touch someone even when you do touch them because there's a microscopic layer of molecules on the skin that prevent you from doing that, so unless you get inside of the person you're technically not touching them

>>8610683
More obscurity or actual reasoning behind one's choices. It's far too easy to reach for low hanging fruit like Hegel, Marx, Plato, Nietzsche, or Foucault, even still for philosophers like Sartre, Bakunin (so considered), Chomsky, or Zizek, and when you do, it is a fairly stong indicator that you are not in fact well read enough to offer your judgement as a valid opinion: it shows that you're a pleb who finds philosophy interesting but could not ever yourself become a philosopher for lack of sufficient mental ability to distinguish between sound, accurate, practical philosophy and fanciful, pleasant, yet dubious sophistry.

And so more thoughtful answers or more mention of rarely mentioned names would be an expression of a real literati lurking the board. I have heard of most of the names ITT and see far to many images posted without accompanying walls of text.

If you're a black man and you willingly let your white wife get rammed by another black man is that cuckoldry, or just allout comradery.

>>8613098
Depends if you're a leftie or not

>>8610806
Out of context quotes usually present themselves badly, and this is no exception. It's intruiging regardless, I might check some of it out later, although the bullshit about PUA and game will be definitely annoying.

>>8610873
>sensible_smirk.gif

>>8611455
Dubs but you're dumb; it's a meme ya dip

>>8611556
I agree with everything and it's a shame you were one off.

>>8609179
Varg Vikernes desu

>>8613088
Doesn't make sense for the "killing someone" part, guy.

>>8613098
What do you think?

>>8612743
Defend or explain it, then.

>>8612694
Shallow list that should not be taken seriously.

>>8612259
It's a shame we don't have his words to read. I'd be interested in applying cynic philosophy to my life.

>>8612212
Genealogy was tedious as shit. I could not force myself to read it, so pretentious.

>>8613128
this

>>8609179
Big Lenny

>>8613236
this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srer1F-tLXQ

File: Theodore_Roosevelt_laughing.jpg (769KB, 2849x3474px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 2849x3474px

>>8613328
>That's the thing about trannies! If a man can make himself look that hot, how come so many of these women are so disgusting?

>>8610658
Dont wake the snakeys

>>8609845
>>8609868
Fucking Icy, completely forgot about him.

Bob Dylan

>anyone other than Foucault, Deleuze or Derrida

Heh.

>>8609179
Bob Dylan

>>8613117
What do you mean it's a shame that I was one off?

File: 1475169741065.jpg (122KB, 1191x802px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1191x802px

>>8613373
>>8613328
>>8613236
I approve of all this

His apprentice Don Janoy "Giovanni" Cresva also considered

>>8614885
Goddamn
WHY are they even competing?

>>8609179
Heraclitus

File: monkey prick and the tom platz of abs.jpg (217KB, 1773x922px)

217KB, 1773x922px

>>8614981
Because sometimes nobody shows up and you win, idiot.

Lenny does it to impose his freaky will on the world though, he's very Schopenhauerian.

>>8615036
Are they natty?

>>8615042
genova does look natty

File: 1472571949314.png (249KB, 640x642px)

249KB, 640x642px

>>8615042
Nope. Giovanni does at the very least fancy designer orals he gets from Coath Pyjamas and Lenny was talking about running clen lately. It's also pretty obvious that Lenny has experimented with a little bit of everything in his career as a lifter.

>>8615063
Is genova mentally retarded?

File: dressing business like busines man you tube star mellonare ceo.jpg (76KB, 960x721px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 960x721px

>>8615073
pls bro not in the am, stop talk shit!

he ocd, add, dyslexia NOT autism! Right mom?

File: 1476367998010s.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>>8609179

>>8613093
Who, in your opinion, is the greatest philosopher of all time?

>>8609845
Tbh a lot of what Icy says is actually true, it's just written in an extremely pretentious way which makes it impossible to take seriously.

And, of course, there's not a single original idea to found anyway.

>>8612718
How can people take Hegel seriously? He was a delirious retard, an important one but still a delirious retard

>>8615579
Why?

>>8615081
This

ctrl+f derrida

1 result

?

File: seneca_360x450_0.jpg (77KB, 360x450px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 360x450px

POAT

>>8609179
Jesus Christ and king Solomon.

Derrida

Derrida XD

>>8612827

Bumping so I can respond to this tomorrow.

>>8610942
That is obviously just true. Later philosophers dropped all the hard parts of Greek philosophy, and just clung onto the easy problems of experience, language, meta-ethics, and ontology.

God tier: Plato

Great tier: Aristotle, Hegel

3rd tier: Heraclitus, Kant, Kierkegaard, Descartes, Rousseau

......

nth tier: Aurelius, Wittgenstein, Cicero, Derrida, Kripke, Gadamer, Aquinas, etc

Shit tier: Anselm, Anaxagoras, Chalmers

>>8613571
>Heh easy relativism and historicism
>fun cuz we don't have to actually say anything
>just puns and etymologies

>>8614859
from trips

>>8616451
>Descartes and Rosseau above anybody
>Plato on top
Stop it this instant

>>8616451
cicero isn't even a philosopher

>>8616451
you fucking romantic

File: 160118134132-donald-trump-nigel-parry-large-169.jpg (21KB, 460x259px)

21KB, 460x259px

"I'm a gorilla-dick nigger"

File: 1474516269966.jpg (32KB, 653x490px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 653x490px

>>8615403
I haven't read enough to make that sort of judgement, but I guarantee you it is not as easy a call as people think or shitposters make it out to be. I don't think there's any legitimate criteria we could use to make the judgement objectively, anyway, because when you get down to it, you will find that almost every single point is an arbitrary matter.

Personally, I value the insight philosophy gives me into the way the world works or is. Out of all the actual philosophers who have done it as a career and not just thought deeply and wrote/made a video about those thoughts, I would say Sartre with "Existentialism is a Humanism" was the most sensible, compelling, influential piece I've ever read. I thought a lot about the meaning of life when I was younger and being at the tail end of Generation Y and growing up into this world I felt aimless and without purpose.

After coming to believe that there was no meaning to find apart from what I made myself, I still ended up being without a clear place in history for myself, but I was sent on a search for one that has brought me to the outskirts of commonsense, where I've caught glimpses of the future possibilities, and I no longer feel as if I'm trapped in a corral from which there is no escape.

It was a pretty big turning point at the time, although I can't draw as much inspiration from it today. Sartre is by no means the greatest philosopher of all time, yet no one else has something as interesting to say.

>>8616651
bait

>>8616899
>bait
What makes you say that?

The greatest thinker of all times, in my opinion, is Aristotle. Everything, in his work, is defined with wonderful clarity and simplicity. Later, volumes were written to define the same things.

>>8609188
It's pretty accurate tbhfam

>>8609868
>606. Why is sex often better with the lights out? For the same reason music videos, if the music's any good, are better without the video. Think about it.

>>8609868
>Betas follow rules. Alphas make the rules. Sigmas laugh at rules. It is clear which group the philosopher belongs in, and in which he'd like to belong.
Ripped from the mouth of Socrates himself

File: Plato.jpg (6KB, 184x196px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 184x196px

>>8609179

File: 1431830654325.jpg (23KB, 500x550px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x550px

I believe philosophies limits were reached by Stirner. Egoism negates every philosophical argument.

>>8610806
Why would he place Heraclitus at the beginning? I mean, the guy was preceded by Thales and Anaximander. Not to mention we don't know if he actually figured out shit since we have no coherent work by him other than fragmentary riddler bullshit.

>>8617127
If you look at it pragmatically it's pretty retarded, since it solves no problems and responds to all arguments with "spook". It's so vague that it can be readily applied to anything.

Bob Dylan

File: 1472316329900.jpg (200KB, 400x534px)

200KB, 400x534px

>>8612096
Remember when good ol Schopie cucked him? Good times.

>>8609868
I'm not sure why so many idiots think aphorisms are a good tool for instruction. They're often too short to adequately explain an idea, heavily focused on being ostentatious, and frankly, not arranged in a cogent order (instead just being some dipshit's notebook scribbles arranged in random order). Like, they're shallow, vague and often collected in a disjointed manner that prevents any person coming to the material from really being able to focus on a concept for too long. I think they can be done well (Laozi did well, but that's because the aphorisms were arranged in an order that made sense and dispensed with the theater).

Frankly the allegory is a better tool and it's notable that many of the writers that used it's writing or teaching persists longer in the public consciousness.

Is it just because saying random punchy invective is easier than writing a cohesive metaphorical narrative that holds up to scrutiny or is there something I'm missing?

>>8609191
HAHAHAHAHAHA

>>8616457
>I can't comprehend post-structuralism so I'm going to shit on it!

never change /lit/

Im sure no one has said Aristotle because OP already posted it, but Aristotle was the greatest philosopher of all time.

>>8609179
That is an impossible question to answer.

>>8617508
The classic "you disagree with it because you don't understand it!" meme is getting a little old.

File: mah nigga.jpg (1MB, 1300x1740px)

1MB, 1300x1740px

Marx is a close second

>>8617518
B-but John Green said he was an idiot.

>>8617652
It's getting old because people don't like to understand what they are rejecting.

>>8617656
Hey this actually annoyed me.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 216x275px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 216x275px

>>8616949

> Everything, in his work, is defined with wonderful clarity and simplicity.

Really? De Anima chapter 3 verse 5, for example?

File: image.jpg (52KB, 341x418px)

52KB, 341x418px

>>8617300

What arguments do you have in mind?

Robertus Zimmermanus

>>8617271
>and responds to all arguments with "spook"
confirmed for not understanding what is actually meant by spook.

>>8611782
What a stupid fucking quote, even by her standards

>>8618209
Why?

>>8609806
this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7XJIioZEgQ

>>8617033
>Think about it
>Think about it
>Think about it
my sides holy fuck

>>8617033
I don't get it

>>8618404
Sex is like an electric guitar: greatly improved with a little feedback, totally ruined with too much.

>>8618408
?????????????????????????????????

>>8613573
high kek

>>8610253
amen
BASED LUDWIG

>>8617127
yeah until a group of others collectivize and overpower you/your ego, fucking retard

File: image.jpg (155KB, 457x600px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 457x600px

>>8612827

> My point is that the physical world is one of those requirements.

Continuing to write from Kant's perspective, the physical world is a requirement for the physical brain and the rest of the human body (your brain doesn't only depend on the physical universe for its nutrients and perceptual stimulation, but plausibly even for its "evolution"); but your mind is not strictly identical with your physical brain and/or your brain's physical processes. Your mind transcends the physical world, as time and space as you know them, and all objects you know within them, are only representations generated by your mind (in relation with things-in-themselves that are independent of your mind). Human bodies depend on the physical world, but this is only the level of empirical reality, of appearance, phenomena; the reality of this physical dependence itself further depends on the transcendental priority of your mind with its innate forms of consciousness.

> That the form of the world implies that of the mind as much as viceversa.

Kant didn't see such an equal reciprocity; again, he'd argue that the mind imposes its transcendental forms onto the world, generating the law-governed orderliness of empirical nature, but that this is a one-way street, so to speak. The domain of phenomena (thought of as a whole) is a consequence of noumena, but not vice versa. Interestingly, Schopenhauer altered Kant's principles to claim a reciprocal dependence between transcendental subject and empirical world, seeing them as together a phenomenal manifestation of one (*meta*physically) single thing-in-itself.

> the mind is can't be said to the "whole of the world"

As Kant would agree; there is not an absolute identity between your mind and the world of your individual knowledge, insofar as the elements that ground that world are not just the forms of your own transcendental mind, but also the things-in-themselves apart from your mind that only register in your mind as raw sense data (this data being structured, formed, by your mind into the objects that your mind knows).

> Therefore, as it's not total, the mind is necessarily partial: that is to say that it always perceives only a part of the whole, and this gets proven when you go back or forwards into time

We again seem to be thinking of "completeness" in different ways. By "complete mind" I don't mean a mind that encompasses all of existence, knowing all objects simultaneously without separation from past and future moments of time. I mean a mind that, though experiencing its own spatial and temporal parts of the universe that all humans together share, experiences its objects with a wholly functioning cognitive apparatus; leaving aside whatever variable objects might be added to this complete mind in the course of its experience, the point is that no innate parts of this mind itself are missing or malfunctioning, and that's what makes it "complete."

Your next question's excellent, but I've got to break.

File: Epictetus-Feature.jpg (153KB, 400x453px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 400x453px

I don't know about the greatest, but he was a the most practical

File: image.jpg (74KB, 523x734px)

74KB, 523x734px

>>8612827

>This of course has physical ramifications. Certain conditions will affect the mind like they do the body.

Solid point - and I'm not sure how Kant would respond to this. Though he may have addressed it in a work I haven't read, "On the Maladies of the Head."

> So when you say "all the necessary capacities for experience of the physical world", what are those capabilities? How do you know that you know all of them?

This isan excellent question, because I think it touches on a technique that underlies much of Kant's philosophy. Kant invites you to take your individual experience, the objects and events that you know, and guides you through an investigation of the necessary preconditions of that experience; he then infers that the conclusions of this investigation tell you something about the nature of all human minds. But if your indiviudual mind were somehow atypical, or even malfunctioning, then I'm not sure how he could convince you that it's *your* individual mind that's off, and that it's the majority of other minds that are healthy. Again, you only have immediate access to. Your own private experience, and this is a privileged source of evidence in Kant's methodology.

>>8609845
>Anthony Zyrmpus

Where can I read these aphorisms? This shit is hilarious but google turns up only 1 random forum that I dont feel like flipping through as a result.


Also, Nietzsche

>>8613131
>Genealogy was tedious.

Kys Nihilist tripfag. Or stick to your ideals and stop posting anything ever again until you get out of your gay funk

>>8618059
Heidegger COMPLETELY BTFO'd Kant in everything, so you cant technically or honestly consider Kant to be the best.

File: truth-be-told.jpg (90KB, 1280x752px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1280x752px

>>8620973
I could only stand /shit/ for half a day before I decided to leave. I'm never posting here again but I happened to still have this tab open and see you have replied to me.

1. You see a tripcode?
2. No point.
3. You are probably a dumb faggot who sucks massive sophist cock and rides the dick of any writer hallowed by the all-knowing-and-wise /lit/erati whose shit you so eagerly and earnestly gobble and regurgitate. Maybe after wiping your tongue clean with toilet paper torn from the pages of introductory philosophy compendiums will you realize how irrationally and stupidly you have long cogitated bullshit. Go take the leap of faith off your nearest Barnes & Noble, mouthbreathing pence-wit.

File: tmp_1085-14760369604011860324893.jpg (64KB, 540x820px)

64KB, 540x820px

>>8621200
>smoking-clove-cig.jpg

Yeah, you're definitely around 19-20. You'll grow out of it and realize how wrong you were. Good to hear that you're done posting here.

Now run along, nihilist, you have much to learn by not caring about what meaninglessly happens here

>>8620965
>can't even find the link that's already been posted ITT

Give up, the Overman's work is not for you.

I fucking love dxm

>>8622744
Lololol, it's okay. What dex plateau are you on?

>>8622811
300 tho i thought i would have serotonin syndrome, i have pretty comfy mental illness instead. Btw is dxm foundation for most of philosophy and literature?

>>8622881
Lol nah, but 300 isnt that high, not even a full bottle so you're alright as long as thats the only active ingredient.

I think 2000mg is when you need to watch out, but I dont go past a high 2ns plateau usually (1.5 bottles). And that was just back in the day.


Probably not lol, but dissociatives can allow one to understand things about cognition and perception and ego so it could be useful for lit/phil

>>8622881
And yeah it's kind of an odd high. I hear ketamine is a much more comfy dissociative, but eh, cant overdo it. Just a once in a blue moon thing

>>8622881
Well 300 is a good dose actually. Usually a full bottle is 354 mg, which is still a low or mid 2nd plateau depending on your body weight

>>8622990
Lol i know i am during ssri therapy so thats a risk i meant

>>8610785
True. Stoicism is a gift to mankind.

>>8609188
#repealthe19th

File: Sartre.png (173KB, 669x500px)

173KB, 669x500px

>>8610000
nice quads.

File: d20.jpg (20KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 420x420px

>>8611890

I absolutely agree.
Leibniz and Spinoza are both top tier , and ended telling the same thing, from different perspective.

To answer the OP: There is no one greatest philosopher, but there are few Big Philosophers that are really above anyone else.

Those are:
Heraclitus
Platon
Aristotle
Thomas Aquinas
Spinoza
Leibniz
and the last one was Hegel.

(no, Kant was close but still doesn't belong in here)

>>8610000
He's very indirectly responsible for the 3rd best Dead Kennedys song, so there's that

>>8609179
Top tier:
Aristotle
Aquinas
Hegel
Buddha

Second tier:
Nietzsche
Heidegger/Lao Zi
Plato
Kant

You were the chosen one tier:
Wittgenstein

My criteria are simply having a functional, coherent world view that maps onto reality most of the time and testing this world view and its system of ideas in a variety of contexts.

Let me just add that it's a damn shame that no Zeno or Chrysippus survive

Anyone who thinks it is not Nietzsche can go suck a dick

File: 1473395515234.jpg (538KB, 774x1080px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 774x1080px

>>8609868

>670. The Armenians: a people primarily known for insisting on reminding everyone and commemorating the day that they were slaughtered. It took them billions of years of evolution to arrive at this, hitherto unknown, survival tactic and perfect it: "the art of using one's own misfortune like a credit card" (Baudrillard).

>hitherto unknown

>>8624118
>Wittgenstein
>coherent world view that maps onto reality

>>8624147
+1

CAMUS OR KAFKA

>>8618408
there can never be too much feedback you fucking pleb

File: socrates.png (651KB, 905x603px)

651KB, 905x603px

>>8609179

>>8625414
Anthony Hopkins?

File: image.jpg (135KB, 741x580px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 741x580px

>>8623946

Spinoza is excellent, and one of thinkers that got me hooked on philosophy - but by what criteria does he place while Kant doesn't?

>>8611890

> Leibniz tried to correct him but just argued from a bottom up view whereas Spinoza looked at nature from a top down. Both basically ended up arguing the same point in my opinion.

>>8623925

> Leibniz and Spinoza are both top tier , and ended telling the same thing, from different perspective.

Could we get some more detail on this? I don't really see the overwhelming similarity.

>>8611890

>"How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray?"

it's not a competition

File: Kant intensifies.png (597KB, 764x890px)

597KB, 764x890px

>>8612269

>Seems like that might just beg the question

This, coming from someone who defends Kant: the man who literally explained one of his philosophy's shortcomings away with "by means of a means."

File: chap.jpg (76KB, 653x590px)

76KB, 653x590px

>>8610806
>>378. The only sensible way to travel to third-world countries is as part of an occupation force.

File: image.jpg (44KB, 405x600px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 405x600px

>>8625514

Citation? Kant might have written that but I don't recall reading it.

And I haven't been defending Kant's system as unassailable - I've been writing, mostly from his point of view, to give details on why I think he has a place among the greatest philosophers.

File: Socrates_Louvre.jpg (154KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x800px

socrates or at least plato's understanding of socrates, without a doubt. he practically "invented" philosophy, if you will, through merging the practice of the sophists such as protagoras and pre-socratics such as parmenides. i think the essence of socrates is his view of the presence of absolute truths in the world which we can come to rationally (pre-socratics), the possible endless dialogue we will have trying to fully grasp these truths (somewhat of a sophistic relativism), but that some responses in this dialogue are better than others whose deficiencies can precisely be shown through reason which can only be done by being ignorant.

>>8611641
plato's dramatic elements alone are enough to place him at a spot above aristotle. he's more than philosophy (or more precisely how most people view philosophy) if you pay attention to the dramatic aspects specifically at asking why plato's socrates says certain things in response to his interlocutors but moreover why plato makes socrates say these things.

File: image.jpg (38KB, 252x264px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 252x264px

>>8625650

> plato's dramatic elements alone are enough to place him at a spot above aristotle.

Though the lost dialogues of Aristotle were praised by Cicero for their literary merits, even above Plato's.

>>8609179

In terms of influence Plato, but the one who I think got closest to the truth is Nietzsche. For metaphysics I like Kant.

>>8626725
yes i am very much aware of those but unfortunately they're now lost so we have to treat aristotle with his surviving works. with a mind like aristotle i'd imagine that it would be equal to plato's works at minimum

File: media_xl_2405040.jpg (11KB, 468x264px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 468x264px

This man though, Henri Bergson for those who do not recognize him. For sure it would not be justified to call him the 'greatest' philosopher. Yet, while only having read two books of him so far - the Essai (translated as Time and Free Will in English) and Le rire - I can without a doubt say that his work has the most warmth and understanding to it I have ever encountered in philosophy and maybe even literature as a whole.
For sure his philosophy is not without faults which may seem fatal flaws to some. His views on free will for instance logically can be easily debunked. But it is enchanting how from his works which are very theoretically oriented and often quite technical, a reader can derive so much practical insights. His writings on time as duration have rendered me a completely different person. How I look at language and use it when I am writing would not be the same if not for this very basic thought of his that we think and therefore speak in quantitative, spatial terms - which he thinks we should overcome to heighten our understanding of the world, ourselves and others.
Throughout his philosophy, rather than trying to define, he tried to get at, as he says his preface to Le rire, a 'practical knowledge from within'. This did result in him being often contradictory, not to the point, and in the end to his legacy being ignored or disregarded. (Especially in analytic philosophy, not in the least because of what Russell wrote about him, which was based on a misunderstanding of Bergson's writings).
He may not be the greatest, greatness does not seem to be applicable to him. But he is more than worth reading and his writings often are very beautiful as well.

>>8626894
i am here before people call you christfag to tell you that this was a very thoughtful post

>>8625512
i think he means which one do you like the mos and helped you understand the world the best

>>8612945
in this climate women would support satan if he was female. They would also ignore how sexist it is to only support people because of their sex and will also try to cook up shit that show how all the bad stuff is actually because of the establishment and satan chan did the best she could

>>8627136
demons can be any sex they want, even milton wrote about it iirc

>>8627173
That was not the point of the post.

>>8627184
i mean that you can give satan that idea, it is possible for her to seduce feminist women lurking around as a girl demon

>>8627063
Thank you.

>>8609179
P L A T O
L
A
T
O

K A N T
A
N
T

File: Schopenhauer.jpg (14KB, 300x358px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x358px

>>8627854

Mein neger.

File: jsb.jpg (107KB, 636x533px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 636x533px

Quine

Kripke

Mellor

Carnap

Lewis

Bell

This is an objective list and literally cannot be proven wrong

File: cc.png (52KB, 220x314px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 220x314px

Why is Mainlander not our guy?

>In his central work Die Philosophie der Erlösung (The Philosophy of Redemption) – according to Theodor Lessing "perhaps the most radical system of pessimism known to philosophical literature" – Mainländer proclaims that life is absolutely worthless, and that "the will, ignited by the knowledge that non-being is better than being, is the supreme principle of morality."

>[a badly translated blog summary] Therefore the universe, as we know it, was born through the suicide of God. God decided that he can't bear his existence anymore and that he wishes to turn into Nothingness. But he was not able to reach that goal without thereby creating our world, because the path from his over-being** to Nothingness required a transition, which is being as we know it, our universe. This entire world is therefore nothing more than God's "body", that is in all its components rotting into nothingness now.

> Eventually, descending into megalomania and believing himself to be a messiah of social democracy,[6]:124 on the night on April 1, 1876, Mainländer hanged himself in his residence in Offenbach, using a pile of copies of The Philosophy of Redemption (which had arrived the previous day from his publisher) as a platform. He was thirty-four years old.

DUDE HANGED HIMSELF BY KICKING OUT STOOL OF HIS OWN BOOKS

File: barrelboy.jpg (9KB, 262x192px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 262x192px

>posting anyone but barrel man

Step it up laddies.

>>8619243
How does the Kantian position have any certainty that the mind is transcendetal, given it accepts the only thing it can know is the projection and not the thing-in-itself? From what ı've gathered, Kant seems to found this transcendentality on the fact that the mind appears as a continuity, so that it would be a kind of literal transcendentaly: i.e. phenomena go, mind stays; but then as the mind can only be called a (re)collection of phenomena, as the private person forsees that it will end like other objects which appear to have a mind (that is, they react as it does), how can we be sure the mind is transcendetal to anything but its own projection, in its present, to its past, towards its future?

I'd think you might answer this with the point of "capabilities" perhaps? But how can we know the tools the mind uses are in themselves no phenomenal? Say there's a potential capabilty in the human mind that never has the precise situation in which it can develop, or even be registered by anything at all; does that capability exist, if it never happens? Can we even know of it, besides perhaps a stuctural analysis (in which it is inferred by the holes that it leaves in the system)?

>he'd argue that the mind imposes its transcendental forms onto the world
But then do we not end up with the definitions of mind as "projects unto world" and world as "is projected unto by mind"? Does the mind have any other functions besides its relationship to the world so that we can say it's not wholly subordinate to that relationship?

>the point is that no innate parts of this mind itself are missing or malfunctioning, and that's what makes it "complete."
I think we're discussing the same issue people have had with Chomsky's idea of language as an organism, namely, whether the nutrients that help an organism develop its innate characteristics are set, and don't affect them besides its growth, or if they aren't, and there are some characteristics which won't develop altogether, whether we can talk of a real generality, etc.

>>8627881
>this is an objective list

no, because it:

>iterally cannot be proven wrong.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (95KB, 1280x720px)

95KB, 1280x720px

>>8620941
>But if your indiviudual mind were somehow atypical, or even malfunctioning, then I'm not sure how he could convince you that it's *your* individual mind that's off, and that it's the majority of other minds that are healthy.
Is the convincing in itself proof that the mind is regular though?

Say you have three men, one normal, one blind, one deaf. They all listen to the argument and agree their mind are as stated. Now there are likely to be things of it that the blind and deaf, in their own ways, didn't get as a normal man would, or parts one got as the normal one did but not the other; does it necessarily follow, though, that the normal person *would* comprehend all of the argument in the ways the other two didn't on their own, but did together? Is it possible that, in their focus of a particular sense due to their lack of another, the have apprehended parts of the argument better, and therefore that together it would be *more* aplicable than to a regular man? Can we conceive there to be particular mind, which, despite being atypical, finds that it is actually descrived better than a typical mind by it? Would a mind stripped of all particularity not be, in fact, very particular by virtue of being the only one to lack any accidents?

>>8628154
I like your style.

File: 1473784913485.gif (2MB, 750x750px)

2MB, 750x750px

>>8613079

please, for the sake of /lit/, continue posting here.

File: plotinus.jpg (69KB, 569x681px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 569x681px

Plotinus.

Any other answer is literally wrong.

>>8628292
did you read him for plotinus

joke selfrecognized

>>8609188
You made this same post on /pol/

File: ee8b8ffc87418c3aa318b18460e27584.jpg (14KB, 236x431px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x431px

Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Opinions regarding Boethius? Is The Consolation of Philosophy still relevant?

Is this an eternal thread now?

>>8630623

Definitely recommended. He's got some beautiful passages, and I found it very interesting that such a historically important Christian writes his consolation with barely any (or none, I don't quite recall) appeal to Christian dogma, relying instead on tenets that are, on the face of it, those of non-Christianized Platonism and Stoicism.

Why do most most of these (and some of the most popular philosopher) philosophers hate women so much? Im honestly confused. Most of them make good good points when theyre not attacking women so why the random rage towards women i wonder.
No one philosopher is the greatest if all time, thats absur. The combined knowledge of truly great philosophers would the greatest peice of philosophy.
I happen to like Wilhelm Reich,georges bataille, and Hélène Cixous most at the moment.

>>8609179
my diarist desu

>>8610632
ansh shlow on ansh shlow on

>>8632283
Acknowledging women's traits is not hatred

>>8609179
Actual academic philosopher here. The top three is pretty well settled, that being Kant, Aristotle and Plato.

From my experience in the field I would say the fight for top 1 is between Aristotle and Kant. But I think most philosophers would say Aristotle is the greatest, even kantians such as myself acknowledges that.

>>8632324
Of course it's not, acknowledging traits of a specific gender isn't what I was talking about I apologize, Im on heavy painkillers so I was unclear as to how I came to that conclusion in my previous post. I have however while reading philosophy books written by men came across much negativity leveled at women. Philosophy pieces that say they are aimed at and for to everyone omostly end up to be about the experience of particular men during particular times, serving as justifications and rationalizations for both the inferiority of women and their exploitation and control by men. I see this most heavily in western philosophers (Freud, kierkegaard, Descartes for example.) Which isn't to say that all the thoughts amd ideas (with the exception of Freud) of most other misogynist philosophers have some good ideas.

>>8632466
"Negativity" and "misogyny" are not arguments

Tell us how these philosophers were wrong instead of just talking about how upset you are about it

>>8632326
>thinks the world is an illusion
>knows who the top 3 philosophers are objectively

Really makes me think

>>8632487

Is the Randian anon back again? I've rarely seen Objectivists describe Kant in anything other than mischaracterizations.

>>8632525
Im mostly meming

Can anyone find a copy of philosophy and phenomenological research issue 62 online for me? It isn't for me it isn't for me it is for my brother i assume a pdf will do. Too drunk to do a decent search myself. Thought this might be a good place to ask.

Obviously Phil Anselmo.

>>8632525
This confused me, at least when I was much younger, since Kant's absolutist moral autism seemed indistinguishable from the Objectivists' on the inviolability of property.

>>8632487
Oh look! Someone who has never read the Critique of Pure of Reason but still wants to comment about it.

If I got a penny every time I see one of those :^)

>>8612718
>>>>>>>>>>>remove plato

what the ffufucucucuccucucuckckk???

socrates

>>8609242
george soros?