Greates philosophers of all time?

One of the Greeks for sure.

apparently aristotle was pretty smart

>>9218717
Everybody was back then. The average iq was like 130. Humans needed intelligence to survive, to build, to create. Now we got everything, there is no need to think, about anyhting.

>>9218729
>The average iq was like 130.

citation needed

>not Hegel

>>9218753
>not Kierkegaard

>>9218615
Kant was the greatest philosopher of all time, but Leibniz was the smartest person of all time.

>>9218615
You can't even spell 'greatest'.

Furthermore, you haven't given a criteria to judge the greatness of philosophy. Your image has three voluminous authors, while Socrates didn't write anything (or next to nothing). Therefore, does Pythagoras, Epicurus, Diogenes of Sinope, Cato the Younger, or any other individual who abided by their philosophic principles but wrote next to nothing count in the running?

Off with ye!

>>9218767
/thread

Aristolte because he was right about everything.

Mills and Utilitarism won the war of ideas on the other hand.

>Plato
>Descartes
>Kant
>Nietzsche
I don't like half my list, but in terms of influence and innovation, definitely.

>>9218812
snot is brain matter?

>>9218830
Marx as fifth,.no?

>>9218833
In your case yes.

>>9218729
The average IQ is actually rising.

>>9218830
You don't like Descartes and Kant?

File: 1487104716574.jpg (192KB, 920x920px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 920x920px

These thinkers are some of the greatest at least to me. Too lazy to make a new picture. It is from a 3x3 thread in case you are wondering.

>>9218736
>>9218871
But anons, the actual IQ is per definition always 100.

>>9218926
normalized value for the test at a certain time

test change -> base score change -> normalized iq over time change

>>9218926
>actual
Average, anon.

>>9218948
how did I even manage to fuck up that hard

>>9218895
If that's the company Peterson is in, I hate that guy now.

>>9218962
Hah. Yea.

>>9218895
Utilitarianism

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

File: 53ccff7a85a8c_zhuangzi.jpg (56KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 240x240px

Waddup

>>9218926
Not at all. It is a mean. Means vary based on where the majority of a population is clumping. We can't assume it was always 100 and will always be 100. It may have been 80 or 130, and it may yet be 200.

>>9218889
Kant and Nietzsche.

>>9219422
wat did Kant do wrong

File: 1480969890576.jpg (36KB, 396x575px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 396x575px

/thread

>>9218895
I only recognize Peterson, who are the others?

>>9219954
Behold, a man!

File: smug bataille.jpg (8KB, 200x203px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x203px

I fucking love Bataille.

>>9219954
How does this guy have an audience?

>>9218895
>>9218895
Why does this guy Peterson go unrecognized all the time, until he resisted the whole pronoun thing? Do people only like him for that reason?

>>9220033
Nobody knew who that guy was before, then he made a youtube channel and started talking about shit.

>>9220009
Hey Cliff

>>9218830
>i pretend to like philosophy but have only read 1 or 2 books

>>9220435
kyoto school anon, how do i into these guys? i want to be a weeb of the highest caliber

>>9218895
Kurzweil may live to be 200 years old, too bad his hair gave up so soon.
I would kill myself if i went bald.

File: quine.png (162KB, 320x396px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 320x396px

Step up, senpai.

File: foundation.jpg (18KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 350x500px

The greatest philosopher in human history.

>>9220586
What the hell is this?

>>9220583
I can't take someone with a hat like that seriously. What is the appeal of Quine over someone like Davidson, Putnam, Lewis, etc.?

File: IMG_2542.jpg (113KB, 640x623px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 640x623px

>according to me
Douglass 4 politics
Heidegger 4 philo
Perls 4 psychiatry
Lao 4 poetry

>>9218767
/thread

Not a single even good philosopher in this thread. Incredible work.

>>9219954
Disgusting dude. I don't even want to know why you had this.

>>9220829
Name 1 faggot

>>9220605
What happened is I read that book, and then I say that he is the greatest mind to ever exist, and the closest thing to God anything or anyone has ever come to in our known existence.

Plato was a brainlet and the republic is autistic

>>9218946
oh so now we need a nominal AND real IQ scores?

>>9219996
he does kinda look like a plucked chicken

>>9220558
not that anon but "an introduction to the kyoto school" (r. carter) is ok if you're an amateur in philosophy
"philosophers of nothingness" (heisig) is good if you're more knowledgeable

>>9220779
Heidegger and Lao Tzu along with freddy douglas and fritzy p...

As much as I HATE Foucault influence in academia, he's undeniably a top tier historian and philosopher. Also, he's fun to read.

Obvious choices in terms of influence:
Aristotle
Descartes
Hume
Aquinas
Kant
Mill (or Bentham?)
Wittgenstein
Nietzsche
Marx
Derrida

For best of all time, my money is on Aristotle or Kant. Brilliant minds, even if they were wrong about a good deal.

Spinoza, Kierkegaard and Peirce

File: authors who shaped my philosophy.jpg (382KB, 919x919px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 919x919px

>>9218615
Plato > every other philosopher

Aristotle or Kant. Literally any other answer is wrong. Wittgenstein is a personal favourite though and ranks very highly.

>>9221761
Why Aristotle over Plato?

File: carnapshirt.gif (24KB, 140x180px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 140x180px

Also the most underrated.

>Standings.
Kant 5
Aristotle 4
Kierkegaard 2
Mills 2
Plato 2
Descartes 2
Nietzsche 2
Marx 2
Bataille 1
Peterson 1
Keiji 1
Kurzwell 1
W.V. Quine 1
Sean Goonan 1
Douglass 1
Heidegger 1
Perls 1
Lao 1
Foucault
Hume 1
Aquinas 1
Wittgenstein 1
Derrida 1
Spinoza 1
Peirce 1
Hegel 1

*deletes Aristotle
*adds Kierkegaard

>>9218895
Please be joking.

>Dershowitz

Let alone Yudkowsky, Peterson and Kurzweil

I mean fuck... I know this is bait but I don't know, good bait deserves its praise one way or the other.

>>9221929
This

1. Plato
2. Nietzsche
3. Aristotle
4. Heraclitus
5. Descartes, Heidegger, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Rousseau, Desmond, Dostojewski, ...
6. Many lesser known philosophers.

File: image.png (125KB, 724x611px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 724x611px

>>9218729
>>9218736
>>9218871
>>9218926
>>9219418
>they don't understand IQ is an arbitrary invention of our time
>they take it as something serious and reliable
mfw when people never grow up

>>9222126
My man

File: 98126.jpg (26KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x610px

>>9222126

>>9219418
He was making the point that IQ by definition is normalised to have 100 as the mean of the population.

The flynn affect, that scores are increasing, is merely an effect of that fact that teaching has become more compartmentalised and abstract (in a sense) that makes people more capable at solving IQ test questions. People are not getting more intelligent, however.

If you say anyone but Kant it just shows you don't understand Kant. The right answer is Kant.

prove me wrong

>>9222133

What seems like bait to you? The fact that two well known philosophers are at the top that are also known (by name and memes) to a wider audience?

>>9222139
I agree

>>9222143
>2. Nietzsche
means you didn't read enough philosophy
>4. Heraclitus
incredible surge of shit on the whole thread

Looks like Kant is taking a clear lead so far. 7 votes that with Aristotle at 5, then Kierkegaard (?) at 3.

>>9222149
>means you didn't read enough philosophy

Rather you didn't read enough Nietzsche.

>>9222149
What secret do you know? Most philosophers I've read post-Nietzsche have deep respect to him.

>>9222168
Roasted him.

>>9219976
Herbert Spencer (who isn't the social darwinism boogeyman people think he is), Adam Smith, Hayek, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Eliezer Yudkowsky (from LessWrong), Ray Kurzweil and Aubrey de Gray.

I believe in utilitarianism and am more or less a techno-commercialist.

>>9222181
>I believe in utilitarianism

opinion discarded.

Nihilist decadence as an excuse for ethical theory. Literally "thinking about ethics is too hard, let's just do some math".

>>9222168
>>9222171
>>9222172
Good, Nietzsche's good. Much respect to him. But if you place it 2nd (before Aristotle lmao), most likely you have never read or studied Kant, Hegel, Aquinas, Epicurus (through Lucretius' work, of course).

>>9222196
I believe there's a genuine link between advocating for utilitarianism and autism. If all you do aggregate human suffering/joy and then do some arithmetic, then like you say, one avoids the deeper issues and pitfalls that are typically involved with ethics. For this reason, it's a very appealing theory for people with autism, because they already see the world as 1's and 0's.

>>9221773
see
>>9220991
Plato was wrong about everything

Generally Plato, Aristotle, and Kant are considered to be the most significant philosophers. Honestly, among professional philosophers only deliberate contrarians will give a different answer.

After them you have people like Hume, Descartes, Aquinas, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hobbes, Hegel, and Nietzsche. Unlike the top trio, their order will vary widely depending on your views, but usually Hume and Descartes will be near the top, Berkeley and Spinoza nearer the bottom. But different people will have totally different orderings depending on their own views. Some traditions will put Hegel or Aquinas at the top of this group, for example.

Then after them you have people like Marx, Mill, Kierkegaard, Augustine, Schopenhauer, some scholastics like Scotus or Ockham, and others.

Somewhere you'll want to slot in some contemporary philosophers like Wittgenstein or Heidegger, but that gets a bit stickier as it takes a while to figure out how great somebody really was. Plus philosophy has that dumbass divide going on right now, where neither side can stand each other.

>>9222382
Basically this.

/thread

>>9222412
>threading own post
Kill yourself newfag.

File: monk2.jpg (45KB, 580x386px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 580x386px

>>9218895
Based Aubrey

>>9222382
Congratulations anon, this all I'd wanted to say (but I didn't because English is not my first language and I'm lazy when it comes to formulate a long speech). You forgot Epicurus/Lucretius among the second group, but 10/10 post anyway.

>>9222130
Invention of our time, yes. Arbitrary, no. Techniques for determining intelligence via testing are continuously being refined. In fact, there are a variety of tests generally considered reliable for these purposes.

Someone hasn't done their homework.

>>9223854
I strongly disagree. Even science is a belief. If you put your trust in those theories, good for you. As for me, I don't.

>>9220586
Kek

>>9221726
And what exactly is your philosophy?
Gay rights?

>>9224819
Why did you say kek, is it a meme? Can I get a quick rundown?

File: 1488281801550.jpg (22KB, 383x455px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 383x455px

>>9224962

>>9218615
>Greates philosophers of all time?
That would probably be either Plato, Aristotle or Kant, with Aquinas as a runner-up.

>>9218861
#tyranosaurusrekt

>>9218615
aristotle
spinoza
kant
deleuze

>>9225486
I am triggered

>>9222382
Good post anon.

>>9225000
EXPLAIN

>>9218753
fuck hegel

>>9218871
>what is division of labor
>what is tocqueville's critique of democracy
>what is Nietzsche and Plato on writing

>>9224198
so you just go around all day experiencing things but believing none of them? you don't put belief in any beliefs regardless of what premises they are drawn from? you see where there is going right? you're a walking contradiction and no one will take you seriously.

>>9222130
IQ is the best determinant of social and economic success we have, but I'm sure in your world view this is just all pure "luck". ironically enough you fall into the same fallacious line of reasoning as the "scientific" materialist do that you apparently criticize.

Nietzsche is the best modern philosopher and you're wrong if you disagree

for me, its kierkegaard

>>9226255
>IQ is the best determinant of social and economic success we have
Actually thats wrong.
Statistically speaking social skills (EQ) are a much better determinant of success and income than IQ

>>9218615
"How can I be sure of a anything" - Descartes

File: 100 percent redpill.png (3MB, 1536x1536px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1536x1536px

>>9218615
>implying

>>9226785
>keeping Plebto

Evola made him redundant

>>9226789

literally the pabst blue ribbon of philosophy

Evola did nothing wrong

File: 1232123.jpg (2MB, 3292x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3292x4000px

>CURRENT STANDINGS.
IMMANUEL KANT (11 votes)
ARISTOTLE (9 votes)

PLATO & NIETZSCHE (6 votes)
KIERKEGAARD (5 votes)

MILL, DESCARTES (4 votes)
HEGEL, AQUINAS, MARX, HEIDEGGER, SPINOZA (3 votes)

SCHOPENHAUER, AUGUSTINE, HUME, WITTGENSTEIN (2 votes)

>>9226474
>EQ
you're a fucking idiot
it has no incremental validity over IQ, shitty methodology is the only reason it even exist. Next time do at least a tiny bit of research when you hear something instead of just repeating it as fact.

File: jazz man.jpg (128KB, 1024x1115px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1024x1115px

adorno

>>9224198
A belief, yes, but do you realize IN WHAT?

>>9226474
Social skills are even less quantifiable than intelligence, and what passes for savoir-faire in one environment may not transfer to the next.

IQ metrics, on the other hand, are consistent.

I agree with what you're attempting to get at, however I consider "social skills" a poor definition of it.

Maturity is a better term, or the classic definition: Wisdom.

I don't know about greatest. I am definitely biased, but my favourites are Levinas, Nozick, St Gregory Palamas, Marion, and Duns Scotus.

>>9218729
Average IQ is always standardised to 100

>>9218871
This phenomenon stopped a couple decades ago

>>9226255
>>9226925
>>9227359
>they keep prattling about IQ
my holy keks
you're just the fucking losers here

>>9226255
Do you realize you're the kind of person who pulls out the IQ data of a certain writer or thinker when people are just talking about him and his work? You're the kind of dumbass nerd who refers to such a boring and uninteresting load of crap as the IQ data... do you realize it? Who fucking cares, kill yourself or move to >>>/sci/ pathetic shithead

>>9227359
>A belief, yes, but do you realize IN WHAT?
You didn't get my post. Read it again or just let it go.

File: 220px-Roman_-_Portrait_of_the_Emperor_Marcus_Aurelius_-_Walters_23215.jpg (14KB, 220x302px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x302px

Marcus FUCKING Aurelius
i can go to an island with the meditations and never would need anything else

File: marx_engels1.jpg (27KB, 393x383px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 393x383px

MAXIMUM ANTI PLATONISM

>>9222202

Let's get real here. While the works of Aquinas are excellent and a great impressive body of work, it's also for a large part a summary of past intellectual thought. Besided that he also borrows extremely heavily on Arsitotle, who borrowed heavily on Plato. Neither of them would exist without Plato. While Kant and Hegels influance has been tremendous in a quite real, practical sense on philosophy, law and ethics, I rated Nietzsche higher because his critique of them and his work is potentially more groundbreaking, while Kant and Hegel are still pretty much borrowing from Plato. But because Nietzsche is a very misunderstood philosopher and easy to meme with and pull out quotes, his true value has not been realized and his legacy left unutilized.

File: 13398848_256430768054377_1485822516_a.jpg (7KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 150x150px

>>9218615
>Being this spooked
Everyone knows there's only one good answer to this question

>>9224830

Knowing some of those dudes, looks more like a gay's right to be put in the bog.

File: 1485790457227.jpg (77KB, 591x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 591x960px

>>9218999