If all the great philsophers of all time sat together at a round-table

>>9399103
No because there is no solution to mankind, just its existence

It would evolve into a massive homoerotic orgy t b h

>>9399103
No because there would always be that one faggot who will insist he is more meta than others and that they're just deluded in his meta framework.

No.

>>9399103
Yes

>>9399136
Hegel?

>>9399493
yeah hegel

>>9399103
Berkeley wouldn't buy anything and not help because "lmfao it's all an idea anyway." Hume would just start burning shit; that would cause a mess. Descartes would likely have slept in and would miss the meeting. Hegel would be in the corner sucking Kant's dick (this would leave them both occupied for quite some time). Plotinus would be fawning over Plato whilst Plato argues with Aristotle about who understood Socrates better (protip: it isn't either of them). Nietzsche will likely have disemboweled Spinoza and then occupies himself with explaining to Mill the numerous flukes within Mill's philosophy (Mill listens attentively). Kierkegaard would have lept to his death. And then Lock built the West.

>>9399103
>If all the great philsophers of all time sat together at a round-table and discussed philosophy
Oh boy, it would result in a bloodbath.

>>9399103
Btw... Kierkegaard but not Wittgenstein? Really?

This place gets exponentially dumber every time I visit.

>>9399103
>philosophers
>solving anything
lmao

Nietzche would be rude. Everyone would be jealous of how hot Kierkegaard is. The Greeks would be mirin eachothers muscles.

>>9399558
I like this

No, but scientists and mathematicians would

>>9399632
This
Solving problems for the betterment of society or humanity is technology's obligation, not philosophy's.

>>9399632
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>9399103
https://youtu.be/EkgJ6kSuGrw

>>9399768
Dude I fucking loved that episode. Having all those smart dudes arguing, paralyzed by disagreements... really, unironically makes you think.

>>9399613
>The Greeks would be mirin eachothers muscles

this desu

File: kant.jpg (76KB, 800x1008px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x1008px

stop getting tattoos

>>9399672
>>9399632
>le utility xd

kys stemcucks

>>9399672
>implying humanity's most pressing problems are technological
Fixing the world is pretty fucking simple. We just have to exterminate the bourgeoisie and build world communism.

>>9399103
>discussion solves problems

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

File: the creative nothing.gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

>>9399797
No.

>>9399558
I was expecting Nietzsche to say the strong should fear the weak but nice post.

Where is Rand ?

>>9400114
Better question, where is Krauss?

>>9400114
>Great philosophers
>Rand
Pick one.

File: 1459928931693.gif (1MB, 350x272px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x272px

>>9399103
They would create problems ad infinitum

Plato and Schopenhauer would kick everyone's asses.

File: 4lbs a day.jpg (26KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 620x372px

>>9399103

>solve the problems of humanity?

Nietzsche would probably just sit there laughing and stuffing his face with 4lbs of fruit whilst everyone else entertains this ridiculous proposition.

>>9399103
what we call 'philosophy' now is nothing but history of metaphysics, an off-shot of Philosophy (aka science) and bastard brother of Natural philosophy. 'History' - because nobody will care now to waste time building fantasy unfalsifiable constructions in the age of positive knowledge, and 'metaphysics' because it is unable to solve any question it covers, neither ontological, nor gnoseological or ethical because of faulty basis - trying to solve something from within.

everyone would be too shy to speak except for Descartes and Hume

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

18KB, 350x500px

already done

>>9400412
this

>>9399594
And Berkeley too...

>>9399103
>ad infinitum
Too late.

>>9399632
AK-47 has been solving many issues around the world. Especially the meaning of life.

>>9399103
Yes, but the solutions would be inapplicable.

humanity doesn't have problems, people have problems and many of them often contradict each other

>>9399558
Reddit-tier post

>>9400145
1(one) anglo-consequentialist is already one too many

>>9401139
Suck my fucking chode you cheeky cunt.

>>9399103
No, literally none of them would agree with each other, it would be a massive argument, although we might gain some useful insights into their own somewhat unclear ideas, but there would be no great ideational dialectical synthesis.

>>9399103
>round-table
Why?

>>9401271
What method would you propose instead?

They would (mostly) try to but end up killing each other because of their strong convictions

>>9399103
It could be achieved when two philosophers with opposing views would have half of their brains transplanted into the other and vice versa.

That way they would soon come to a good understanding, and produce that moderation, as well as regularity of thinking.

>>9401295
The communication between warring halves of the brain is exactly the sort needed for a group of people to reach consensus.

>>9401284
Small tables for two, the philosophers engage with each other for some time, after that they switch

After everyone has talked in two's, with every philosophers of course, the philosophers make a circle of chairs and clock wise philosopher by philosopher they tell how they feel about each talk

That's my plan so far

File: image.png (60KB, 311x271px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 311x271px

>>9399103
They technically did it. Instead of meeting each other they've read each other books, which is the highest possible expression of their thoughts and systems.
Conversation would actually be a inferior form of debate.

>>9399613
All wrong: Nietzsche was actually a nice person, Kierkegaard was a sort hunchback, the Greeks would jack off on Renaissance paintings instead.

>>9401317
What are the benefits of this plan over a round table? How will you correct for the obvious deficiencies inherent in the order of engagement and other factors?

>>9399108
>>9399117
These are both correct

>>9401350
I feel the philosophers would get to know each other better and it allows all to speak
What is your plan with the round table (if that was your idea)?

>>9399558
>>9401169
you have to go back

>>9401284
An imageboard that requires a philosopher pass.

>>9401436
It wasn't. But I see no reason that a round table wouldn't achieve the elements you described (getting to know each other and each getting to speak) under the conditions of this hypothetical meeting of minds (infinite time to go ad nauseam, etc.) to the same degree.

>>9401450
No.

>>9401335
But they never got the chance to reply to the philosophers after them or correct their misunderstandings.

>>9401137
You could say that this is humanity's problem.

>>9399103
>spinoza
>descartes
>hume
>berkley
>kant
>kirkegaard
>great philosophers

>>9401776
>tfw ywn get to hold a q and a with Heraclitus.

>>9401847
Humanity is a spook.

File: Confucius_Tang_Dynasty.jpg (148KB, 300x549px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 300x549px

>>9399103
how can you call them great if they didn't already solve those problems in their own lifetime?

How are they meant to discuss when all of them can't speak the same language?

If OP is talking about the specific philosophers in his picture, nothing would be solved because there's too much modern philosophers there.

Define 'great.'

>>9402124
Irrelevant. For any meaningful definition of great, could the assemblage solve the problems of humanity with ad infinitum philosophical discussion?