Thread 24573432

Anon, which is the best philosopher for you and why?

>>24573432 (OP)
Hume but man honestly to be real i just fucking hate all of them and actually i hate you too, i hate fucking everybody. i hate this life...anyways, hume

the socratic method is all you need, everything else is masturbatory at best and dangerous at worst

>>24573432 (OP)
Fichte for discovering new ways to think about old problems. If philosophy was art he would be at the outer edge of the avant-garde, even now - he has a lot to say about the nature of life and human society, he also bridges the gap between theism and atheism. But he wrote in a maximally obscure way such that very few people study him seriously. Even within academia most scholars of idealism are into Hegel and read Fichte through a distorted lens of bad, Hegelian readings.

>>24573432 (OP)
Plato

>>24573700
You only read AI summaries you big dummy

>>24573716
you are taking anons secretly

It's hard to go wrong with Aristotle, with a helping of Heraclitus

>>24573432 (OP)
This guy

>>24573432 (OP)
Immanuel Kant... let's be honest here... he is the best... for transforming old metaphysics (alchemy) into new metaphysics (chemistry)... he developed a whole new epistemology that is still up to date and brings a lot of trouble to metaphysics as a science... nobody did it better than him until today... everyone that doesn't recognize this should quit philosophy and metaphysics instantly

.

>>24573432 (OP)
>which is the best philosopher
me
>why?
because im right

>>24573432 (OP)
Heraclitus- Fire was proven correct as energy by Einstein. That’s not even a debatable point that his core idea was proven correct

Dislike:
Descartes
Late era Plato
Parmenides

>>24574015
>Dislike:
>Descartes
>Late era Plato
>Parmenides
ChatGPT says this, but you?

>>24574096
Descartes isn’t convincing at all in anything he states. Plato’s ideas of forms is a bit too out there for me. Dogmatic rationalist types like Empedocles I also dislike.

Heraclitus and the little Hegel I read I enjoyed.

>>24574104
Ok, anyway, Plato had used the ideas of Heraclitus, especially in the book called Parmenides, which was written when he was old.

>>24573432 (OP)
Insofar as he could be listed among them, Seneca the younger. The sense of the ridiculous, or of sublime silliness, isn't at all easy to convey or reflect on in speech or in writing even if you have it in spades. Rather a lot of philosophers have admirable rigor in one mode or subject or another, but his finds me since I like tranquil, even soporofic, conditions about as much as he did. To put in a nutshell, I like his sense of fun.

>>24574130
I already know that but it doesn’t mean I automatically agree with his synthesis of becoming and being.

Heraclitus has the soul and logos as forever in change which is a bit different from what Plato is getting at.

>>24574140
The problem is strange that you dislike the book, when we have near nothing of Heraclitus and Parmenides.

But the taste is a personal thing.

>>24574164
I own Brooks Haxton’s edition which compares change with Einstein’s relativity and it resonates with me more because it is a concrete thing you can point to of philosophy being proven correct.

I see Einstein as a continuation of the path Heraclitus laid so I like Heraclitus more. I mean, Marcus Aurelius and Nietzsche considered Heraclitus a favorite too.

The other guys in my list I mentioned just don’t convince me with their faulty arguments.

For me it’s Nitchee
His whole ‘god is dead’ schtick just makes Christcucks seethe

>>24573432 (OP)
Plato is the only one who isn't a pseud

>>24574015
okay if we're listing least favorites then:

Democritus
Spinoza
Hume
Bentham
Mill

Hume, Sextus Empiricus, and John Stuart Mill

>>24574185
>I see Einstein as a continuation
Einstein, the famous philosopher.

>>24573432 (OP)
Esoteric Kantism anon
He's one of the very few quality posters here

>>24573432 (OP)
big chungus

>>24573432 (OP)
Sofia is a Greek goddess and its me btw I regret it

>>24573432 (OP)
By all accounts I should really like Epicurus, but not much of him survived (the metaphysics did, but fuck that, I'm interested in ethics), so my philosophy is mostly stoicism hacked up and modified to resemble what I understand to be epicureanism, and then with some gaps relevant to more modern cultural issues plugged up with Stirner's egoistic ideas.

>>24575301
Shared Insights:
Interconnectedness:
Both Heraclitus and Einstein emphasized the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate elements. Heraclitus saw it in the unity of opposites, while Einstein revealed it in the relativity of space and time and the equivalence of energy and mass.
Dynamic Universe:
Both thinkers presented a view of the universe as dynamic and ever-changing. For Heraclitus, it was a constant flow of becoming; for Einstein, it was a universe shaped by gravity and the constant interplay of energy and matter.
Challenge to Static Views:
Both challenged traditional, static views of reality. Heraclitus questioned the notion of fixed, unchanging things, while Einstein's theories overturned Newtonian physics's concept of absolute space and time.
While Einstein's work was grounded in scientific observation and mathematical proof, Heraclitus's insights were more philosophical and intuitive. However, both contributed significantly to our understanding of change, interconnectedness, and the dynamic nature of the universe.

>>24573878
I dislike Kastrup, he is weirdly autistic in the sense that he gets super angry if people push back on his ideas, as if he expect his interlocutors to have read his whole canon and grant it
Poor communications skill

Last time I watched him, he was being a fucking WHORE and appearing some some British celebrity podcast providing zero disambiguation to a guy who was clearly confusing materialism in "everything is fundamentally made out of matter" sense, and materialism in the consumerist "just buy products and accumulate wealth" sense
He should know better, and do better
Kastrup was just like "yeah, materialism bad, yeah, yeah. It's why I am an idealist"

>>24575720
thanks a lot, chatgpt

>>24575782
It’s reiterating what I said in the post above. I just looked up the chat answer because I thought it might be a bit more in depth to their similarities. Heraclitus was more of a natural philosopher anyways.

>>24575780
>He should know better
That came out wrong. He DOES know better. This is me accusing him of dishonesty. and selling out for media spotlight.
Just really rubbed me the wrong way, what made me finally drop Kastrup.

Even if I had all kinds of problems with him already. I think he massively overstate what what we can learn about fundamental reality with his methods, I don't really think there is a method to this.
Like, I don't understand why split-brain patients would be evidence of split-brain-idealism. Why should we think a "small person mind" is like the "big idealism mind"? Hard problem of idealism really, I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation of how the small minds emerge out of big mind

>>24573803
The basic error of all skepticism from Plato to Kant is assuming that appearances aren’t real. If appearances don’t exist, then what are you seeing? But if they do exist, then you are seeing a natural part of the world, and skepticism is wrong.

>>24575852
dumb

>>24575852
>If appearances don’t exist, then what are you seeing?
That's not the claim.
>But if they do exist, then you are seeing a natural part of the world, and skepticism is wrong.
This doesn't follow.

>>24575852
>If appearances don’t exist, then what are you seeing?
Are you retarded? You know that you can just read nigga? Holy dumbfuck.

For me Schopenhauer. He's been a real companion and source of solace and wisdom for me, not just a set of abstract ideas.

Herocrates was probably the goat but you had to be in greece at the time so probably today its probably like Noam Chomsky now since he lived through the end of history

>>24573432 (OP)
Adi Shankara (PBUH), because he is the final red-pill.

>>24575857
>>24575859
>>24575905

1. If the noumena are part of the ‘real world’ because they exist, and appearances also exist, then appearances are part of the ‘real world’ by that same virtue. They are noumenal.

2. If we cannot experience noumena directly, but only appearances, and yet appearances are just as much noumena as anything else, then we can directly experience noumena.

This is a defeater for skepticism. It means we do have real knolwedge, just that it is incomplete.

AI makes people stupid and funny at the same time.

>>24576267
Doesn't hold for "The basic error of all skepticism from Plato to Kant" except by
imputing Kant's views to the ancients.

Rosmini, he got everything right

>>24573432 (OP)
>which is the best philosopher
Hume & Ayn Rand

>and why?
Hume's metaphysical (if you could even call it that) interpretation of the world is in essence "correct". It's the only one you can genuinely derive from pure materialism.

Ayn Rand, despite her misinterpreting her ideas, coming to the wrong conclusions and expressing said-ideas in a mediocre way, manages to bring forward a rational epistemological & ethical system. I won't delve into too much details but the gist of it is more or less objective :
>we live for our own lives and values
>great man improve society by working for their own ideals
>thus altruism is wrong both ontologically & socially
The problem with Rand is that, instead of logically deducing that the state should perhaps let its individuals achieve and accomplish themselves by freeing them of a certain material necessity, she rather, and due to her trauma of communism, posits a minarchist ideal because "paying taxes is for le weak". I'm caricaturing but she completely fails to notice the reciprocal benefit of ensuring justice & the need for a minimum for each individual to build upon. In that regard, Rawls manages to percieve that with a certain precision and relevance.


>dislike
Plato & Hobbes, both are very retarded

>>24573803
Kant’s idea of metaphysics amounts to the analysis of concepts that are fundamental for experience (force, magnitude, substance etc) in a great big table under the original categories, or under the law of reason. That’s not metaphysics by any reasonable standard. Kant is one of the most anti-metaphysical philosophers there is, his whole system is really a pretentious and jacked-up empiricism + deontology.

>>24576613
Boring nitpicking, not even worth answering. Attack the argument

>>24577102
The argument doesn't hold when you're conflating Plato with modern skepticism, let alone assuming that Plato thinks there's no relationship between Forms and the beings that participate in them. It's ancient Gnosticism you're attacking, if anything.

>>24577123
I’m trying to pick a fight with a skeptic, not listen to you defend platos reputation

>>24577123
Of the ancient skeptics I like sextus empirics

>Diogenes Laertius wrote that he ran head first into a wall to prove that he thought the world illusory and that sense experience had no effect on him

>>24577143
>make claim and associate with philosopher it's not true of
>"WHY ARE YOU HOLDING ME TO THAT?!"

>>24577143
>philosophy misses the advantage of the other sciences, it cannot rest the existence of it's objects on existence, nor can it assume any recognized methods for starting or continuance.

Either you have something or you don't. In this case, return to thy shitbox little homosexual.

>>24576267
You’ve been fundamentally filtered in your reading of Kant by assuming noumena are mysterious objects which are more real than phenomena. Have you even read the cpr? Try chapter 3 of the Analytic. I’m so sick of this 8th grade take on Kant.

Best? A pissing contest.

Diogenes is the most based though.

>>24575852
I see you got filtered by Plato, too. Plato isn’t saying the real world isn’t real but that it’s an image of a higher reality. But you hear image and think “illusion” because you’re illiterate. Plato and Kant both hated and argued against skeptics, and you can’t see the difference between these positions. Hopeless case in all likelihood.

>>24575720
Using ChatGPT to write your posts should be a permaban.

>>24574185
People who mention quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc in philosophy threads are 100% pseuds.

>>24577200
Reddit the philosopher

>>24577250
One of my favorite anecdotes on Plato and Diogenes is that one day, Diogenes was being drenched in the rain and he wouldn’t come inside and the bystanders were kvetching how sad it was to see Diogenes wallowing around in rain and filth like that and Plato retorted that “if you want him to come inside and act normal then stop giving him attention. If you stopped giving him attention he wouldn’t have reason to be outside all day wallowing in filth.”

Another one was where Diogenes was preparing his food and he told Plato that if he knew a trade like making food then Plato wouldn’t have to kowtow to kings (Dionysus obviously) and Plato responded that if Diogenes knew metaphysics/ politics he wouldn’t have to make his own food basically btfoing the trades forever for all eternity

>>24574310
I'm a Christian and I like Nietsche. His seething about God makes me kek though

>>24577200
>Best? A pissing contest.
>Anon, which is the best philosopher for you and why?
>for you

>>24574310
I'm not sure that Nietzsche wrote so; I think the phrase is "people have decided to kill god".

>>24573432 (OP)
>All of the Presocratics (particularly Heraclitus)
It's fun to debate on interpretation and it forces me to read more classical authors to understand the context of their quotations and try to detect biases.
>Plato
The dialogic form is a perfect medium to express philosophical ideas with the merit of discussion and the sheer breadth of his work (and the tradition following him), also for the little bits in the earlier dialogues when he can get a bit cheeky
>Lev Shestov
A figure like Nietzsche in his influence on Existentialism, I've always appreciated his aphoristic style in All Things Are Possible and his paradoxical yet beautiful sense of despair and hope

>>24577367
My favorite is when Plato and his students came up with “featherless biped” as a definition of man by the method of muh division - not a joke, this actually happened and is well-attested - and Diogenes plucked a chicken and went up to the Academy and started waving it around hollering “Here’s Plato’s man!” Aristotle’s vastly superior understanding of definition was influenced by this, he actually cites the cynic philosopher Antisthenes with grudging approval in Meta 8.3. For Aristotle definitions merely “signify” essences and individuals are not definable. This is probably the only issue where the Cynics influenced the mainstream of Western philosophy but it’s kind of a big deal.

Personally? I'm a fan of the French Absurd silly man.

>>24578202
Here’s the key quote: “Man is not animal and biped, but there must be something besides these, if these are matter, something which is neither an element in the whole nor produced by an element, but is the substance, which people eliminate and state the matter.” This is one of many passages in which Aristotle affirms the priority of the particular over the universal signified by the definition and it filters Thomists.

>>24578202
>My favorite is when Plato and his students came up with “featherless biped” as a definition of man by the method of muh division - not a joke, this actually happened and is well-attested
That's a joke from Plato's Statesman, attributed to the Eleatic Stranger who, through a shorter and a longer set of divisions, places men near to either being chickens or pigs (266c for pigs, referred to indirectly as "the most well-bred and also easiest to manage" animal--that it's the pig that's meant is confirmed by a pun the Stranger makes afterwards on "latest," "hystaton," which sounds like pig, "hys." The chicken, also referred to indirectly, is at 266e). That it's a joke (about value neutrality in analysis) can be seen in how the Eleatic Stranger differentiates himself from Socrates in both Sophist and Statesman, where he, contra Socrates, abstracts from the good such that his method never takes into account the dignity of its objects, such that the art of the general is treated as equal with the art of the louse-catcher (Sophist 227a-c), and the human is treated indifferently with the rest of the animals (Statesman 263c-e and 266d). *Socrates* ends up being defined as a sophist by the Stranger (Sophist 226a-231b), which is the real clincher, especially since both dialogues are depicted as taking place on the same day as the Apology.

>>24578261
>that it’s a joke is attested by a vaguely similar passage in the Statesman
I recognize you, you’re the anon who reads nothing but the Dialogues and is actually too retarded to understand them. That “featherless biped” was the stock Academic definition of man is well attested in Aristotle (who has no problem with it as a mere definition btw). Also in the work “Definitions”, which came out of the Academy, we find the following definition of anthropos: “wingless, two-footed, flat-nailed animal”.

>>24577150
>>24577157
Cope, you have no argument

>>24577199
Not an argument

>>24578268
You're understanding of the dialogues is still as facile as ever. Plato could depict an Eleatic on the day of Socrates' trial defining Socrates as a sophist and you'd nod your head right al9ng that the Stranger's spurious methodos is what Plato found adequate. That the Academics who compiled the Definitions didn't necessarily understand the dialogues isn't a surprise since, as I've told you before, there was disagreement within the first generation of students over whether the creation in the Timaeus was to be taken as literal or not.

But you never notice Plato undercutting anything, such as when he has the stranger say a cut is totally arbitrary at Sophist 222b, or when he has the Stranger, who's been appealing to cuts out of the two basic arts of getting and separating, add a third basic art of making out of nowhere in the Sophist. You never catch anything.

>>24578283
>there was disagreement within the first generation of students over whether the creation in the Timaeus was to be taken as literal or not.
The disagreement was over the niece of Plato, who had a different idea about the nature of ideas.
>You never catch anything.

In math and science there is progress and answers

In philosophy there is 2500 years of intellectual masturbation and nothing more

>>24578421
I'm not talking about how Speusippus and Xenocrates self-consciously broke with Plato over the Forms, I'm talking about how they read the Timaeus differently from Aristotle. But by all means, please keep diverting and continuing to take at face value a pair of dialogues positioned before the Apology where Socrates' soul-cathartics are called sophistry by an Eleatic.

>>24573686
Abject evil is only deserving of sophistry

>>24578422
Define "progress"

Time is an illusion

>>24578422
2500 years ago people didn't have plastic in their brains.

>>24578433
Holy Fuck... That Image of Jesus Christ Is So Fucking Edgy... It's Like A Photograph And Shit... Fuck He's Jacked Too... God Damn...

>>24578453
>please keep diverting and continuing to take at face value a pair of dialogues positioned before the Apology where Socrates' soul-cathartics are called sophistry by an Eleatic
Then say to me, what is a sophist I am ignorant, and you seem to know everything.

>>24578610
I don't pretend to know, I only have opinions. Not like the eminently wise classics major who never has to actually read what Plato wrote when he can just repeat something he read in Aristotle.

>>24578422
>In math and science there is progress and answers
You don't know how to make a decision, and you think to know what progress is and what not.

Say this to ChatGPT.

>>24578614
And answer me then.

>>24578623
If I go by the totality of Plato's writings depicting sophists and the surviving fragments of the sophists themselves, then my opinion would be, "one who claims to have a certain wisdom that is held out to be teachable to others for pay," who often seem to lack something in their wisdom. Because they're caught up in concerns for pay and honors, for the most part, they sometimes accept common opinions unquestioningly even when they think they're being radical.

>>24578639
For me, a sophist is someone who pretends to teach a goal, and this goal is the only truth.

A sophist is a master of rhetoric.

>>24575852
Of course appearances are real. There just exist more than appearances.

That appearances are taken to be real is literally the most essential thing in Kant. That is how we achieve the possibility of metaphysics, the entirety of his philosophy refers to appearances and their conditions.

>>24573432 (OP)
Charles Peirce. An unsufferable asshole who never wrote a book on the philosophical school of thought he founded.

>>24573432 (OP)
Plato, Emerson, Kant

>>24578778
Every worldview admits that our knowledge is incomplete, that there is more, so the skeptics cannot use this to justify their skepticism. They have true knowledge about some real things and lack knowledge about others.

>>24578202
Nah, Diogenes’ “joke” is semantic nitpicking while Plato’s jokes are actually about his core character and philosophy.

>>24578780
>Charles Peirce.
Semiotics is a meaningless science; you should search for a truth that is not your own and that you can't understand.

Semiotics teaches you that everything can be learned without studying it for a long time.

I don't need this shit for understanding anything; the main thing is to study and not to jump through time.

>>24578876
He founded pragmatism, as far as I understand he's only tangentially related to semiotics and semantics.

>>24573432 (OP)
stirner. nobody comes close, or ever called out bullshit like he did.

>>24578879
He is the father of semiotics.

>>24578882
>stirner
I want to read him also because he looks like Leorio.

Anyway, his philosophy seems like the philosophy of Lao Zi (Daodejing).

>>24578890
I suppose it's arguable whether Peirce is the father of semiotics or Saussure is the father and Peirce just perfected it on his grand quest to become the second coming of Kant. But what I was referring to was pragmatism.

>>24578910
>An unsufferable asshole who never wrote a book on the philosophical school of thought he founded.
You have said this, and I thought about the semiotic; I don't know everything.

>>24578918
My bad, homie

>>24574559
Least Favorites:
Descartes, Heidegger, every British philosopher

>>24578422
Philosophy is like vidya.

It's a game.

And I'm playing to win.

>>24578901
You don't have to read Stirner to understand him.

If you understand the concept of a "spook," there is nothing to gain from reading him. His book is literally filler. He could have condensed it down to a single page or even paragraph.

Kant, Nietzsche, Camus

>>24578283
We get it. The Dialogues is the only work of philosophy worth reading, and arbitrarily grabbing a line or two that fits you own biases (the soul ISN’T immortal!), then claiming everything else is “ironic”, is the height of esoteric exegesis. Everyone else is autistic. Your shtick is stale Theodorus, and by the way I wasn’t even talking about the Statesman and never mentioned it. I said Plato and his students defined man as featherless biped, which is an established fact. There are even fragments of comedies making fun of Plato et al for their way of defining things. Your butthurt sustains me.

>>24578614
“Any information about Plato or his students apart from the Dialogues is evil and should be ignored.” I’ve read the Dialogues many times Theodorus, I know them better than you. But it’s useless to engage with you on them because you grab one sentence, claim it’s the “key”, and then ignore everything else. Last time we talked you were trying to say Plato didn’t really criticize democracy. You’re legit not smart enough for a rational conversation, like right now you’re losing your mind over the (well attested) featherless biped definition and claiming to understand Plato better than his own students.

>>24579513
You're actually retarded, the "featherless biped" thing shows up in the Definitions because it's an implicit definition of man in the Statesman. Try following your own advice and shutting up and reading before you bullshit.

>>24579540
Kek, you can't even read anon posts without rushing through them. Thread in question:

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24553815#p24553815

You:
>Plato openly fantasizes about overthrowing the state in multiple places, so he at not particularly cautious. He criticizes democracy constantly.
To the first part, "openly fantasizes," I said:
>No he doesn't, not even in the Republic. Glaucon asks Socrates point blank in book 5 about the possibility of actually founding the Kallipolis and Socrates tells him both there and at the end of book 9 that he's missing the entire point.
To the second part, "he criticizes democracy constantly," I said:
>And that critique of democracy in book 8 is qualified with the offhand mention by Socrates that of the regimes they've been discussing, only in the democracy can they have the discussion that *makes up the Republic*.

But your brain ain't so good at thinkin' straight when you get called out on an author others might know better, so no surprise that you turned the above into "you were trying to say Plato didn’t really criticize democracy."

>>24573432 (OP)
xenophanes and parmenides are interesting

They never wrote anything down. we know of them from other philosophers and historians(probably diogenes laertius)

>>24579563
In the Republic, Socrates talks about getting rid of all the adults to start fresh. In the Statesman the Stranger straight up describes a violent “purge”. Again, you’re not worth arguing with. You cherry-pick quotes and then say anything else is ironic, again and again. You’re implicitly doing it right now even. You have never studied a work of real philosophy, you’re only interested in “interpreting” the Dialogues. Again, your butthurt sustains me.

>>24579590
>In the Republic, Socrates talks about getting rid of all the adults to start fresh.
Do you not know the difference between what would be required for their investigation into the *city-in-speech* and what's required for practice? How about this, Socrates tells Glaucon straight up that putting the city-in-speech into practice is beside the point at 471c-473a, and again at 591d-592b.

>In the Statesman the Stranger straight up describes a violent “purge”.
As I said above, you're making a large assumption in equating the Eleatic Stranger with Plato, the same figure who in the Sophist defines Socrates' activity as that of a sophist from 226a-231b; so you think Plato thinks Socrates is a sophist?

>You cherry-pick quotes and then say anything else is ironic, again and again.
I point out what Socrates says on the surface again and again, things like "this city-in-speech isn't for actually founding a city," and "there might be nothing after death" in Phaedo, passages you ignore for your strawman take.

>>24579563
Let’s review here: I made a somewhat interesting couple of posts about Diogenes and the chicken and how the Cynics influenced Aristotle’s theory of definitions. You respond by losing your mind about how “featherless biped” isn’t in the Statesman. This is why you’re Theodorus - you don’t care about philosophical investigation, you just want to claim to know the sekrit meaning of the Dialogues (Plato didn’t believe in immortality; Plato didn’t hate democracy; the Republic has nothing to do with politics; etc). Earlier in this thread you were claiming the Dialogues must be interpreted in their “narrative order” - so, I suppose, Parmenides is first and Apology is last or penultimate. It’s hard to believe you’re a real person honestly I’m starting to think you’re a pure troll.

>>24579632
>You respond by losing your mind about how “featherless biped” isn’t in the Statesman.
Lol, the opposite, >>24578261
>That's a joke from Plato's Statesman, attributed to the Eleatic Stranger who, through a shorter and a longer set of divisions, places men near to either being chickens or pigs (266c for pigs, referred to indirectly as "the most well-bred and also easiest to manage" animal--that it's the pig that's meant is confirmed by a pun the Stranger makes afterwards on "latest," "hystaton," which sounds like pig, "hys." The chicken, also referred to indirectly, is at 266e). That it's a joke (about value neutrality in analysis) can be seen in how the Eleatic Stranger differentiates himself from Socrates in both Sophist and Statesman, where he, contra Socrates, abstracts from the good such that his method never takes into account the dignity of its objects, such that the art of the general is treated as equal with the art of the louse-catcher (Sophist 227a-c), and the human is treated indifferently with the rest of the animals (Statesman 263c-e and 266d).
Funny, and revealing, that you think an anodyne explanation, one that explains my reasoning, counts as "losing [my] mind."

>Earlier in this thread you were claiming the Dialogues must be interpreted in their “narrative order” - so, I suppose, Parmenides is first and Apology is last or penultimate.
Lol where. Say where. Do you mean by pointing out the trivially true fact that Sophist and Statesman are set on the same day as the Apology? You know those two are fiction, right? So the question becomes how they're relevant in relation to the Apology, which is a trivial matter, since claims in dialogues like Gorgias that he's the only true politician, and the Apology is shot through with the problem of addressing how he's not a sophist. Seems pretty commonsensical to me, but maybe you have a magic crystal ball that tells you otherwise.

>>24573432 (OP)
Irigaray because she looks hit

>>24579590
>Socrates talks about getting rid of adults

Another thing he stole from Heraclitus (pbuh)

>For exiling Hermodorus, let the adult citizens of Ephesus be strung from their necks and leave the city to the children

(paraphrase)

>>24579429
>He could have condensed it down to a single page or even paragraph
Ok. Like many modern philosophy.

>>24579584
iirc Parmenides did write but it's lost.

>>24573700
Jesus is dead and has the aesthetics of shit, and Abrahamic religions are shit in themselves

>>24579584
>>24581007
They wrote plenty and we have a lot of it, their works just weren't transmitted to us in a manuscript tradition.

>>24581026
>we have a lot of it
>their works just weren't transmitted to us in a manuscript tradition.
Wow, and how the fuck did you know it?

>>24579584
Amazing source.

>>24581110
>The absence of manuscript traditions in which the Presocratics survive independently of their quotation and interpretation in later antiquity only adds to the complexity.
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.09.34/
In other words, the tradition that presumably existed in which their works were intentionally copied and preserved from manuscript to manuscript, from which the surviving fragments/quotations were copied.

>>24581153
>https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2021/2021.09.34/
But this is a review of a book.

>>24573432 (OP)
I don't believe in a best philosopher. That seems like some teenage tribalism tier list faggotry for people who have never understood a single line of thought in their lives.

>>24581237
You want actual editions/translations of the texts? Google motherfucker

Aristotle, followed by Aquinas.

myself. not like i have a choice lmao

>>24573432 (OP)
Plato, because I only read him.

>>24581023
Admittedly, he does look feminine , soft and brittle . Fuck the juice, but jeezus was a retarded weakling and only faggots could even think about following him

>>24581280
Monism vs dualism in a nutshell

>>24581246
>That seems like some teenage tribalism tier list faggotry
Dear Jimmy, you should read carefully and not use words that are commonly found on 4chan, as it may lead people to think you are "smart".

>>24581280
The paragraph on the left asserts postulates without making a single argument.
That about sums up people who masturbate over ancient philosophy.

I should really start reading some philosophy but i'm kinda retarded.

>>24583321
Literally and unironically this. Aristotles entire philosophy is appealing to intuiton. Liek christianity (or religion in general i guess) before christianity

>>24583321
>That about sums up people who masturbate over ancient philosophy.
Plato had said not to do this thing.

>>24573432 (OP)
the cross utterly blew tf out of philosophy

>>24579590
>In the Republic, Socrates talks about getting rid of all the adults to start fresh. In the Statesman the Stranger straight up describes a violent “purge”
Holy fucking BASED

>>24573668
For me, it is Hume. Hume one and forever.
With a piece of Stirner and Feyerabend.

>>24573432 (OP)
Alexander the Great wrote a letter to his old tutor Aristotle when he heard Aristotle published his works.
>‘Alexander, to Aristotle, greeting. Thou hast not done well to publish thy acroamatic doctrines; for in what shall I surpass other men if those doctrines wherein I have been trained are to be all men's common property?
Very few philosophers can sport a letter from a king of Alexander's caliber urging to them to keep their knowledge a secret lest the king lose his competitive edge.

Similarly Einstein said of Hume.
>‘Hume, whose Treatise of Human Nature I had studied avidly and with admiration shortly before discovering the theory of relativity. It is very possible that without these philosophical studies I would not have arrived at the solution.’

>>24583702
And how did Aristole respond?

For me it's Jozef Maria Hoene-Wronski.

>>24583702
And which is the point?

>>24583709
And why?

>>24583677
You are not on Tinder.

>>24573432 (OP)
For westerners, it's gotta be Nietzsche, because he called most philosophers fake and gay, which was true.
For the East, I am not as literate. I like Taoism.

>>24583321
Aristotle was mostly right about everything though.

>>24584323
nietzsche was the biggest pseud on earth ma dood

>>24583677
>for me it's hamburger. with a piece of shit and garbage at the side.

Appart from Ortega y Gasset, fucking Hesiodus and Plato, Cicero, Seneca and Dionisio Areopagita are also great