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

>>24573432 (OP)

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.

>>24573432 (OP)

>>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