← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24670410

41 posts 26 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24670410 >>24670442 >>24670459 >>24670897 >>24671861 >>24672076 >>24672737 >>24673007 >>24673177 >>24673553 >>24673841 >>24675045 >>24675590 >>24677101
Who are your top three favorite philosophers?
Anonymous No.24670432 >>24674875
Me, Me, Plato.
I haven't read much philosophy
Anonymous No.24670436
Prophets > philosophers
Anonymous No.24670442
>>24670410 (OP)
all my previous incarnations.
Anonymous No.24670445
I don't like any philosophers.
Anonymous No.24670459 >>24670656
>>24670410 (OP)
I don't really classify them like that, but I think that Descartes, Dewey and Martha Nussbaum.
Anonymous No.24670651 >>24670669
Anonymous No.24670656
>>24670459
Descartes is cool. I like rules for the mind.
Anonymous No.24670669
>>24670651
This retard made a chart for three dudes
Anonymous No.24670897 >>24673007
>>24670410 (OP)
Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein and Lex Fridman
Anonymous No.24671861
>>24670410 (OP)
Anonymous No.24672076
>>24670410 (OP)
Hume, Rousseau & Leszek Kołakowski
Anonymous No.24672109
I haven't read enough philosophy yet to really say. But from what I've read, I find Aristotle and Kant to be fundamentally wise. Mill, I believe, is a bit facile in his views on utility, but the theory itself is nice to consider.
Anonymous No.24672702
Of the ones I regularly come back to and find myself thinking about, it’s Aristotle, Spinoza, and Kant.
Anonymous No.24672737
>>24670410 (OP)
Xenophon, Heraclitus, Buber
Anonymous No.24672754 >>24672785
Aristotle and Fichte are my go to guys. No one else I’ve read so far reaches their power level.
Anonymous No.24672785 >>24672835
>>24672754
let me guess, you hate SchopenGAWD
Anonymous No.24672835
>>24672785
Eh I troll you guys, it’s not an ethical way to behave. Yes I think Schopenhauer is very wrong-headed, his idealism is corrupted by materialism, it’s an inverted idealism. Some of his central points, like the eternal insufficiency of the will and its corruption, are btfo by Fichte. On the other hand, some of his best points, like the goal of consciousness as the in-itself, are ripped off from Fichte. I understand the appeal of schop because he’s not entirely wrong, I just think the other idealists have more intelligent arguments. I think what Hegel says about evil and the beautiful soul is necessary to mediate the two, because Fichte’s account of conscience does collapse into the evil Schopenhauer describes. Come home white man, you don’t need to keep eating this baby food.
Anonymous No.24672861
One big issue with Schopenhauer is the question of the transcendental deduction. Schopenhauer thinks Kant is describing a process by which our physical organism “organizes” raw experience. But in fact, the point is that consciousness as such and nature stand in a relation of reciprocity. So the real idealists are interested in the unity of man and nature, while Schopenhauer makes man a part of nature. You can see how a different start like that could have great consequences.
Anonymous No.24672873 >>24672876 >>24672964 >>24673838
Schopenhauer because, with some minor corrections, he took philosophy as far as it can go.
Anonymous No.24672876 >>24672882
>>24672873
Anonymous No.24672882 >>24672886
>>24672876
Anonymous No.24672886 >>24672893
>>24672882
Anonymous No.24672893 >>24672901
>>24672886
Anonymous No.24672901
>>24672893
Anonymous No.24672964
>>24672873
>muh thing-in-itself
Yes thank you for illustrating my point, this is the issue. For Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Kant, there is no ding an sich in the sense in which you mean it. How can you have a thing in itself, only problematic for the I, as being a substrate of experience? What is this truth beyond what can be known, yet can be knowing, as “causing” and so on? This is PSEUD SLOP.
Anonymous No.24673007
>>24670410 (OP)
Plato
Seneca
Epictetus
>>24670897
>Lex Fridman
Dude went to Pretzel university
Anonymous No.24673177
>>24670410 (OP)
Arthur Chandler
>>24673108
Anonymous No.24673553
>>24670410 (OP)
1. Gasset
2. Aristotle
3. Foucault
Anonymous No.24673833
Schopbros...why do we always get BTFO by more intelligent anons who are idealists? We have to do better defending Schop instead of just posting AZ quotes...
Anonymous No.24673838
>>24672873
>he took philosophy as far as it can go.
What about Wittgenstein who showed the limit of Philosophy itself?
Anonymous No.24673841
>>24670410 (OP)
Nietzsche, Whitehead, Heidegger
Anonymous No.24673860 >>24674875
The only philosopher that matters is yourself. If you have not reached this conclusion yet, your journey is still incomplete.
Anonymous No.24674875
>>24673860
r-real...>>24670432
Anonymous No.24675045 >>24675431
>>24670410 (OP)
Epictetus. I havent read anyone besides him lol. I'd LOVE more philosophers like him to read though. I consider myself a utilitarian.
Anonymous No.24675320
Diogenes, Hitler, and Dutch soccer legend Johan Cruyff
Anonymous No.24675431
>>24675045
If you consider yourself a utilitarian you should read virtue ethics and deontology.
Anonymous No.24675590
>>24670410 (OP)
Big, Black, and Cock.
Anonymous No.24676761
Plato
Kant
Schopenhauer
Anonymous No.24677088
Plato
Nietzsche
Wittgenstein
Anonymous No.24677101
>>24670410 (OP)
Plato, Heraclitus, Boethius