[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


1: Aristotle
2: Plato
3: Kant
4: Hegel
5: Descartes
6: Aquinas
7: Nietzsche
8: Heidegger
9: Wittgenstein
10: Leibniz
>>
>>18424065
Shit I forgot I should have put Schopenhauer where Descartes is
>>
All worthless. Sextus Empiricus is the only one you need to read
>>
>>18424089
That’s a bit cringe
>>
>>18424101
Not an atheist, but you putting Muhammed the pedo before our lord and saviour is fucking cringe
>>
>>18424070
Above Kant I would put him
>>
>>18424106
Only God is the Lord

>>18424120
You’re not a Muslim stop larping
>>
>>18424120
Seems like you’re the beta, with all your saved memes, grow up faggot
>>
>>18424065
Your list is garbage.

1) Plato
2) Hermes Trismegistus
3) Pythagoras
4) Plotinus
5) Ficino
6) Avicenna
7) Meister Eckhart
8) Heidegger
9) Severino
10) Jung

*Female bonus*
11) Hildegard of Bingen
12) Catherine of Siena
>>
>>18424065
1 me
>>
>"rank" ten incommensurable systems, at least 9 of which wrong
>>
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Plotinus
4. Parmenides
5. Lao Tzu
5. Gotama Buddha
6. René Guénon
7. Leibniz
8. Heraclitus
9. Boehme
10. Kant
>>
>>18424065
Honestly good list, just put Plato above Aristotle and Heidegger above Aquinas.
>>
>>18424129
>Schopenhauer above Kant
Retard detected.
>>
>>18424151

Any reason for not including Aristotle, the one who put the basis of zoology, biology, cosmology, meteorology, formal logic + fundamental contributions to metaphysics, politics and ethics, who was a teacher to Alexander the Great, one of the brightest military minds, who was the brightest student of Plato, founded the Lyceum (alternative to academy) ?
>>
File: 653ztm9yjtg31.jpg (15 KB, 559x423)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>18424217
>Heidegger above Aquinas.
>>
Internal ranking is too autistic so I'll just go chronological
>Augustine
>Aquinas
>Duns Scot
>Montaigne
>Suarez
>Descartes
>Malebranche
>Leibniz
>Bolzano
>Husserl
I put Montaigne instead of Aristotle/Plato because I want to have at least one big rant about life and not only systematizers.
>>
>>18424233
Yes, Heidegger is more original. Or at the least, from within Heidegger's system he is more important than Tommy, so you have to make a choice anyway.
>>
>>18424258
>Yes, Heidegger is more original
Huh, I was under the impression philosophy was a bit more than intellectual pop culture.
>>
>>18424258
Heidegger shouldn’t even be in the list, Husserl should in his place.
>>
>>18424206
This desu.
I can understand having a couple at odds with each other due to the intricacies of their differences but there is a limit to such haphazard eclectism. Listing both Plato and Aristotle is understandable (though uninspired) but having Plato and Nietzsche isn't.
Seems OP is ranking things by how "interesting" they sound.
>>
>>18424304
>but having Plato and Nietzsche isn't.
>implying Nietzsche's wills and psychology are incompatible with Plato's forms and Good.
Large chunks of Nietzsche's doctrine have to be stripped out or reformulated, but there are still certain bits left of value, and if you can see past Nietzsche's aggressively perspectivist exterior, you will notice he actually possesses much in common with, eg, Socrates, despite criticizing him so desperately in Twilight. There are times where Socrates, through Plato's description at least, appears very similar to Nietzsche's idea of an Übermensch. I could go on with what can be viewed as essential similarities upon deeper inspection.
Anyway, I know you'll reject the possibility of any significant similarities or uses of both because I've argued with your type before. You want your philosophy kept neatly preserved with clearly defined borders between systems. Disparage eclecticism as much as you want, but there are people, like me, who don't believe that truth is ever going to be uncovered by rigidly adhering to a particular intellectual system. I don't even think Plato believed that, considering his dialogues are all based around trying to uncover truth itself, and not simply rehashing the same tired dogma over and over again.
>>
>>18424065
>Plato and Aristotle
>more influential than Marx
Lmao, you chuds make me laugh every time.
>>
File: 20210610_144806.jpg (2.81 MB, 3072x4018)
2.81 MB
2.81 MB JPG
Yes, Aristotle is the best and most insightful.
>>
1. Kant
2. Plato
3. Aristotle
4. Nietzsche
5. Hegel
6. Montaigne
7. Hume
8. Marx
9. Descartes
10. Schopenhauer
>>
>>18424230
Making puzzles with what your masters taught you is not philosophy. If encyclopedism is your criterion for determining what is great philosophy then change your list and put Scotus Eriugena, Pliny the Elder, Isidore of Seville, Diderot and D'Alembert in it. Aristotle is one of them.

>>18424206
This.
>>
>>18424065
Pretty based except for Hegel.
>>
File: image.jpg (97 KB, 860x849)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>18424361
>1. Kant
>2. Plato
>>
>>18424373
What's the issue?
>>
>>18424373
It's a fair assessment if you're really into the whole idealism thing. That's not to say that Kant didn't still have certain debts to Plato and Aristotle.
>>
1. Plato
2. Kierkegaard
3. George Berkeley
4. Seneca
5. Plotinus
6. Leibniz
7. Kant
8.Aristotle
9. Rousseau
10. Jung ( should be 1, he got everything right)
>>
>>18424363
Yeah you never read Aristotle. The difference between Plato and him is formal. What we have from Plato are literally what you described as puzzles since he didn’t write explicitly what was most important. And if you don’t think a direct discursive presentation of philosophy is philosophy then discard Kant too, for example.
>>
>>18424422
Kant did nothing else but repeat what a thousand years of philosophers had already said, and better than him. He just used >le rational jargon xD

Enlightenment is cringe, really.
>>
>>18424224
>Kant in the list at all
Pseud detected
>>
>>18424151
>Severino
pls
>>
>>18424151
Incredibly based
>>
>>18424484
That's just plain wrong. Kant introduced several new errors.
>>
>>18424523
Oh, yes. He did worsen Western philosophy. Apprently Germans can't help but ruin everything they touch.
>>
>>18424532
They aren't German, they are Pr*ssians.
>>
>>18424363

Bro what are you talking about ? (I'm the one you replied to 1842430)

Aristotle's ontology and metaphysics is way different than Plato, you're clueless if you say Aristotle used what Plato said.

Plato saw the physical world as a waste of time because it's just an imperfect copy of the ideal forms.

Aristotle on the other hand, saw the physical world as the source of knowledge and in his quest for knowledge, he has created the groundwork for several fields of studies (Plato didn't even try this).

Aristotle's philosophy basically created the empiricist tradition of thinking. His cosmological observations were used by Ptolemy I for the geocentric system which was a sistem that lasted until heliocentric appeared (Galileo+Copernic).

His formal logic contributions lasted until ~16 or 17 century (can't remember exactly).

Aristotle's ethics fixed good in the actions of the people, not in an abstract, idealist concept as "The Form of Good" (Plato). He literally made people responsible for their actions and promoted a moderated way of acting to avoid excesses in actions.

You're just clueless my dude, stop talking shit if you got no clue.
>>
1. Plato
2. Kierkegaard
3. George Berkeley
4. Seneca
5. Plotinus
6. Leibniz
7. Kant
8.Aristotle
9. Rousseau
10. Jung ( should be 1, he got everything right)
>>
File: 1623224918564.png (264 KB, 736x960)
264 KB
264 KB PNG
>>18424414
>>18424580
Seems we have a schizo in need of breaking here.
>>
>>18424589
There is no turning back once you have seen the light.
>>
>>18424484

Another cringe response from the pseud. Kant's philosophy was on the same level as of Plato. Plato's philosophy came as a way to reconcile monism and pluralism (parmenides and heraclitus).

The second such big reconcilitation in the history of philosophy was Kant's (between rationalism and empiricism). Kant was the start of modern philosophy and created a whole philosophical architecture to explain reality WITHOUT appealing to concepts like God or the soul. He also influenced Wittgensten, arguably the biggest philosopher of language.

Again, you're a clueless pseud.
>>
>>18424611
Heraclitus was a monist, a dialectical one. This is obvious to anyone who bothered studying him. But you are right that Plato reconciled him and Parmenides.
Also what you attribute to Kant was already done 2000 years before him by a guy called Aristotle. Aristotle is the start of modern philosophy.
>>
>>18424611
There is so much wrong in this short post it's hard to know where to begin.
>The second such big reconcilitation
You've got to be kidding me. There have been waves and waves of "daring synthesis" through history.
>Kant was the start of modern philosophy
Inb4 a snapshot of wikipedia. There are entire traditions of thought post Kant that have no grounding in Kant, and at most see him as a punching ball. If there is any hard break in history it would be Descartes, and even that is debatable.
>heraclitus
>pluralism
That's debatable enough that you can't just claim it as obvious.
>>
>>18424611
>>18424724
Also, you clearly don’t know what soul and God are. The other anon is wrong but you are the pseud here. Start with Plato.
>>
>>18424576
>Aristotle on the other hand, saw the physical world as the source of knowledge and in his quest for knowledge
>Aristotle's philosophy basically created the empiricist tradition of thinking
>Aristotle's ethics fixed good in the actions of the people, not in an abstract, idealist concept as "The Form of Good"
Yeah, that's exactly why Aristotle is not and will never be in my list.

>>18424611
I don't waste my time with redditors.
>>
>>18424733

>You've got to be kidding me. There have been waves and waves of "daring synthesis" through history.

I didn't say no one ever attempted to synthesize before, but Kant (and Plato) were succesful in doing so and creating a comprehensive philosophy out of it.

>Inb4 a snapshot of wikipedia

It's based on what I've said before. His philosophy was a huge turning point due to the synthesis between rationalism and empiricism.

>Heraclius, pluralism

Yeah, maybe not a full blown pluralist, but he definitely was different than Parmenides' monism, he tried to explain it differently which leaned towards pluralism. Pretty irrelevant as this wasn't the main point of the post.

>>18424724

I literally defended Aristotle's contributions a few posts above (>>18424576 is my post).

Aristotle and Kant are similar in the sense that they both draw their philosophies from empiricism, but Kant seems to be more specific in the ways knowledge is produced and what the limits of knowledge would be and this is because it also integrates idealism into his philosophy.

Probably everything can be traced back to Aristotle and Plato, but by Kant being the start of modern philosophy I mean his philosophy was a huge step forward by managing to quench radical empirism and rationalists, promoting a more measured approach. One of the biggest effects it had is that he refuted the rationalists which were very sure when speaking about the existence of God, soul or freedom.

>>18424741

These posts aren't both mine, only >>18424611 is.

>Also, you clearly don’t know what soul and God are. The other anon is wrong but you are the pseud here. Start with Plato.

You're talking as if God and soul clearly exists. And by trying to prove it, you send me to one of the most unrefined explanations of why God and Soul exist (Plato). So you're the typical Plato pseud on /lit/ that doesn't know anything else besides 3 concepts from Plato.
>>
>>18424836

So your problem with Aristotle is that he doesn't see the source of knowledge as transcedental ? Is this because you cling to transcendent vague explanations of reality since they allow for room of error or ?
>>
>>18424865
Just read Aristotle and leave me alone, sir.
>>
>>18424881

Kek. I give Plato his merits, but Aristotle literally went above and beyond Plato when it comes to contributions to humanity and philosophy as a field of study.
>>
>>18424853
>and this is because it also integrates idealism into his philosophy
What a huge oversimplification and hasty conclusion. Seems like you Americans get easily smitten by set-theoretic big words.
>>
>>18424912

>What a huge oversimplification and hasty conclusion

What do you expect me to do ? Lay out a 50 page essay just to answer a random on 4chan ? I have to oversimplificate for practical purposes. Any detail exposition of ideas takes a lot of time and energy, which is not worth since we post on an anonymous image board. So I choose to just give you a short version so you get the idea of what I mean.
>>
>>18424893
>above and beyond
Ah yes, flattening to the ground is "above and beyond" and not below and behind. The irony.
>>
>>18424931

You're just trolling at this point. No point arguing with pseuds.
>>
>>18424949
Come back when you have read Michelstaedter.
>>
>>18424922
You must be 18 to project your expressionified bustle on this website.
>>
>>18424954

No on cares about him.

>>18424962

I'm 25, but come back when you decide to give a structured argument instead of talking smack. I gave some arguments (even if simplified), but you didn't give anything, you just resort to ad hominems.
>>
>>18424853
soul - psyche - mind
>>
>>18424978

Point being ? Plato doesn't prove the soul exists. He sees soul as something that exists outside of human experience and which integrates in a body at birth. That's his explanation for anamnesis. It's not plausible. It also relies on the assumption that ideas exist somewhere in a separate realm of existence, which is a very loose terrain to stand on.

I'd rather understand soul as "anima" (as it is the case for Aristotle), which is immanent in animate substances.
>>
>>18424853
>unrefined
You don’t even understand the aim of the literary device in the platonic dialogues. You sound desperate. Intelligibility itself proves God and soul. Kant’s skepticism is self-refuting contrary to Aristotle’s axiomatic principle (husserlian subjective apodicticity likewise destroys Kant as everything else he wrote against him). Nothing of what you described attaches any originality to Kant when Aristotle did the same. You just repeated what Kant did, not what was different. Anyhow you are a pseud and should read more.
>>
>>18425001
>>18424978
>Plato sees the soul outside of human experience
Retard. We can only have experience because of the soul (forms being in the soul as he repeatedly writes). You haven’t even read Plato and wants to discuss philosophy.

>anamnesis being literal reincarnation
Another proof of your having not read Plato. Or just too dumb to see through allegories (which EVERY dialogue of his are filled with).

>ideas in a separate realm
Lmao this is laughable I won’t even waste my time commenting on
>>
Holy shit, this asian bugman who made this thread is seriously affected by some form of mental deficiency.
>>
>>18425021

>You don’t even understand the aim of the literary device in the platonic dialogues. You sound desperate. Intelligibility itself proves God and soul.

It doesn't "prove" anything. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word prove. How does intelligibility prove God and soul ? By intelligibility do you mean the fact that things are comprehensible or that humans have the ability to comprehend through Intellect ?

>Kant’s skepticism is self-refuting contrary to Aristotle’s axiomatic principle

How is Kant even a skeptic ? The point of his whole philosophy is to explain the limits of knowledge and how we acquire knowledge. For metaphysical objects (God, soul, freedom), he only proves that you can't be CERTAIN of their existence, thus refuting the metaphysicians before them which were talking with certainty about these objects. Moreover, Kant even approves in a sense that these objects might exist, only that we as humans don't have Intellectual Perception, thus they cannot be known since we're restricted as humans. Where is the skepticism ? He only takes a neutral ground.

>Aristotle's axiomatic principle.

You have to be more specific, what do you mean by this ? Are you trying to make me give the answers cause you can't be more specific then pretend you knew them since the start ?

I won't talk about Husserl cause I don't know much about him, but it's irrelevant because I didn't try to prove that Kant's philosophy is entirely right.

My point was only to prove that Kant was an important stone in the history of philosophy since his system came as a reconciliation between opposite traditions of thinking. He also had big contributions in ethics, his theory is one of the main ethical approaches that are being taught to this day (even though there's debatable things in it).
>>
WHERE THE FUCK IS PETERSON??? HE IS NOT ON EVEN A SINGLE ANON'S LIST. PATHETIC!!
>>
>>18425046

>Retard. We can only have experience because of the soul (forms being in the soul as he repeatedly writes). You haven’t even read Plato and wants to discuss philosophy.

First of all, only 18425001 is me, the other one not.

You're the retarded one because I'm talking about how Plato bases his anamnesis theory on the soul existing as separate from the body and that it contemplates the form while not attached to a body and when it attaches a body, that's how you explain the existence of certain ideas with which humans work, which aren't obtained through empirical approaches.

>Another proof of your having not read Plato. Or just too dumb to see through allegories (which EVERY dialogue of his are filled with).

I never said it's "reincarnation", you're the one being mentally braindead and assuming that. Did I say anywhere that the soul fuses with the body multiple times ? No. Stop being a braindead retard.

>Lmao this is laughable I won’t even waste my time commenting on

Ideas (or forms, it's a synonym for Plato, not sure if you're aware), exist separately from the physical world. They're TRANSCENDENTAL, not immanent. If you don't even know this why do you go around telling others they didn't read Plato ? You don't even grasp the most basic things of his theory, fucking faggot.
>>
>>18424348
bait
>>
>>18425046

And second of all, I forgot to type it, I told you Plato can't prove shit.

a) He ASSUMES soul exists

b) He ASSUMES this soul is also separate from what Aristotle would call substance (simply put: creatures)

c) He ASSUMES this soul contemplates the ideal forms

d) which is an ASSUMPTION that this transcendetal reality of forms exists

He works only with ASSUMPTIONS. He doesn't prove anything. They can't even be proved logically. On the other hand, a lot of what Aristotle says can be demonstrated because he starts from empirical observations and demonstrates, LOGICALLY, how everything else is.

Pseud.
>>
>>18425114
>how is kant a skeptic?
>he says you cant be certain (of some things)
Yeah only a kantian to think knowledge can be uncertain.
He posits their existence at the same time denying knowledge of them which predicates their existence.

>neutral ground
This is classical skepticism dum dum

>my point was only to prove that Kant was an important stone for he reconciliated opposite traditions
This was not your only point. You are defending Kant’s skepticism desperately with no arguments but dogmatic repetitions.
And there is nothing original in reconciliating opposite traditions. Plato did it, Aristotle did it, and they did it MUCH better with many different traditions, not only two.

>he also had big contributions in ethics
I will not comment about Plato, Aristotle, Socrates on this because this is clear, but Kant’s ethical system collapses with the holes in his epistemology.
>>
>>18425152
>Anamnesis
>I never said reincarnated
See your description of the soul attaching itself to the body and read Plato for once and see that what you describe is literally the reincarnation allegory fundamental to anamnesis metaphor.

There is no realm of forms separated from phenomena and no phenomena separated from the world of forms, thus it is obvious how forms and soul are not in different places because they are in no place at all. Ontological distinction is not spatial one.
Induction is present in Plato as potency for actualization of the forms. The actualization of forms in the soul is the actualization of it in phenomena.

>did I say it fuses with the body multiple times
This is in the anamnesis allegory, peanbrain.

>dude ideas is a synonym of forms
Lmao

>they are TRANSCENDENTAL
I think I already explained this above.

Educating pseuds is tough, they never want to actually read the primary texts.
>>
I couldn't find a correct list itt so I'll post the correct top 5 for you:
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Kant
4. Parmenides
5. Hobbes

If your list includes Heraclitus, Nietzsche, or other 19th/20th century philosophers it's wrong.
>>
>>18425182

Yeah only a kantian to think knowledge can be uncertain.
He posits their existence at the same time denying knowledge of them which predicates their existence

Kant doesn't say knowledge can be uncertain, he only says that you can't have certainty about the existence of God, soul, freedom (basically NOUMENAS). He says you can only use rationality to theoretically talk about them, but nothing else because humans don't have the capacity of intellectual perception.

He doesn't posit God or soul's existence with necessity, his whole point is to refute metaphysicians which are certain these objects exist by telling them they have no way of knowing they exist. Simply. So the best you can do is assume they might exist, nothing else.

>This is classical skepticism dum dum

Yeah, ok, he's skeptical when it comes to noumenas. What I visualized when I said neutral ground was an axis where skepticism and certainty are the opposing extremes and Kant situates in the middle.

This was not your only point. You are defending Kant’s skepticism desperately with no arguments but dogmatic repetitions.
And there is nothing original in reconciliating opposite traditions. Plato did it, Aristotle did it, and they did it MUCH better with many different traditions, not only two.

The discussion denatured into other things. Kant's skepticism of the existence of God or soul is natural. It's the burden on people to prove something exists when they say it exists, not on the other to prove it doesn't exist when it doesn't exist. If anything, I have proof it doesn't exist because in thousands of years, God's or the soul's existence has been demonstrated.

>And there is nothing original in reconciliating opposite traditions. Plato did it, Aristotle did it,

What traditions did Aristotle reconcile ? Honest question. The only things he could reconcile are previous traditions and those were plato, socrates and pre-socratics right ? And Plato did the job already of reconciling the past traditions. Not sure what was left for Aristotle to reconcile here.

>I will not comment about Plato, Aristotle, Socrates on this because this is clear, but Kant’s ethical system collapses with the holes in his epistemology.

There's debatable things in his theory, but Kant's ethics doesn't base itself that much on his epistemology. He talks about the practical rationality, but rationality isn't the problematic part with Kant's epistemology.

If anything what's debatable or the weakest point in Kant's ethics is the lack of flexibility, but his categorical imperatives are rules which you can guide yourself by even today.
>>
>>18425168
>a
Read Phaedo and Phaedrus

>b
Read Aristotle’s metaphysics and physics, there is nothing that is without Form

>c
Read any dialogue he shows literally HOW in every one of them

>d
Again he shows how in every of them

Also, Aristotle does the exact same thing Plato did, proves the same things ontologically as Plato did in a differ manner obviously as I told you what the dialogues mean. You can’t even understand that the empirical is the rational order and that it is the noetic epistrophe in platonism. You are really dumb ignoramus, I don’t think reading Plato, Aristotle would help. Forget philosophy and move along.
>>
>>18424065
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Nietzsche
>Schopenhauer
>Evola
>Guenon
>Kant
>Hegel
>Aquinas
>Heraclitus
>>
Jesus what a shit thread. Even on /lit/, retarded idiots are obsessed with tier lists.
>>
File: vomit pepe.jpg (24 KB, 399x388)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>18425256
>Hobbes
>>
File: Pseud.png (10 KB, 620x163)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>18425230

Are you able to make the difference between these 2 words: INCARNATION / REINCARNATION ?

>There is no realm of forms separated from phenomena and no phenomena separated from the world of forms, thus it is obvious how forms and soul are not in different places because they are in no place at all. Ontological distinction is not spatial one.
Induction is present in Plato as potency for actualization of the forms. The actualization of forms in the soul is the actualization of it in phenomena.

Again, Plato's forms are transcendental. Defintion below:

Adjective. transcendent, surpassing, or superior. being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural. abstract or metaphysical. idealistic, lofty, or extravagant.

Plato's forms are not in the phenomenal world. That would destroy the most fundamental dinstinction of Plato's theory. If you say Plato's forms are not separate from the phenomenal world, then you're saying that they're immanent.

Languages forces me to refer to forms as existing somewhere spacially different. Of course it doesn't have a special "space", but they don't exist in the sensible world.

You didn't didn't answer me how Plato proves any of the assumptions I specified (4 of them) in the other post. You're still talking with these assumptions.

>This is in the anamnesis allegory, peanbrain.

Then why are you denying that the soul fuses with the body ?

>Lmao

You clearly got no clue, check pic related. I could have showed you from wikipedia or any of the other sources you find on a simple search on google (written by academics).
>>
>>18425265
>dude kant suspends judgement on noumena
>Not a skeptic

>his ethics is not based on epistemology
>but on (whatever) rationality

You are completely lost. Also again, Husserl demonstrates in less than 20 pages how Kant is wrong and his epistemology collapses everything he could ever say about knowledge or lack of knowledge of anything.

Also what are your proofs for God’s inexistence? You think there are no proofs for God? Read Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, Hegel, Brentano, if you want discursive proofs.
>>
>>18424065
Wow, after Aristotle that list is just a downhill ride to cringe city...
https://youtu.be/sk9HZBX3qrg
>>
File: image.png (73 KB, 446x435)
73 KB
73 KB PNG
Retards:
>they like Aristotle, Descartes, Voltaire, Rousseau, Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Leibniz, De Maistre, Marx, Hegel, Fichte, Stirner, Nietzsche, Bergson, Whitehead, Russell, Wittgenstein, Adorno, Derrida, Land

Clever ones:
>they like Plato, Parmenides, Plotinus, Proclus, Porphyry, Seneca, Boethius, Augustine, Confucius, Ficino, Montaigne, Spinoza, Michelstaedter, Heidegger, Jung
>>
>>18424258
You realize Heidegger just ripped off Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, right?
>>
>>18425339
I can only feel pity. Seriously this post of yours is really sad. You think I wouldn’t know so basic information about english terminology of the word Eidos, you ignore or you just can’t understand the difference between literality and allegory, ontological distinctions, you ignore the very nature of forms and what, how and why it is implied in phenomena.

I will depart, I think it is enough.
>>
>>18425276

>a: no
>b: no
>c: no
>d: no

You might want to read them again because Plato's phenomenal world is an imperfect copy of the forms. How do you prove the assumption that the world is an imperfect copy of something ?

Also you're arguing with neoplatonic concepts when we atlk about Plato, kekm@o
>>
File: image.jpg (41 KB, 420x315)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>this thread
>>
1 Descartes
2 Nietzsche
3 Schopenhauer
4 Saint Augustine of Hippo
5 Nick Land
6 Spinoza
7 John the Scot
8 Plotinus
9 Ludwig Wittgenstein
10 Thomas Hobbes
>>
File: image.jpg (87 KB, 600x1079)
87 KB
87 KB JPG
>>18425396
>this subtle trolling done so finely
I'm almost crying
>>
>>18425344

I don't think we both understand the same thing when we talk about proof. Proof is meant to be something tangible, not existing in theory only.

I didn't say Kant doesn't base his ethics on epistemology, only that he uses a small part of his epistemology for ethics. Stop misinterpreting.

I literally said "ok yea he's a skeptic" and then proceeded to explain what I meant when I said by not a skeptic, then you pretend I'm refuting that he's a skeptic again, ok.

>Husserl demonstrates in less than 20 pages

Where and how. Explain.

>Also what are your proofs for God’s inexistence?

You know unicorns ? Ok. So someone makes a theory about how unicorns exist by coming up with some concepts to bridge the gap (despite no one seeing a unicorn in real life) and by saying that horses are the proof unicorns exist.

Someone says it's not true, they don't exist since we don't have anything that's a unicorn in our world.

The theory-maker says: Proof ? Can you prove unicorns don't exist ?

It's same with God's existence. I can prove God's inexistence by simply seeing that there was never any interaction with God with our world. Inexistence is the standard when it comes to reality, existence is the exception to the rule. Things "don't exist" for an almost infinite amount of time compared to the time things exist. So inexistence is the standard of reality or the majority of it, thus the burden of proof at all times is to prove something exists, not that it doesn't exist. You have to prove something doesn't exist only when you have proof that something exists (which is a burden you have to bear).
>>
File: Pseuds.png (44 KB, 367x459)
44 KB
44 KB PNG
>>18425357
>Michelstaedter

Didn't influence anything, also killed himself at a young age.

>>18425367

Reply when you respond to the questions. If you don't, you can depart from reality.
>>
>>18425375
Copy, imperfection are metaphors for their ontological distinction. This is so basic and obvious.

>neoplatonic concepts
Those are greek terms, noetic, nous, noesis are scattered troughout the dialogues. Epistrophe is also in plato and it means return.
“Neo”platonism is nothing but platonism, they did what aristotle did.
>>
>>18425496

>Copy, imperfection are metaphors for their ontological distinction. This is so basic and obvious.

Can you explain what are they metaphors for ? You don't need to appeal to metaphors to make the distinction between forms and phenomenas. It's like saying Aristotle needs metaphors to explain the distinction between material and forms when all he needs is an example like: "Dog - form, bones, skin, etc - material". Nothing metaphoric here. So for Plato how is copy and imperfection metaphoric ? What does it stand for ? It's not obvious at all.
>>
>>18425438
>you know unicorns??

>reality’s ground is inexistence

Holy shit you are severely retarded.
>>
>>18424353
Bazowany i czerwonopigułkowany
>>
>>18425514
Metaphors/allegories are fundamental to Plato as in they are the essence of the dialogues as much as the dialogical device. He nevertheless explictly shows and expounds the forms in the same manner Aristotle does in EVERY dialogue of his.
>>
>>18425518

How retarded can you be that you misread simple sentences ?

Language is a barrier when trying to express things. I mean reality is a very broad way, encompassing both the state of existence (material world) and state of non-existence (when nothing exists - pre- Big bang if it helps you).

>Metaphors/allegories are fundamental to Plato as in they are the essence of the dialogues as much as the dialogical device. He nevertheless explictly shows and expounds the forms in the same manner Aristotle does in EVERY dialogue of his.

That doesn't answer the question. Are you sure you know what you're talking about ? I asked you how is "copy" and "imperfection" metaphoric ? Metaphors are stand-in for something else. For what does copy and imperfection stand in concretely ?
>>
>>18425531

check >>18425544, didn't tag you there. Greentext is yours and below is yo
>>
>>18425544
>when nothing exists
>state of non-existence
Hhhahahahahahahahahahahaha

>how are they metaphoric
again and for the last time: ontological distinction

I will not answer to you anymore, you are a waste. Just hop in here >>18402046. Maybe you will find a very patient anon to help you with your retardation.
>>
>>18425568

I meant what's above green text to the other anon, but you're retarded as always. Yes, there is something as a state of non-existence. You can't understand since you have terminal autism.

Enjoy being a high school dropout plato pseud.
>>
>>18425458
>Didn't influence anything
>this is the way in which amerifats think
>>
>>18424151
>t. larper
>>
>>18424065
>Desfarts

Should be Augustine
>>
>>18424151
>Pythagoras
stfu pseud
>>
Have you guys noticed how most modern European philosophers were miserable degenerates and either died alone or had unfruitful marriages?
>>
File: greek.png (188 KB, 800x955)
188 KB
188 KB PNG
>Plato
>>
>>18425142
He’s number zero
>>
>>18425297
Enlighten me with a better thread idea please
>>
Anyone who puts Plato in their top 10 has not read past Plato probably. His ideas were retarded and Aristotle refutes the Republic in like 4 sentences.
>>
File: image.jpg (102 KB, 600x536)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>18426176
>he hasn't read the Summa Pitagorica and d'Olivet's Golden Verses
>>
>>18424065
1. diogenes
2. wittgenstein
3. jung
4. jared diamond
5. chomsky
6. zizek
7. euclid (i think therefore i am)
8. nietzsche
9. marx and angels (das kapital)
10. jordan b peterson
>>
>>18426546

Truth
>>
>>18426579
Solid bait my friend
>>
>>18426546
>not realizing proving or disproving is not the point of philosophy
Holy Kek
>>
>>18426599
Of course it is. Seethe more.
>>
File: image.jpg (70 KB, 623x587)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>18426628
>Of course it is. Seethe more.
>>
>>18426599

Then why do philosophers try to refute other philosophers ?
>>
>>18426668
They really don't. And when they do, it's the mark that they're shit-tier philosophers. Coincidentally, the eternal anglo who frequents this board only worships this particular category of shit-tier philosophy.
>>
>>18426689

They don't make it the central point to refute others, but they do if they have different ontological / metaphysical views. So in essence, it's unavoidable to not prove someone wrong in philosophy.
>>
>>18426737
Dude, your entire life is based upon errors. Just retire, hide yourself from the world.

Thinking about philosophy as a game where people strive to be right to the detriment of others is just wrong, plain wrong, period. Do not even reply.
>>
>>18426756

You're pretty retarded and can't comprehend basic sentences. Philosophers prove other philosophers wrong even if that's not their main goal. It's an unavoidable part of philosophy, stop being retarded, I didn't say that's the main goal of philosophy. Learn to read.
>>
>>18426756
Philosophy is about finding the ultimate truth and reaching the ultimate state of knowledge, and in order to get to that point, we are going to need to call a few people retards along the way. It's inevitable.
You are just a victim of 21st century academia that wants to "respect all opinions" and why no one has had an original thought in over a hundred years.
>>
1) Plato
2) Aristotle
3) Spinoza
4) Hume
5) Kant
6) Hegel
7) Nietzche
8) Quine
9) Whitehead
10) Heidegger
>>
>>18426811
Hey redditor, I'll show you how deeply retarded you are. Look, this was my sentence:
>Thinking about philosophy as a game where people strive to be right to the detriment of others is just wrong
Of this sentence, your mind only saw and absorbed the second part, namely:
>philosophy (is) a game where people strive to be right to the detriment of others
It didn't even notice that the beginning was:
>Thinking about philosophy as
(and the subsequent verbal predicate "is wrong").

Apparently you were unable to grasp the basic message of my post, which I will repeat here for your convenience:
Even if philosophers sometimes disprove each other, the fact (the fact in itself, you know, the fucking fact in itself) of conceiving philosophy as a game where people fight to disprove each other is wrong, plain wrong. And this is exactly what you've been doing until today, because you're retarded, sir. I hope you will change now that I've enlightened you.

>>18426820
>muh originality!1!1!!
I won't waste my time with rubbish like you. The entirety of anglo and american culture (included the academic part of it, contrary to what you say) is based on this wrong and harmful assumption that originality is what determines the value of something. Solely and exclusively someone who is not cultured enough can hold such a wrong and stupid opinion. The wise man clearly sees that the core ideas of the human genre could be counted on one hand, and that above the change of history, above philosophers and schools and trends, everyone says something that has already been said by someone else. Philosophy really just consists in continuously changing the glasses through which you watch the world.

Sad that I feel obliged to gift my personal knowledge to people who don't deserve it.
>>
>1) Someone very famous I've heard about n.1
>2) Someone very famous I've heard about n.2
>3) Someone very famous I've heard about n.3
>4) Someone very famous I've heard about n.4
>5) Someone very famous I've heard about n.5
>6) Someone very famous I've heard about n.6
>7) Someone very famous I've heard about n.7
>8) Someone very famous I've heard about n.8
>9) Someone very famous I've heard about n.9
>10) Someone very famous I've heard about n.10
>>
>>18426968
Imagine writing a post this long and this butthurt because you can't cope with being wrong, ironically something philosophy should have humbled you to by now.
>>
@18427142
Imagine being so speechless because you can't admit you have always been wrong about everything.
>>
>>18427163
Imagine being so flustered and shook you can't even respond correctly lmao
>>
>>18426968

I'm not a redditor, but nice cope I guess.

No one talked about conceiving philosophy as a game of proving people wrong. Me and another anon literally just told you that it's inevitable to prove people wrong while doing philosophy. You're retarded as fuck. I'm from Europe btw.
>>
>>18427197
>No one talked about conceiving philosophy as a game of proving people wrong. Me and another anon literally just told you that it's inevitable to prove people wrong while doing philosophy.
No, you didn't. Proof:
>>18425458
>>18426546
>>18424975
These posts show that you and your friend conceive philosophy as a game where proving and disproving people, being relevant or irrelevant according to your gut feeling (arbitrary and wrong assumptions), are the only things that matter.
>>
>>18427238

So you're quoting posts that don't have anything to do with what we just talked about ? Terminal autism I guess.

There are philosopers that have opposing views. In that sense, they're not accepting that the other view is right. They might explicitly say so. Some philosophers do say so that X philosopher got something wrong or is not right about a certain concept.

If philosophy wasn't about finding the mistakes and improving upon them, then it would never advance. You're probably a tranny too that's bullied IRL. YWNBAW, stop complaining bitch.
>>
>>18427276
Eat shit bugman
>inb4 no argument
That's my argument
>>
>>18424065
Anybody here read all of Leibniz letters that are available yet, I want to see the parts where he responds to legitimate critiques of Monadology.
>>
>>18427276

Your argument is retarded.

You quoted posts where I argued with a retard (maybe that one is you, who knows) about aspects of Plato's philosophy. It was an argumentation about if he got it right or not.

Argumentation for the purpose of proving people wrong does happen and it's natural. Just because I argue with a retard to prove he's wrong on a philosophical topic doesn't mean that I think philosophy is for the purpose of proving people wrong. Stop doing mental gymnastics retard.

t. PHILOSOPHY UNDERGRAD + GRAD
>>
>>18427293

>>18427293
>>
>>18424230
Aristotle did not invent formal logic and the insinuation he did is disgraceful.
>>
>>18427377

Ok, whatever you want to tell urself to sleep at night.
>>
>>18427377

"Aristotle was the first logician to attempt a systematic analysis of logical syntax, of noun (or term), and of verb. He was the first formal logician, in that he demonstrated the principles of reasoning by employing variables to show the underlying logical form of an argument."
>>
They're philosophers not basketball teams lol
>>
>>18427473
>>18427465
Categorical logic is exactly not what formal logic is.
>He was the first formal logician, in that he demonstrated the principles of reasoning by employing variables to show the underlying logical form of an argument.
Categorical logic is not dependent solely on the form. Hence why it is Categorical and not Formal.
>>
>>18427494

Aristotle’s logic, especially his theory of the syllogism, has had an unparalleled influence on the history of Western thought. It did not always hold this position: in the Hellenistic period, Stoic logic, and in particular the work of Chrysippus, took pride of place. However, in later antiquity, following the work of Aristotelian Commentators, Aristotle’s logic became dominant, and Aristotelian logic was what was transmitted to the Arabic and the Latin medieval traditions, while the works of Chrysippus have not survived.

This unique historical position has not always contributed to the understanding of Aristotle’s logical works. Kant thought that Aristotle had discovered everything there was to know about logic, and the historian of logic Prantl drew the corollary that any logician after Aristotle who said anything new was confused, stupid, or perverse. During the rise of modern formal logic following Frege and Peirce, adherents of Traditional Logic (seen as the descendant of Aristotelian Logic) and the new mathematical logic tended to see one another as rivals, with incompatible notions of logic. More recent scholarship has often applied the very techniques of mathematical logic to Aristotle’s theories, revealing (in the opinion of many) a number of similarities of approach and interest between Aristotle and modern logicians.
>>
>>18427494

The logic of Aristotle, and particularly his theory of the syllogism, has had an enormous influence in Western thought.[45] Aristotle was the first logician to attempt a systematic analysis of logical syntax, of noun (or term), and of verb. He was the first formal logician, in that he demonstrated the principles of reasoning by employing variables to show the underlying logical form of an argument.[46] He sought relations of dependence which characterize necessary inference, and distinguished the validity of these relations, from the truth of the premises. He was the first to deal with the principles of contradiction and excluded middle in a systematic way.[47]
>>
1. Sextus Empiricus
2. Plato
3. Spinoza
4. Schopenhauer
5. Nietzsche
6. Bergson
7. Deleuze
8. Bataille
9. Damascius
10. Plotinus
>>
>>18424397
Idiot. All philosophers have their debts.
>>
>>18426983
>the most influential people in their field are always literal whos
>>
spinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinozaspinoza
>>
>>18428354
Spinoza midwits are cringe, as usual.
>>
>>18424065
1.Gardner
>>
>>18427474
What’s the difference?
>>
>>18424065
1.- Literally me
2.- Diogenes
3.- Descartes
4.- Aquinas
5.- Plato
6.- Wittgenstein
7.- Yeshua
8.- Jung
9.- (You)
10.- Zizek
>>
>>18424065
1. Plato
2. Aristotle
3. Kant
4. Aquinas
5. The rest
>>
>>18428433
Nice, Zizek btfo.
>>
>>18424073
Not if you want to cultivate skeptical ability.
>>
File: dex fags btfo.png (1.92 MB, 1920x1080)
1.92 MB
1.92 MB PNG
>>18424065
1. Socrates. (First one to preach for monotheism. When asked about it he replied with "I have an inner divine spark. He gets offered to flee but refuses. He is killed for standing by his beliefs, making him the most non bullshitting philosopher of all time).
2. Plato (His cheerful student)
3. Aristotle (The bright student of the student)
4. Hegel (The OG)

No one else matters.
>>
>>18425142
>>18426579
There is your peterberg not cleaning his room.
>>
>>18424151
>*Female bonus*
Opinion disregarded.
>>
>>18428510
>socrates
>featherless biped
>non bullshitting
>>
File: superior specimen.jpg (33 KB, 461x541)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
>>18428520
Name one Philosopher who died for his beliefs.
Give me one Philosopher who wasn't all talk.
>>
>>18428546
Giordano Bruno.
>>
>>18428554
>names that one faggot who died for wearing a fedora in public
>The virgin Mary wasn't a virgin
I would have burned him too. Let me rephrase the question.
Name one Philosopher who wasn't an absolute degenerate and died for his beliefs.
>>
>>18428592
retard
>>
>>18428592
Giordano Bruno's mental capacities were like 1000 times yours, you stupid fuck.
>>
>>18428602
>>18428617
I'd legit beat the shit out of both of you nerds.
>>
Guenon is numbah wan
>>
>>18424065
>plato
>in the top 10
>not diogenes

ok intellectual baby weight.
>>
File: 1620806257519.jpg (94 KB, 680x680)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
>>18424151
>plato
>In the number one slot
>>
>Mark Manson
>F. Gardner
>Guenon
>Steven Crowder
>Peterson
>Pop Smoke
>Eric Carle
>Bronze Age Pervert
>Joe Rogan
>Robin Diangelo
>>
>>18424151
Based.

>*Female bonus*
But what about Saint Teresa of Avila?
>>
>>18429184
>>18429181
What is this reddit tier crap
>>
>>18429181
Diogenes was just a shit poster. If he were alive today he'd live in a dumpster and shit post on 4chan with free mcdonalds wifi.
>>
>Plato
>Aristotle
>Kant
>Hegel

Are there any other widely acknowledged S tier philosophers? I could see a smaller number of people adding Spinoza and then you'd have others of lesser influence people might put in, but they'd be the A tier.

Each has Copernican level turns. They also come in near pairs and proceed somewhat from the former.
>>
File: 1612337927754.png (12 KB, 256x190)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>18429381
>>
>>18428433
I was willing to give you a chance, then I saw the rest of your list
>>
>>18428546
Nietzsche
>>
>>18429381
Hegel isn't S-tier lol
>>
>>18429332
Correct, I know him personally
>>
>>18425344
>anon addresses each of your pithy arguments, deciphering them one by one
>you don't address his points with the same courtesy
>instead you tell him to read a bunch of philosophers

The state of /lit/, everyone.
>>
File: portrait of senna.jpg (242 KB, 1197x821)
242 KB
242 KB JPG
>>18424065
you forgot one (pic related)
>>
>>18426579
Unironically a good list, minus angels (das kapital)
>>
>>18424501
Kant is the least pseud philosopher that exists.
>>
1) Hegel
2) Aristotle
3) Plato
4) Kant
...
the rest
>>
>>18424065
1. Plotinus
2. Plato
3. Aristotle
4. Proclus
5. Aquinas
6. Augustine
7. Hegel
8. Leibniz
9. Heidegger
10. Eric Voegelin
>>
>>18424065
I wonder how extensively people in this thread studied all the philosophers in history. They probably read the resume of their ideas on Wikipedia and thought "Ok, this seems compatible with my preconceived idea of reality".
>>
>>18430775

It takes at least 10 years of intense reading to get a decent grasp of all major philosophers. How many people out there are ready for such a daunting endeavor?
>>
>>18430784
I'd assume not many but you shouldn't make these lists if you aren't one of them in my opinion. I know I won't attempt to make a ranking until I have at least 15 years of intense reading and studying.
>>
>>18430775
I have at least one book on my shelf written by each philosopher on my list
>>
>>18428617
The man couldn't understand the most basic arguments about handling infinite numbers. No, you don't have to wait for Cantor or Bolzano to know he was spouting bullshit and he was rightly called out for that. He believed himself to be much more intelligent than he was.
>>
>>18430818
What are you talking about?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.