/lit/ - Literature

>>13955574
>>metaphysics
Hume
>>epistemology
Hume
>>ethics
Plato
>>aesthetics
Aristotle
>>political philosophy
Plato

>>13955574
Plato
Plato
Plato
Plato
Plato

>>13955574
Heraclitus
Badiou
Aristotle
Aristotle
Zizek

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Proclus Lycaeus
>epistemology
Charles Peirce
>ethics
Thomas Aquinas
>aesthetics
Georg Hegel
>political philosophy
Goerg Hegel

>>13955574
Aristotle
Dunno
a mix up of Plato, Kant and Aquinas
Nietzsche
Plato

>>13955574

Christus Victor for all of them.

>>13955574
>metaphysics
spinoza
>epistemology
marx
>ethics
spinoza
>aesthetics
schopenhauer
>political philosophy
marx

>>13955622
bleb

>>13955703
based aside from last one

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Plato
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Plato
>aesthetics
Plato
>political philosophy
Plato
The only right choice

>>13955747
>Plato for aesthetics
Yikes

>>13955747
Why not go with Plato for epistemology too

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Nick Land
>epistemology
Nick Land
>ethics
N1x Land
>aesthetics
Nick Land
>political philosophy
Nick Land

>>13955780
Kys

>>13955789
No u

Learn to read complex theory slowtard

>>13955574
>>metaphysics
Leibniz
>>epistemology
Husserl
>>ethics
Aquinas
>>aesthetics
Plato
>>political philosophy
Schmitt

>>13955735
nah the last one is my most based

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Hegel
>epistemology
Hegel
>ethics
Aristotle
>aesthetics
Benjamin
>political philosophy
Marx

>>13955574
>>metaphysics
>>epistemology
Kant and Schopenhauer
>>ethics
Nietzsche
>>aesthetics
Spengler
>>political philosophy
Spengler

>>13955574
Me in all categories

>>13955574
Wittgenstein

>>13955916
same

>>13955574
Aquinas (God exists, here's proof)
Plato (world is shit, can't know real good)
Plato (imitate the good)
Plato/Aquinas (the good is most beautiful)
Plato (democracy destroys the good)

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Shankara
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Plato
>aesthetics
Schopenhauer
>political philosophy
de Maistre

>>13956843
Don't you see that though Plato instigates this desire of the Good and emulation there of, he does not describe the good (let alone name it) and effectually maintain its truth as someone like Hegel and Heidegger had.

>>13956870
>effectually maintain its truth as someone like Hegel and Heidegger had.
both of them brainlets compared to Plotinus

>>13956870
you're right, and Plato could be held suspect for that. but the good is named later by Plotinus/Aquinas and revealed in the New Testament, and this good is consistent with the good Socrates sought in others

>>13955780
This

How can anyone compete

>>13955574
>>metaphysics
Hegel and Heidegger - you must recognise the effectual truth of the prior.
>>epistemology
Plato/Hegel.
>>ethics
Plato.
>>aesthetics
Schopenhauer.
>>political philosophy
Gentile/Spengler.
>(Extra)Heroic of History
Hitler, Christ, many I admire greatly but none other would I say I respect with such total self rejecting principle of hero worship.

>>13955622
>>13955640
>>13955747
>>13955780
>>13956951

you have to be 18 or older to post

>>13956922
>both of them brainlets compared to Plotinus
I would readily disagree with you, seeing Plotinus as far too a literalist mystic(with no less value). Though admittingly I have not read Plotinus, still on the Greeks myself (am still young Zoomer so give me credit) though I would like to.

Quick rundown without spoiling the joy of reading his truth for my own?

>>13956932
I agree with you anon, and I agree both Plato and Socrates understood and new of this truth without actually knowing its 'practice' or actual existence - if I may say - so to speak. As in they lacked an epistemological founding, but pertained a metaphysical and ethical one. I have not read Plotinus myself could you explain how he names the good, without of course spoiling too greatly the creative joys of revealing his truth.

>>13956956
What the fuck is your problem?

>>13956980
Zoomers are too young to post here. Go back

>>13956956
>mom look I posted it again!

>>13956980
>I would readily disagree with you, seeing Plotinus as far too a literalist mystic(with no less value). Though admittingly I have not read Plotinus

>>13956993
>he doesn't realise the oldest zoomers are 24.
I wager I'm of higher intelligence than yourself. My dog is if purer breed than any boomer who complains about zoomers.

Nigga I was reading Plato at 15 and Kant at 17, I'm justified to be here.

>>13956980
>Plotinus myself could you explain how he names the good
He compares it to a fire, which, when something cold is introduced to its flame, is not diminished. He also associated the good with the One, which is similarly superabundant. In both comparisons he emphasizes the illuminative quality of the fire, how the One is that which makes the world of the senses intelligible. Rather like a light of the world, eh.

You're right on about Plato/Socrates not having the correct foundation for putting the truth into practice. In Christianity it is largely a moral struggle, rooted in the Jewish traditions of removing sin. And the comparison between Socrates and Jesus hardly needs to be made: both teachers, both persecuted by the mob for their teaching, both sinless and sinned against, both with disciples who wanted them to escape an unjust death, both went to their death willingly, both ascended to the realm of the divine.

>>13956999
explain then. Also check em.

>>13955574
>>metaphysics
>>epistemology
useless, I'll stick to science

>>ethics
Sam Harris

>>aesthetics
Harold Bloom

>>political philosophy
Jordan B Peterson

>>13957053
>He compares it to a fire, which, when something cold is introduced to its flame, is not diminished. He also associated the good with the One, which is similarly superabundant. In both comparisons he emphasizes the illuminative quality of the fire, how the One is that which makes the world of the senses intelligible. Rather like a light of the world, eh.
Sounds very interesting and has only served to harden an already keen desire to read him. However I do believe Hegel remains superior (in so far as one can claim superiority rather than historic difference of merit along a continuum of advancement) over - as he was influenced by him - Plotinus. The only serious critique I could have for Hegel would be his over characterisation and analyse-ation of God and Spirit. That is to say Hegels literal belief in the immaterial is of no concern whether being true or not - as Heideggers critique of Kant - for this discussion.

>You're right on about Plato/Socrates not having the correct foundation for putting the truth into practice. In Christianity it is largely a moral struggle, rooted in the Jewish traditions of removing sin. And the comparison between Socrates and Jesus hardly needs to be made: both teachers, both persecuted by the mob for their teaching, both sinless and sinned against, both with disciples who wanted them to escape an unjust death, both went to their death willingly, both ascended to the realm of the divine.
Though I do believe each has a different purpose as in place in life, and by that characterisation of value, they reach and aim to the same end and ideals of life. For me the distinction between Platonic and Christian is a false one. And be careful using that word Jewish, it has quite the mixed meaning for the Ancient Israelite's and OT; especially in comparison to NT.

>>13957067
I would of responded enjoyingly if your bate hadn't become so spontaneously obvious.

>>13955574
Hume
Chomsky
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Bakunin

>metaphysics
Plotinus
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Aristotle
>aesthetics
Hegel
>politics
Plato

Metaphysics - Nietzsche for his Hegelian take on the presocratics
Epistemology- Adorno for his sublation of empiricism and rationalism
Ethics - Peter Singer for opening the realm of ethics to the non-human
Aesthetics - Adorno
Political Philosophy - Marx

>metaphysics: Leibniz, I think the monadology is pretty cool.

>epistemology: Kant/Descartes/William James. I like the intutive basis of Cartesian epistemology, the kantian analysis of knowledge nad William James pragamtist epistemology.

>ethics: Aristotle/Kant/Hare.
I like the unversality of Kantian ethics, the common sense of Hare and the practical useage of virtue ethics.

>aesthetics: Ayn Rand, don't (you) me.

>political philosophy: Probaly Rawls. The vail of ignorance seems like the best way to organize a society.

>>13957067
BASED AND SCIENCEPILLED

>>13957427
how tf do you reconcile bloated Neoplatonist metaphysics with Kantian epistemology.

>>13955574
Kant
Hume, Nietzsche?
Sartre? Nietzsche? Idk
Nietzsche, Wilde
Idk

>>13957582
Oops, for political philosophy: Marx

>>13956868
How can you put Shankara next to Kant?

>>13957553
you cant thats why hes a brainlet

>>13957592
They dont really disagree in many areas, both are critical idealists. Almost everything that Kant says is valid from an Advaitic point of view. Kant accurately desbribes the phenomenology of how knowledge operates but Kant just remained unaware of the Paramatma because he neither studied the texts one learns about it from, nor was he a talented mystic like Eckhart who might have grasped it intuitively. In his first critique, Kant wrote that he didn't understand how humans could have intellectual or original intuition of things but that God would have this capability. When Kantians ask how could one could possibly experience the absolute reality of non-dual spiritual realization without that sensation conforming to the catagories of thought and becoming only a representation, the Advaitin replies that it is really God who is the inner Self who does so, who is possessed of this capability. Kant also in his last work that wasn't published or translated until the 20th century more or less acknowledged that one had to accept the existence of an monist- or ether-like 'caloric' as a precondition of really knowing anything. There is less disagreement between them than one would suspect at first glance, Shankara uses very sound reasoning.

>>13956951
Based Fashy Swiss bro

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Novalis
>epistemology
Novalis
>ethics
Novalis
>aesthetics
Novalis
>political philosophy
Novalis

>>13958490
based

noone in anything you posted
Socrates for dialectics, the only thing that I ever got any practical use of

>metaphysics
David Chalmers
>epistemology
Luciano Floridi
>ethics
Immanuel Kant
>aesthetics
Graham Harman
>political philosophy
Nick Srnicek

Most of you are only listing dead philosophers. You haven't even made it to the present.

>metaphysics
Leibniz
>Epistemology
Kant
>Ethics
Plato
>aestethics
Kierkegaard
>political philosophy
hobbes

>>13955574
everytime the school of athens picture is posted i check to see if its the one with ponies hidden in it

>metaphysics
Plotinus
>epistemology
Kant
>ethics
Epictetus
>aesthetics
Hume
>political philosophy
Aquinas

>>13959735
>contemporary philosophy
cringe

>>13960330
I think ill change to marx for political because i hobbes just feeds into my fears, i like lukacs aswell

>metaphysics
Meh
>epistemology
Meh
>ethics
Levinas
>aesthetics
Deleuze, bataille
>political philosophy
Lefort

>>13955574
>Metaphysics
Hume
>Epistemology
Quine
>Ethics
MacIntyre
>Aesthetics
Spengler
>Political philosophy
Bataille

>>13958072
Thanks Ameirbro, but I'm Australian.

>>13958490
That's Holderlin you uncultured swine.

>>13960711
Uninstall your life

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Iamblichus
>epistemology
no idea. Kant is the obvious choice but Bergson was interassing too so I'm going to settle wiith Gadamer
>ethics
Nietzsche
>aesthetics
Jung
>political philosophy
meh

>>13960330
>>metaphysics
>Leibniz
>>Epistemology
>Kant
You're just citing names here. Something as stupid as kant epistemology isn't mutually possible with Leibniz.

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Nagarjuna
>epistemology
Nozick? Burge?
>ethics
Nussbaum/Aristotle
>aesthetics
Nietzsche
>political philosophy
Roger Scruton

>>13955574
I've thought about this hard.
>Aquinas
>Aquinas
>Aristotle, with a shout-out to Epicurus
>Scruton
>Aquinas, with a shout-out to de Maistre, Robert Bellarmine, and Burke
Call me a fag if you will.

>>13955703
>epistemology
>marx
nibba you must be joking.

>>13961297
>Roger Scruton
You realise his just lumping together certain mediums of various German philosophers and artists views? Why not actually read Schopenhauer, Hegel and Wagner?

>>13961322
nah, why? i have various influences with respect to epistemology but marx jumps out as one of the ones that affected me the most, mainly with -

-the injunction of material practice to unbridled theory as the test of truth and need for reconfigurement
-critique of feuerbach where feuerbach posits reality, sensuousness in the form of objects or contemplation compared to marx who posits it as sensuous human activity and practice
-contributions to genealogy especially with religion, his genealogy stands in contradistinction with nietzsche's as marx has some sort of faith in reason with the false/true consciousness dichotomy

>>13961312
I still don't understand why the chain cannot be infinitely long, can you recommend some sauce for an extended explaination of this part of the argument?

>>13955574
Metaphysics- heidegger
Epistemology - popper
Ethics- adam smith
Aesthetics - benjamin
Political philosophy - popper

>>13957535
Science is gay

>>13955574
>metaphysics
Spengler
>epistemology
Plato
>ethics
Aquinas
>aesthetic
I dunno mate
>political philosophy
Yockey

Plato has officially surpassed nietszche as this board's favorite philosopher

>>13962397
not the person who you are responding to but the classical formulation of that problem is contained within aristotle's physics

>>13955574
Deleuze&G
Deleuze&G
Zuangzi
Goethe
Deleuze&G

>>13962521
Yet you post this on a personal computer brought to you by scientific progress. How ironic.

>>13962901
Just add Nick Land

>>13961276
He said what's your favorite not wich one do you think is right