/lit/ - Literature

>you will never see them yelling angrily over each other in a twitch stream
Why even live?

>>16164002
Aquinas would absolutely destroy everyone else in that pic. It wouldn't even be a contest. He's one of the only historical figures I'd be too intimidated to even talk to

>>16164002
Marx would absolutely destroy everyone else in that pic. It wouldn't even be a contest. He's one of the only historical figures I'd be too intimidated to even talk to

>>16164016
He's the only person in that pic I'd actually laugh at while trying to get past him to talk to the smart guys in the room

Wittgenstein would be an obnoxious spergie during the whole conversation

We all know that philosophy really comes down to Aquinas (aristotle) vs Nietzsche. All else is irrelevant.

>>16164002
Wittgenstein would lose his shit and attack all of them with a steak knife

>>16164120
>not realizing all philosophy comes down to Kant (Aquinas (Aristotle (Plato (Parmenides)))) vs Nietzsche (Schopenhauer (Goethe (Spinoza (Heraclitus))))

>>16164155
im gonna need you to stop pretending Nietzsche is a relativist

Wittgenstein would be the guy to ask the philosopher to define every term they use, then when they manage to make an argument call philosophy a language game.

>>16164155
Being vs Becoming?

>>16164167
I'm gonna need to you to figure out what perspectivism means.

>>16164172
implying its not
>becoming being vs being becoming

>>16164155
Being vs Becoming? Is all else just cosmetic filler? Well I agree with you that philosophy fundamentally starts here and that one must chose either path.

Care do elaborate a bit further on which philosophers who sit in either camp and who influenced who in that order? It would be really helpful

>>16164178
>he thinks surface value determinations based on outcomes influence the rules that produce the outcomes

>>16164002
Marx didn't care about philosophy.

>>16164180
teach me more master

>>16164002
Aquinas was fat. He would just be a laughingstock, he probably had the same weak voice that comes from lack of testosterone like all the other trad Thomist YouTubers.

Hume would win. Not because he has the truth but because his chat would be constantly feeding him various definitions of fallacies he could just repeat to "win" any argument.

Neetch wouldn't be allowed on because he's only on bitchute now and the rest don't want to get in trouble by having him on.

>>16164172
on its most basic level (heraclitus vs parmenides), yes. Parmenides evolves into dualism (following the eleatics), whereas heraclitus evolves into monism. People will say "but what about schopenhauer", but I just included him for the development up to Nietzsche which turns Schopenhauers dualist philosophy into a monist philosophy.

>>16164002
Maybe paired up but a debate between 6 would be far too many. Marx would quickly get pushed to the side on almost any issue. As soon as Kant and Hume start discussing metaphysics I'm not sure how much the others would have to add excepting Wittgenstein being a sperg. Almost any of them paired with the other would make for a really interesting conversation but all of them together at once leaves too many different branches to go down.
Maybe as a set of long form podcastish dialogues (3+ hours), each with a set topic or discussion, you could get some really good stuff.

>>16164190
hilarious. You have no idea what relativism means.

>>16164155
Didn't know parmenides and heraclitus were jewish

>>16164155
Based

>>16164002
Kant btfo's everyone with his giga autism

>>16164244
Wittgenstein was a mega spergie too, do not subestimate him

>>16164244
You don’t think Aquinas had to be a bit autistic to write the tome that is the Summa?

>>16164002
-Nietzsche would be too introverted to be able to creatively talk or argue in the room until he gets to know them.
-Marx would offer nothing and be a joke to the others.
-Wittgenstein would probably argue pretty well but I'm not sure any discussion would prove too fruitful with him.
-Hume would be the best conversationalist and provide many witty comebacks and critiques.
-Kant would go on long rants about why Aquinas is wrong but would get along with him well
-Aquinas would undoubtedly win the argument because of how fully well-rounded his system is.

>>16164281
wtf else was there to do in the 13th century?

>>16164307
Lmao you think he couldn't travel or go for a walk niggah? Or play a game?

>>16164307
good point, apart from becoming a knight not much

>>16164300
Based?

>they all suddenly get chills down their back
>Marx speaks up
>"W-what is this feeling... I know I've felt it before..."
>the door creeks open
>a cool breeze hits them
>its him
>Johann Kaspar "Max Stirner" Schmidt aka the Unique one
>Nietzsche tries not to make eye contact out of shame and embarrassment
>excuses himself to the bathroom
>crawls out a window and never returns
>Marx stumbles and trips backwards, while shielding himself from the light that seems to be eminating mysteriously from behind Stirner
>Aquinas is quickly shut down as a spook
>Kant is made fun of until he cries
>Wittgenstein try to dismantle him with logic
>logic is a spook
>Wittgenstein melts
>Hume says Stirner cannot prove he's the unique self-creator
>proof is a spook
>hume dies
>Stirner walks off into the sunset

>>16164002
I'm pretty sure Nietzsche would strangle Kant at some point

>>16164388
so Marx and Nietzsche survive, the only two who could possibly defeat him. I'm looking forward to the sequel.

Alternative entertainment:

Plato
Aristotle
Aquinas
Spinoza
De Maistre
Hegel

>>16164449
I would be very interested to hear Spinoza's reaction to Hegel's interpretation of his philosophy.

>>16164016
> being intimidated by some fat drunken dude with pus filled sores littered throughout his body
Get a grip man

>>16164002
And, considering the latter four, completely unlistenable

>>16164011
Aquinas whole slick is just appealing to the authority of the bible or "some religious dude said x therefore its fact"! and doing mental gymnastics around it

>>16164172
>>16164191
>Being vs Becoming?
Isn't that basically just determinism vs free will?

>>16164300
This

>>16164029
Accurate

>>16164724
Determinism allows for both, your state of being determines what you are becoming and so on

>>16164868
Are determinists this retarded?

>>16164016
The only thing Marx would destroy is their wallets as he slept on their couch and refused to even work so much as to clean up after his fat filthy self

>>16164898
>state determines course of action, as everything is a system of inputs and outputs
I mean it's not practical for living life/running society, but I don't see any other way things could work fundamentally

>>16164898
Not an argument, which I assume is because you don't have one.

>>16164899
Lel

>>16164002
Wittgenstein is the only modern philosopher I would be afraid to fight 1v1. He looks like a proper psycho.

>>16164194
read hegel

>>16164300
seconded

>>16164899
lol

>>16164009
>based Aquinas calmly listens to all the screeching
>after having heard enough, there comes from within his enormous belly a divine booming voice drowning out the squeaky voices of Kant and Nietzsche
>"I ANSWER THAT"
>all cower in fear and feel the presence of the Spirit
>St. Thomas gives his argument for the existence of God
>the 5 attended Catholic Mass on the next day
>Nietzsche once again writes a book to BTFO his former beliefs and additionally changes the preface of the Birth of Tragedy, it's now dedicated to Jesus instead of Wagner
>Marx rewrites the theses on Feuerbach, class struggle is a means to prepare for the second coming

>>16164899
Checked and kekked

>>16164155
Plato solved the Heraclitus - Parmenides debate, it was solved for 1500 years until pure Platonism was illegalized.
People just too stupid to get past Theaetetus in order to read Sophist and Philebus.

>>16165243
We're still fucking debating "Justifed True Belief" as if it was something Plato didn't refute.

>>16164002
>ROUND 1
Aquinas would die quickest of the six, because he is an example of that dogmatic rationalism the other five see as overreaching past what can be known (Kant, Hume), or ideology (Nietzsche, Marx), or straight up meaningless confusion (Wittgenstein).
>ROUND 2
Wittgenstein would fall next. You would think he is OP with his signature theme, but actually that makes him easiest to become irrelevant to anyone else. His attacks just don't harm any of his opponents anymore.
>ROUND 3
This is honestly where it gets hard. Hume, Kant, Marx, and Nietzsche can all defend themselves very well against their opponents and raise strong critiques of each other. Hume can appeal to the limits of sensation and sweep anything else as fiction. Kant can depend on his necessary transcendental conditions to counter Hume and withstand Nietzsche and Marx. Nietzsche can appeal to the genealogy of ideas to portray his opponents' ideas, especially Kant's and Marx's, as being grounded in ressentiment. Marx can criticize Nietzsche and Kant as being ideologically loaded. What you'll notice though is that Marx and Nietzsche don't have a particularly strong critique to give of Hume. So Hume is safe for now. But it's difficult to say who of the four falls first.
>WHO WON
>WHO'S NEXT
>YOU DECIDE

>>16165508
>ROUND 4
Hume draws from beneath his capacious waistcoat his secret weapon - the invincible Fork.
Smiling in a friendly manner at Nietzsche and Marx he murmurs: “Abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No." "Experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No."
This devestating move commits these two to the flames as containing nothing but sophistry and illusion.
>ROUND 5
Wherupon Kant shrieks at the top of his tiny voice: "I transcendentally deduce the synthetic a priori". Humes fork begins to waver and bend in an alarming fashion...

The last two on the right are derivative memes.

>>16165508
>>16165669
I would totally read a book-length version of this battle.

>>16164300
Hume - metokur
Aquinas- Sargon
Marx - Ethan Ralph
Wittgenstein- destiny
Kant - molynuex
Niestze - sam Hyde

>>16165723
>Aquinas- Sargon
I wish I could reach through the screen and garrotte you.

>>16165723
Kant would be like reviewbrah or whoever that autistic suit guy is.

>>16165723
>Hume - metokur
>Aquinas- Sargon
>Marx - Ethan Ralph
>Wittgenstein- destiny
>Kant - molynuex
>Niestze - sam Hyde

>>16165745
I woul smash your tiny sjw arms if they ever reached through my screen

>>16164899
>Marx looks like my dad
>this description fits my dad to a T
It can't be coincidence

>>16165169
kant would be very civil.

>>16164002
based
based
based
semi-based
semi-based
semi-based

>>16165169
Wittgenstein butts in
>What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence... so y'all need to stfu

>>16165508

Good post but I hate Nietzsche so much. His politics are easily attacked. He argues from a stateless platform, the coward!, and then judges other like a good Christian. Overrated hypocrite. He should just have been gang banged to death in the first round as a sacrifice to the og's and to begin the ceremonies

>>16164009
Destiny would singlehandedly DESTROY all of them.

>>16165752
OK liberalist (tm)

>>16165983
*chuckles smugly*

>>16165935
Destiny outright admitted he couldn't understand David Hume after attempting to read one of his books.

>>16165723
I hate you.

>>16165997
you're fat in real life

>>16165997
Have you even read Locke?

>>16165723
>Do you own a suit, Hume?
t. Based Kekerino Aquinas

>>16165999
He'd use that to scream at Hume for making incomprehensible/gibberish books until he has verbally beaten Hume into submission..or just made him bored enough to concede.

>>16166074
He said something specifically along the lines of "Hume is hard to read because he uses too many commas and punctuation."

>>16165723
>>16165745
>>16165751
Eceleb posters should kill themselves

>>16165723
Sam Hyde in his philosophy is far beyond this childish midwits

>>16164899
based

>>16164155
>Kant (Aquinas (Aristotle (Plato (Parmenides))))
Why wouldn't it be Kant (Aquinas (Augustine (Plotinus (Aristotle (Plato (Parmenides))))))? I'm not asking because I think it necessarily is, just because that, to me, is more complete, but I want to hear the thoughts of others.

>>16166081
Destiny is the perfect demonstration that verbal dexterity does not equal intelligence.

>>16164498
you clearly haven’t read aquinas

>>16164388
kek

>>16165935
>>16165999
DEMI-GOD(LIKE)

heidegger is better

>>16165999
>Admitting you don't understand instead of pretending you do like 90% of this board does
Wow, sounds kinda based ngl.

>>16166050
Shadilay my fellow kekorino

>>16166382
Destiny is based he’s just ugly and short. Also needs to drop the liberal shit, I garuntee in 5 years he will denounce his progressive era the same way he denounces his “conservative” and “libertarian” eras now.

>>16166489
He said Hume was bad BECAUSE he couldn't understand him.

>>16164002
Imagine if we got to see Plato and Aristotle debating.

>>16164388

>>16165508
>Marx

he´s the easiest to fall, most of his theories were debunked lol

>>16166523
That's different then, it's kinda cringe now.

>>16166601
rent free

>>16166629
>rent free

now say it without crying

>>16164002
Nietzsche doesn't argue and Wittgenstein doesn't cite. It would be the battle of titans.

>>16164388
Lmaooo

>>16166282
Destiny does not even have verbal dexterity.

>>16164002
Really interesting only Hoom and Nichee. Others are megaautistic and outdated.
>just words bro xD

>>16164002
I wonder who would win in a game of chess Nietzsche or Marx?

>>16164002
actually intelligent, intellectually honest people
Hume
Wittgenstein
Aquinas
German hacks
Kant
Marx
Nietzsche

>>16165999
To be fair, he started with the Treatise which is not the best place to start with Hume

>>16167973
How the FUCK is Kant a hack?!?!?!

>>16164002
Destiny could probably destroy all of them in a Twitch debate, while being significantly dumber.

>>16168064
>How the FUCK is Kant a hack?!?!?!

>>16165508
this guy gets it,
Wittgenstein is abstraction paralasys and Aquafina is just bloated up by tradcells and is punching above his weight class

>>16166644
rent free

>>16164300
judging from his personal life and his letters, Marx would probably be an off-kilter savage in debate, and it would be difficult to argue with him. he probably would have a lot of endurance too.

>>16165723
>Aquinas- Sargon

>>16165751
>Niestze - sam Hyde
Yeah, I'm thinking I'd tune in for that one.

>>16165723
>>16165751
imaging caring or knowing about that many charlatan ecelebs.

>>16164170
Wittgenstein sounds based

>>16165169
>>"I ANSWER THAT"
lmao

>>16164002
Aquinas would dab on them so hard. he'd be like "what the fuck, why aren't these barbarians speaking Latin?"
i think Aquinas would have a good kek at Wittgenstein giving his book a latin title but not writing it in latin.

>>16164002
I'd pay good money to watch Hume and Aquinas chat. I doubt either one would even raise his voice.

>>16170253
They would both get tired pretty quickly and go eat instead.

>>16164002

>Wittgenstein would probably refuse to argue since he is a wirdo and hates social situations. He would say some cryptic vague crap like "no need to talk, just see" and walk alway.
>Nietzche was a beta virgin with syphilis, who would be intimidated by the other guys so would retreat without real confrontation, so to not shatter his narcissistic fantasies about being some sort of messiah.
>Marx is an open atheist, so then Aquinas and Kant would clearly look down on him. Also, the fact that he is a jew would probably not help since all the three remaining philosophers did not have good views on jews. He would probably be reagarded as some scheming weirdo and be shunned.
>so it would be up to Kant, Aquinas and Hume.
>Kant had ultra-strong views against both philosophers, he rebbuts their classical arguments in his books in some rather complicated way.
>he would start sperging about grasping apodictic syntethic a priori truths of the categorical intuitions of space-time trough the transcendental aesthetic, what would probably cause the other two philosophers to think he is some sort of schizo and walk alway.
>since only Hume and Aquinas remain, their discussion would be related to religion, it would be a really heated debate and they would probably come to hate each other. It would be cool tho.

This is what would happen, realistically.

Wittgenstein would reply "if that is the case" to every single fucking thing Kant says, even when Kant insists "yes that is indeed the case" Wittgenstein merely replies again with "if that is the case", this leads Kant to reach into his pocket and grab one of his steampunk toys and hurl it at Wittgenstein, missing completely as Kant has never played a sport in his life. He his Nietzsche in the head, who had been silent until this moment. The action sends Nietzsche into a furor as his voice grows and grows with each sentence he spills out in faster and faster pace until nobody is even sure if he is still speaking a common language. He exhausts himself without making a point known to others and goes to take a nap in the corner, but Marx is already taking a nap in the corner. Disappointed, he ties Marx's shoes together and goes to sleep in the opposite corner. Aquinas sees this and realizes he needs to make an addition to the Summa, he rushes home. Hegel is left, nobody even noticed him. He turns on the television and watches Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

Wittgenstein would reply "if that is the case" to every single fucking thing Kant says, even when Kant insists "yes that is indeed the case" Wittgenstein merely replies again with "if that is the case", this leads Kant to reach into his pocket and grab one of his steampunk toys and hurl it at Wittgenstein, missing completely as Kant has never played a sport in his life. He his Nietzsche in the head, who had been silent until this moment. The action sends Nietzsche into a furor as his voice grows and grows with each sentence he spills out in faster and faster pace until nobody is even sure if he is still speaking a common language. He exhausts himself without making a point known to others and goes to take a nap in the corner, but Marx is already taking a nap in the corner. Disappointed, he ties Marx's shoes together and goes to sleep in the opposite corner. Aquinas sees this and realizes he needs to make an addition to the Summa, he rushes home. Hume is left, nobody even noticed him. He turns on the television and watches Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.

>>16167973
>Wittgenstein
>not a hack
lol

>>16166532
Plato would bash Aristotle over the head with his Republic if he ever got to see his fully developed philosophy.

>Plato: You've done WHAT with the forms?!!

>>16170284
I'm pretty sure Wittgenstein would enjoy a conversation with these great thinkers and probably the only one who would consider talking with Marx because he moved in somewhat marxist circles, but I agree his philosophy relating to anything beyond marx or hume probably wouldn't go anywhere.

>>16170464
Pfft. Maybe if Plato started with the pre-Socratics he would have a clue.

Why is Marx even invited? He is nothing compared to the others. Why not pick Kierkegaard? Spinoza? Heidegger? Hegel?

>>16164002
>takes decades to write a short thesis
>rationally btfos everyone within it
>heh, niets personeel, jochie
>>16166092
Based and redpilled

>>16170512
t. hasn't read Marx

>>16170547
He is literally an intellectual babby

>>16170512
Because he’s a well known meme “philosopher” idolised by retarded teenagers and twenty-somethings who don’t read any substantial philosophy. You’d be surprised at the number of people who have never even heard of Spinoza, Heidegger, and even Kierkegaard.
>>16170547
>t.hasn’t read anyone and got all their information on Marx through YouTube

>>16170575
I don't even consider Marx to be a philosopher

>>16170596
What would you consider him to be? If you say scientist then you are extremely gay and naive.

>>16164009
all of them besides wittgenstein would be banned for their views on women and race. maybe marx would get special treatment.

>>16170692
Marx was especially racist lmao

>>16170640
a political satirist

>>16170692
wittgenstein has the appearance of an incredibly evil racist person

>>16170499
But quite literally Plato did start with the pre-Socratics. You think Socrates taught him everything? They were closer in age to be good friends as well as teacher and student. For example Plato's philosophy obviously takes much over from Parmenides(and Heraclitus' and others), if anyone didn't start with the pre-Socratics it would be Aristotle since he was such a young fellow when he first met Socrates.

>>16170640
A decadent but intelligent and somewhat strong-minded aphorist mushed into a system.

>>16170722
well yeah he's white

>>16170746
>stein
>white

i grow weary

>>16170710
>>16170743
Good answers

>>16170692

>There is considerable evidence that Wittgenstein had a low opinion of women in general. He was opposed to giving them the vote and even, on social occasions, ignored women guests.

>>16170781
redpilled and based

>>16170781
It is worth considering that he was also a fag so maybe it wasn’t just being based

>>16170730
Sorry.

>>16170819
>ywn hear the sloppy suction of Wittgenstein's wet gaping hole as you reference proposition 2.033 of the tractatus "form is the possibility of structure", he moans and relaxes, opening nice and wide

>>16164002
So in my opinion Wittgenstein probably has a bit more experience with this sort of intellectual brawl. He looks a bit wiry so I bet he could beat up Marx (for fucks sake the dude was never in the best condition) and Aquinas was born in like the Dark Ages so he’s probably a hairs breadth away from featuring in a memento mori exhibit so I think Wittgensteins got him too. Nietzsche was a beta through and through but he might have a panic attack and unleash like three decades worth of bottled-up introverted rage and wipe the floor with Wittgenstein. I dont know the other guys so fuck it Nietzsche wins

>>16168164
"Sam Shuster, professor of dermatology at the University of East Anglia, believes the revolutionary thinker had hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) in which the apocrine sweat glands -- found mainly in the armpits and groin -- become blocked and inflamed"
How much endurance does he have if his dick and armpits are oozing pus constantly?

>>16170843
Wittgenstein is a decorated war hero, and then proceeded to terrify school children

>>16170860
crusty old man lol

>>16170760
Thank you.

>>16170828
All good bro, mwaah!

>>16170781
Catty.

>>16170842
you need jesus
>>16170409
kek

>>16170842
Based

>>16170781
if they would just have milkier pussies I bet he'd change his mind

>>16170704
I meant that they wouldn't care since so many people call themselves Marxists and see him in a positive light.

>>16164209
Schopenhauer wasn't dualist. Representation is merely objectified Will. They're not ontologically distinct at their essence in some Cartesian formulation. The differentiation between representations is through the application of sufficient reason (ie. the law of homogeneity and the law of specification) and sufficient reason only applies to representations.

>>16164002
Just the first three would be enough

>>16164011
hello Ed