/lit/ - Literature

Jesus Christ. Also, replace Nietzsche with Hegel

>>16308287
Cunt.

>>16308399
Ok, we make it Thales - Hegel - Nietzsche. Deal?

>>16308411
Christ can literally be found everywhere in art, literature, monuments. If you don't think he's relevant you're a complete retard

>Professor J. O. Wisdom of York University, Toronto, once observed that he knew people who thought there was no philosophy after Hegel, and others who thought there was none before Wittgenstein, and that he was prepared to contemplate the possibility that both were right.

John Stuart Mill.

>>16308424
Christ is not a philosopher dumbass. It is even debatable if he existed. And even if he did, his disciples clearly made a lot of shit up.

>>16308438
>presents a coherent belief system and ethical code
>not a philosopher
Also, his existence is not debatable.

>In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more". Robert M. Price does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars. James D. G. Dunn calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis". Michael Grant (a classicist) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary". Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

>>16308468
>>presents a coherent belief system and ethical code
>ey yo when someone smacks you in the face let him also smack the other cheek lmao
>yo equality and such ehh everyone the same in front of god even tho no two people are the same but fuck that
>rich people are bad because i have no money fuck these assholes i will not allow them to heaven there is no good people with money they are all literally hitler
>here drink my blood mate

Replace kneechuh with wittgenstein and place Kant in the middle and you're good.

>>16308287
I would say Nietzsche - Ragnar Readbeard - Ted Kaczynski

>>16308287
Spinoza

>>16308468
>presents a coherent belief system and ethical code
Except he didn't. Which is why the debate never fucking ceased and the retardation reached such heights that the Romans would actually invite various Christians into one city because they knew that Christians were their own worst enemies.

A few literal duh maxims like "be nice to your neighbor bruh", schizo ramblings about sitting next to God and burning people like chaff and sorcery does not a philosopher make. Whatever system you think Jesus taught is the system of Christian philosophers.

>>16308431
based

>>16308654
>Except he didn't.
it’s almost as if Jesus was anti material and didn’t give a fuck about things that would one day be gone anyways (governments, political systems)

>>16308287
Augustine

>>16308287
>t. pseud who has never studied philosophy

>>16308431
Sad that he got confused with his cousin, John Wisdom (Arthur John Terence Dibben Wisdom), who was a real philosopher.

>>16308654
Jesus obviously wasn't a philosopher, but he promulgated a fairly unambiguous ethical framework. Christians disagreed with and divided from each other on nonsensical abstract matters like the trinity, perhaps as a way to distract themselves from the fact that their behavior fell so far short of the simple yet demanding standards their hero set for them.

>>16308287
Zizek, he was time displaced.

>>16309135

You sound like one of those idiots who snickered when George W. Bush named Jesus as his favorite philosopher, incorrectly believing it to be some sort of faux pas. Know this: to deny Jesus as a philosopher is to know nothing of philosophy.

>>16309069
This. OP sounds like a Wikipedia “autodidact”

>>16310678
Jesus wasn't even remotely a philosopher, brainlet.

>>16308287
Define "relevant"

>>16311393
>he had a particular worldview
>he shared knowledge
>he loved wisdom
>not a philosopher

>>16308566
Based

>>16311422
Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one. What distinguishes philosophy is the application of a rigorous rational methodology to the deepest questions it is possible to investigate. Merely issuing ethical commandments doesn't cut the mustard.

>>16308519
>Christianity is equality
Maybe read the New Testament you utter retard and find out Christianity isn't just a liberal emotional spurt of some guy called Jesus thinking people should just be nicer? Maybe he is indeed one of the greatest heroes to ever live and his words taken as the words of God for two thousand years were taken as such for a reason?????

>>16308287
-First: Thales
-Middle: Jesus Christ
-Last: Heidegger

For the West at least.

>>16311446
>>16311393
>the absolute moral authority and unambiguous word of God
>not philosophy
bro...

>>16308438
>It is even debatable if he existed.
No it isn't.

>>16308519
You haven't even read the bible have you?

>>16311422
>loved wisdom
*gnosis

>>16311526
You are thinking of theology. Philosophy is based on reasoning, not appeals to authority.

>>16311567
>You are thinking of theology. Philosophy is based on reasoning, not appeals to authority.
My post was partly a joke, but if you want to seriously state this: genuine theology is a subset of metaphysics, which is why people like Aquinas are considered philosophers. Rigorous theology IS based on reasoning, and "proofs" of God or proofs of why one should believe in God aren't appeals to authority, but rather rational arguments for why God must exist (at least in the human mind). If you're the type to genuinely think that religion is provably wrong then you most likely haven't argued/read any real theologian, as there are quite a few good arguments for why people should believe in God, although I'm not familiar with all of them.

>>16311588
Aquinas was a philosopher in addition to being a theologian. Jesus was neither.

>>16311612
Theology is philosophy. Reread my reply.

>>16311673
You dumbfuck, you just got BTFO. Theology is not philosophy or else there wouldn't be two separate fields. Just because there may be some overlap doesn't mean you can say retarded shit and think no one will call you out on it

>>16311705
>You dumbfuck, you just got BTFO.
You didn't even make an argument you fucking dick diddling retarded fucking braindead nigger cunt licker.
>Theology is not philosophy or else there wouldn't be two separate fields.
Imagine basing the entirety of your fucking understanding of whether or not something is one thing or the other on arbitrary classifications by universities.
>Just because there may be some overlap doesn't mean you can say retarded shit and think no one will call you out on it
1. God is that from which flows all moral authority
2. Jesus Christ is God as man
3. From Jesus Christ flows all moral authority
4. Ethics and metaphysics are subsets of philosophy
5. The conclusion to such subsets is a philosophical conclusion in and of itself
6. Assuming God/Christ are real (as my joke did), this would imply that, because God and Christ are the ultimate moral authorities, they are the answer to the philosophical fields of ethics and metaphysics, therefore Christ was a philosopher.

First relevant philosopher and last relevant philosopher.
Fill the gap, who is the middle relevant philosopher?

>>16311742
Aristotle unironically

>>16311705
>Theology is not philosophy or else there wouldn't be two separate fields.
This distinction is counterintuitive, vague and a terrible Western invention. Nothing to be proud of.