/lit/ - Literature

That's not a tier list kiddo.

This is a tier list.

>>1981118
>include non-philosopher shitty novelists like Sartre
>nope.png

>>1981118
Yet another of your "I have no life outside of /lit/ so I make stuff to present to /lit/ to compensate".

you don't seem to know the difference between camus and sartre

this was done more than 6 months ago so i honestly don't know what I was doing in my life at that stage

>>1981108
No Spinoza? And who makes a tier list for philosophers? How old are you?

>>1981126
You new here?

Everyone knows Derp+Derpy hasn't got a life. It's the default insult--like calling Fab a fag or Quentin annoying.

>>1981139
Just because something is known doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

Fab IS a homosexual. He is also under 18.
Quentin IS annoying. He is also under 18.

why would anyone think I haven't got a life just because I occasionally make original contributions to the literature board

>>1981136
>Spinoza

Didn't ask any questions worth answering. Sorry if this makes you mad, I know he has a bit of a cult following in some places.

> And who makes a tier list for philosophers

4chan posters, I guess.

> How old are you?

Wouldn't my philosophical education be more relevant?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ 08/02/11(Tue)02:28PM No.1981147 ▲ ▼ [ ! ] Hide

why would anyone think I haven't got a life just because I occasionally make original contributions to the literature board

-----------------------
I don't know, maybe because you make things like this?

why would anyone think I didn't have a life just because I make original contributions to the literature board about how you shouldn't waste experts' time arguing about things you don't understand

>>1981108
>Reading philosophy, not being able to find your own reasons for existence, mortality etc...

>>1981118
>suzuki
>good tier
>mfw

>>1981159
I don't know, maybe because of things like this?
http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/lit/reports/post-count
Deep&Edgy!pSkjEcB9sQ 9293

>>1981118

Any reason why Montesquieu is in poor tier? I haven't read him yet but I got Persian Letters for 1$ at a book sale and was planning on reading it, but I know nothing about his philosophy.

>>1981161
My brother had one of those... for a whole week.

>>1981118
>Mid
>Crowley
>Low
>Blavatsky

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAH

>>1981118

I don't care if you have no life you do know what you are talking about. Could you just make a info-pic that has a list of all the philosophers in your post along with why they are good or bad, or why one would bother reading them or not.

That would be so fucking helpful.

>>1981192

He would never do something so helpful unless it would incite argument. Actually I bet a list like that would start arguments because nobody would argee with it.

>>1981198
>Actually I bet a list like that would start arguments because nobody would argee with it.
>argee

I guess you could say it would cause an argee bargee

uh oh there goes my post count a post higher, i hope no-one thinks I don't have a life becausee of all the 2 second posts I make like this :/

>>1981118
>Muhammad

>>1981204
Done anything else, yet, today, D+E?

>>1981204

Don't listen to that jerk, everyone here is just jealous because you know what the fuck you are talking about. I think a list of your opinions of philosophers would be so helpful, and would help people get their heads out of their asses.

I'm also
>>1981173

Your opinions on Montesquieu?

>>1981210
I worked out, went over to a friend's, downloaded Call of Pripyat. I'm only on /lit/ right now while I wait for the mods that render this gigantic ugly piece of shit game into something playable

So the image on the front page lured me here, but god damn if you don't have some annoying tripfags /lit/. I mean, thank god for filters, but holy fuck. I read just a few posts in this thread and already I want to tear my eyes out.

Tripfags like this don't exist unless you give them attention and responses. For shame /lit/, I used to think you were cool.

>Wittgenstein

>douchebag who gave away his family fortune, worked as a philosophy teacher but got angry at any of his students who wanted to do something as worthless as work as a philosophy teacher, tried and failed at almost any other job himself

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to bother looking any deeper or reading up on the rest of that list.

>>1981225
woah i guess this guy didn't get my argee bargee joke huh

>>1981228
>He was mean, which means his ideas are bad

I'm going to go with "no".

>>1981225
>Basing opoinions of tripfags on a thread which doesn't even have a 1/5 of the tripfags of /lit/ in it.

And I don't know what board you came from, but I can bet it's probably worse than here.

>>1981248
>actually implying that more tripfags would improve this thread

this place really is a shithole :|

Analytical Philosophy is retarded because the map is not the territory. This of course applies even more so to Putnam-esque follies like "funktionalism" and god forbid, machine states. To think that the human mind works generally in these very abstract terms is simply ridiculous, when it has obviously evolved from much more simple processes which do not employ symbols.

>>1981148
education is shit.

>>1981259
>mfw bee dances are symbols

Why Dennett so low?

He's a pretty chill guy

>>1981118

You've got Empiricus on there twice.

french philosophy is the best french thing, except maybe like bread or sth

>>1983647
>that there is a Cartesian theatre is a datum
>Dennett rejects it
>nope.png.tiff.rar.exe

>Hume in shit tier

Unacceptable, OP.

>>1983650

I dunno. The French put on a good Revolution too.

>>1983662
>liking a shit tier philosopher

Unacceptable, Anonymous.

>>1983686
u mad because Hume's law is fucking with your shitty moralizing?

>>1983688

Nope. I just have eyes to see which is enough to show me that Hume's law doesn't hold. Deal with it, skeptical nerds.

ITT: a boatload of nothing

>>1983633
Bee dances are not symbols in terms of mental representation, and certainly not in the way physical symbol systems work in theory.

>>1983705

they represent stuff. you're using some high-falutin' words I don't understand there, but it seems to me that as long as they represent stuff they're symbols.

>>1981118
>No Whitehead
>No Saussure
>No Chomsky
>Simone de Beauvoir in poor tier
>Confucius in top tier
>Popper in shit tier

Confirmed for troll/retarded tripfag. Ignore.

>>1983718
>No Saussure
>and that's a bad thing

Oh god I lol'd

>>1981108
>god tier = logicians
>shit tier = basically every ontologists
great reasoning, faggot.

>>1983724
>Later Wittgenstein = logician
>mfw

>>1983716
Okay, let me put it this way... analytical philosophy believes that there are symbols, each of which has a fixed meaning, and that thought works by having fixed rules for manipulating these symbols. That is wrong for a number of reasons, but if you are interested in this, read up on Connectionism, a strain of cognitive science which creates artificial neural networks and trains them to do low-level stuff like pattern recognition.

TLDR: symbol processing is implausible if the human brain is taken into account, or the development of the human brain, or the development of human culture, or anything really apart from the structuralist idea of how language works which employs all kinds of hedges (competence vs. performance, etc.) to get around the fact that it is obviously bullshit.

>>1983726
>mfw you have no face

>>1983730
>analytical philosophy believes that there are symbols, each of which has a fixed meaning

WTF, no. Read some Quine.

>>1983722
>language philosophy

I mean, Plato was a pretty good language philosopher, too, I suppose.

>The letter "l" is a soft letter! A weak letter! Words with "l" are weak!

Yeah.

>>1983730

Let me put it this way...

>analytical philosophy believes that there are symbols, each of which has a fixed meaning

analytical philosophy doesn't believe anything. some analytic philosopher believe what you just wrote. some don't. this simple mistake means you're clueless.

>TLDR: symbol processing is implausible

nothing what you said before the TLDR justifies your assertion.

> if the human brain is taken into account, or the development of the human brain, or the development of human culture, or anything really apart from the structuralist idea of how language works which employs all kinds of hedges (competence vs. performance, etc.) to get around the fact that it is obviously bullshit.

this is a list of ideas. the reason that some sort of cashing out of the ideas would justify your assertion is non-obvious.

Why is Mill listed but not Bentham?
Why is Epicurus in both mid and poor tier?

>>1983746

Because tripfags are retards.

>tiers list without spinoza
okay

>>1983753
see
>>1981148

It's hilarious how this image can summon D&E from retirement. It's like he's our fucking Dark Knight, saving us from freshman who just discovered Anglophone empiricism.

His tier list still sucks, but at least D&E is a bro.

>>1983763
Not the hero we need but the hero we deserve?

>>1983763
You forgot your trip D&E.

Philosophy has no place in the modern world.

>poststruc and pomo on shittier

>>1983769

Exactly.

>>1983782

Nice try, but no.

>>1983742
>I mean, Plato was a pretty good language philosopher, too, I suppose.

LOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL

>>1983744
Yes, I did mix up Analytical Philosophy and structuralism a little bit there. What I was actually talking about is mainly philosophy which thinks that math explains the world, which I disagree with. And yes, I don't actually know a lot about analytical philosophy.

>>1983788
why do you stay on lit then ?

>>1983833
Your lack of knowledge is obvious. Your understanding of models is plainly idiotic. Your disagreement with math explaining the world is completely groundless. Just fucking stop posting tbh, you already admitted you know nothing but you keep on spouting bullshit. Why?

Where does Laozi fit in?

Can someone give me a couple paragraph version of what Analytic Philosophy is?

Also how can analytic philosophy be applied to real world problems.

What questions does analytic philosophy attempt to answer?

ghey [/spoilers]

>>1983976

Analytic Philosophy is a mixed bag, you had the logical positivists that sat around in the beginning of the 20th century debating whether there could be a kind of end game of philosophy, most worshiped Wittgenstein as a kind of God among men and went over the Tractatus line by line.

The Vienna Circle was a prime example of these sorts of folks:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/

You almost have to understand Kantian philosophy before you can begin to touch on the Logical Positivists. Specifically you need to read the Critique of Pure Reason, where Kant makes claims on the "a priori synthetic."

Then you need to understand that Wittgenstien kind of throws it all out in the garbage by claiming that philosophy is merely a misunderstanding of language.

To put it plainly, Analytic Philosophy is esoteric crap that only Analytic Philosophers debate about now.

The Philosophy is Science kind of evolved out of that whole shitfest, whereas you have really potent works concerning Reductionism and the Unity of Science, Scientific Realism and it's Compatibility with Quantum Physics, The Logic of Scientific Discovery etc etc.

Seriously, if you're reading the Principia Mathematica for anything other than trying to figure out Russel's problem arguments, you're doing it wrong.

>>1984010

Just to clarify, I studied philosophy as an undergrad and spent more time doing logic and reading the Ancient Philosophers than I did with the Modern Philosophers - which are not to be confused with the Analytic or the Post Modern Philosophers. Of which I know nothing about most Post Modern Philosophers except for those like Popper, Ayer, Putnam.

But I did spend a shit load of time researching the history of philosophy and I've got to say that if anyone takes the tier tables seriously. they're either Women or Niggers.

The most fundamental part of philosophy is reading bad philosophy, so you can see what makes good philosophy.

Understanding the Monad is important, even if the Monad is shit, doesn't mean shit and doesn't have any place in the universe. It lets you see the paths that philosophers took for hundreds of years before coming across better reasoning.

There are thousands of these examples, thousands of bad analogies and handfuls of great ones.

>>1983976
Analytic Philosophy is basically a tradition that favors formal logic and clear argumentation. It's pretty wide, ranging from logic, philosophy of language, political philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of science, to ethics. There's much more to analytic philosophy than logical positivism of course, a school that was utterly destroyed by later analytic philosophers such as Quine.

Most readworthy are Ayer (awesome writer, and of historical interest), Wittgenstein, Quine (fuck yeah Quine), Rawls/Nozick, Kuhn, Dennet, Armstrong, Kripke.

>>1984030

The Two Dogmas of Empiricism is a must read if you want to study Analytic Philosophy.

Kuhn's Scientific Revolutions is garbage, but important to the foundation of a ton of theory. Rawls is hands down the best political philosopher of the 20th century.

Don't study Analytic Philosophy until you're firmly grounded in other Philosophy.

>>1984024

>Popper, Ayer, Putnam
>Post-modern

LOL

>>1984030

All Philosophy favors clear argumentation and formal logic is something that all Philosophers have done in the last 80 years. To make that claim is to claim that all Philosophers of the past 80 years are Analytic Philosophers, which would be incorrect.

>>1984061

Historically they are Post Modern Philosophers, you're confusing time tables with what is generally recognized as Post Modern Philosophers, the Post Modern Existentialists - which Popper, Ayer and Putnam are certainly not.

>>1984068

Some Philosophers call them Post Structuralist, but that's usually just to distinguish between the Existentialists and no one in Academics gives a fuck.

>>1984068
Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze.

>>1983839
Judging from the discussion, I would say that the thread ultimately profited from my posting, even if it was ill-informed. The map is still not the territory, btw.

>>1984084

Fine, perfect counterpoint.

Post modern french philosophy can hardly be considered in line with the philosophy of the Modern Philosophers.

But I really can't defend them as being in line with clear and formal argument.

Fuck France, how do they get away with that shit? At least their philosophers have lazy eyes and no hair to make up for it.

>>1984098
Yeah, I dislike their style a lot mostly. However, Nietzsche would also be a good argument for a non-analytical philosopher.

Also, Sophists kicked logical positivism in the groin +2000 years ago.

>>1984068
>All Philosophy favors clear argumentation and formal logic is something that all Philosophers have done in the last 80 years.
>I have never read continental philosophers

That's an absolutely ridiculous statement given how many philosophers gladly dabble in immense amounts of bullshit and intentional obfuscation.

>>1984098
I've found Foucault's arguments to be very clear and formal. Foucault has also rejected the Modernist tradition of polemics, which if anything further clarifies and strengthens the integrity of his scholarship.

I feel like most who call Foucault a post-modernist only do so because they think the subject matter of Foucault's investigation is unusual.

Shit tier: all philosophy ever

Honestly it sounds like Analytic Philosophy is an eccentric branch of philosophy that doesn't actually relate to any real world problems the way other theories do.

Is it safe to say that if I avoid taking any classes on it (I'm going to be a philosophy undergrad next year) That I'll be missing anything really of value? It seems like a topic I should simply brush over.

>>1984148
...define real world problems. It sounds to me like you want to take an engineering course and not a philosophy course. Analytic Philosophy isn't eccentric at all though, it's the mainstream.

>>1984148
It gave me a great understanding in identifying the necessary parts of a good argument. My paper grades went up after reading Wittgenstein.

As for "real world" applications, I've found it to be useful in analyzing the policies and platforms of political parties. You might not have much respect for national elections, but analysis is good for making an informed choice in local elections.

>>1984098

why do you privilege clarity and form? challenge your assumptions, invert some fuckin binaries bro

>>1984153

What I mean is, it seems like Analytic shit is very ivory tower bullshit.

When I say real world problems I mean most branches of philosophy actually do something.

The meaning of life and how to live your life?

Logic( How do I form concise arguments?)

Poli Phi (Ethics, government structures, ect)

Aesthetics ( What is beauty? what is ugly? how to I define the two?)

I can go on and on, but it seems like Analytic shit is simply saying lets tear apart shit semantically, ect. What do they actually do?

>>1984168
When you put it like that, analytic philosophy is highly relevant to the real world.

>>1984173

Here from my understanding, Analytic shit is just taking logic running it really fucking far?

Is that a safe way to describe it?

>>1984188
Not completely safe, but it's more accurate than not. It's exactly what Wittgenstein did.

1. The real difference between "continental" and "analytic" schools of philosophy has to do with the non-reception of Hegel in the anglosphere. While certain Hegelian ideas get embraced, Hegel's style of philosophical dialectic never becomes truly fashionable. The most important late-modern figure from the continent remains Kant for speakers of English.

2. Starting in the late-19th century, British empiricism along with the rise of the new formal logics begins to birth a number of new types of philosophical discourse. /A number/. And they aren't all anglophones, but they get received best in Britain and the US. While Wittgenstein and Heidegger probably had more in common than Wittgenstein and (let's say) Ayer, we think of the last two together because of style, locale and devotion to formal structure.

3. These divisions become hardened into the "Continental" and "Analytic" or "Anglo-American" categories.

4. However, they don't matter like they used to. You can do real work on--let's say--Heidegger in an analytic faculty now.

5. That said, you need to know analytic philosophy if you're a major. It's the mainstream of your discipline in this language. And the toolset is phenomenal. You may not be able to agree with all the commitments and restrictions of scope of "analytic phil" as traditionally defined, but you should be able to make and articulate those departures thoughtfully.

eastern philosophy says hi, you boring binary-brained fags

>>1984284

Laozi is God tier, in this we are agreed. Not so big on a lot of the rest of Eastern phil.

>>1984284
Done anything else, yet, today, Deep&Edgy?

>>1984284

Eastern philosophy doesn't dive into topics like philosophy of mind and it doesn't follow logical traditions, it's just there. It is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

>>1984294
>not filtering the tripfags yet

I don't understand you people.

>>1984303
>not filtering replies to tripfags yet

I don't understand you people.

Here you go btw: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/105653

>>1984303
>having to filter tripfags because you're so stupid you can't just scroll past their post without reading and raging.

>>1984324
Dude, thanks.

>>1984328
>Making me realize that I also need to filter namefags as well.

Thanks, bro.

>>1984331
You're welcome.

more discussion about analytic philosophy please this shit is interesting,

"W as in Wittgenstein"


Parnet says, let's move on to W, and Deleuze says, there's nothing in W, and Parnet says, yes, there's Wittgenstein. She knows he's nothing for Deleuze, but it's only a word. Deleuze says, he doesn't like to talk about that... It's a philosophical catastrophe. It's the very type of a "school", a regression of all philosophy, a massive regression. Deleuze considers the Wittgenstein matter to be quite sad. They imposed <ils ont foutu> a system of terror in which, under the pretext of doing something new, it's poverty introduced as grandeur. Deleuze says there isn't a word to express this kind of danger, but that this danger is one that recurs, that it's not the first time that it has arrived. It's serious especially since he considers the Wittgensteinians to be nasty <méchants> and destructive <ils cassent tout>. So in this, there could be an assassination of philosophy, Deleuze says, they are assassins of philosophy, and because of that, one must remain very vigilant. <Deleuze laughs>

>>1984284

this is getting really old

>>1984458

Deal with the quietism threat or succumb to it :3. But Wittgenstein talks about more than quietism: this quote seems to be talking about some of the bad followers of Wittgenstein rather than Wittgenstein himself.

Best Tier: Foucault

>>1984770
>shitty philosopher behind spoilers

Hiding your shame.

>analytic philosophy

>>1985050

But aren't you curious about this question:

What is meaning?

>>1985055
Nope.

>>1985062
>okay
>back to reading about this question all day every day forever alone ;_;

>>1985042

>foucault
>shitty philosopher

lol
not even samefag

“But philosophy is not the name of, or the site of, thought generally; it is a special, insular form of thought and its propositions have weight and value only in the precincts of its game.”

“[The] theory mistake [is] the mistake of thinking that your philosophical convictions (if you have them; most people don’t) translate directly or even indirectly into the way you will act when you are [not doing philosophy].”

add protagoras to fucking you tier

>>1983662
Hume is one of my favorite philosophers, and I find him to be really accessible.

I saw "Russell" in "high tier" and lost it immediately.

>>1985114
>relativism as a way of life, something no one recommends and no one practices

i remember once d&e made a troll thread quoting schopenhauer on how reading fantasy books is a waste of time

the funny thing is he spends his entire days wasting his time on this board making fun of people who waste their time

now he posts less with his trip, but there's no way he's going to leave

>>1985144

Relativism is the only thing. How do I know you even exist?

>>1985167
You're trolling.

>>1985169
Playing devil's advocate or asking rhetorical questions is not trolling

Plato will kill us all.

>>1985219
He already did.

DUN DUN DUN

>>1985114
>it is a special, insular form of thought and its propositions have weight and value only in the precincts of its game.”

You say that like it's a bad thing.

>>1983788

Philosophy asks questions that still haven't been answered yet. Your move, modern world.

>>1985167
> How do I know you even exist?

You have direct perceptual access to the souls of other persons, thanks for asking.

This thred reminds me wy i hate most (say >99%) of filosofy and filosofers.

fyi, i am a filosofy major and hav been reading it for 4-5 years. mostly autodidact but conversed a lot with varius filosofy teachers i encountered on the net. not that i think authority matters much in filosofy, altho one shud obviusly trust the word of a professor over an anonymous person over the internet (like here) or somone with no noledge of filosofy.

som filosofy is very important, most is not. the most important piece is, i think, the ethics of belief (and in general, practical ethics).

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

next most important is critical thinking and logic.

som filosofy of language is very useful for avoiding misunderstanding other people, but alas most of it is not that good.

som epistemology is useful for som narrow purposes, such as building good AI systems but generally not so important.

things like ontology is the most useless filosofy that makes sens.

the most useless ofc being the filosofy that doesnt even make sens/is understandable, so that wud be most continental filosofy with Hegel being the prime example.

>>1981108
>not liking deleuze, derrida and adorno.
>liking stoics

WOW, SURE IS AMATEUR HOUR IN HERE.

Let me take this time and exert the effort in spelling out the verification in order to exude my fucking hatred for /lit/. 90% of you are nothing but pseudo intellectual hacks and the rest have no fucking place wasting time on this shit hole.

10/10 I am fucking mad

Get off the fucking internet and open up a fucking book.

lets talk about farts

>>1986910

Give me a break man, I don't care if they agree with the Stoics in a footnote or some shit. I don't have to ACTUALLY READ Derrrida to know that Derrida is wrong about at least MOST things.

>>1986936
>he mad

If you took the OP as a guide for educating yourself, you might be feeling better.

>Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

>The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.

>Epictetus

>arrange things arbitrarily into a tier list
>instant replies

idiots

>>1986896

Why are you deliberately misspelling things?

>>1986998

Sir, my tier list is not made arbitrarily at all. The placements in tiers are justified by my correct opinions.

>>1987002

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_spelling_reform

im using moderate Cut Spelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_Spelling

if one is into language reform or english spellings in general, i very much recommend reading the Cut Spelling handbook
http://www.spellingsociety.org/aboutsss/leaflets/cutspelhb.php

>>1987364
calling people sir on an internet message board like a douchey nerd does not make you correct

>>1987701
I am speechless.

>>1981118
Why is Muhammad on god tier?

Genuinely interested.

>>1987002

http://n.wkpda.rg/wk/nglsh_lngge_spllng_rfrm

m sng mdrt Ct Spllng
http://n.wkpda.rg/wk/Ct_Spllng

f n s nt lngg rfrm r nglsh spllngs n gnrl, vry mch rcmmnd rdng th Ct Spllng hndbk
http://www.spllngscty.rg/abtsss/lfles/ctsplhb.php

>>1987815

Now that's just stupid