/lit/ - Literature

This bitch

>>6432221
Certainly not Leibniz

Basically everything Searle wrote, Derrida, Descartes' dualism, a large amount of Locke is pretty much nonsense

20th century French philosophy

dumb philposter

>>6432221
Feminism

>>6432228
We're talking about philosophers though

It's a toss up between Marxism and Antinatalism.

>>6432228

>mahnigga.jpg

>>6432221
Any kind of political philosophy, no matter what ideology, is always pure rhetoric

>>6432231
>Locke
Why?
Also my vote goes for utilitarianism.

Marxism, post-structuralism, deconstructionism, existentialism.

>>6432385
>implying

Locke is laughably off in hindsight

>>6433297
>Wants to prove that poliphil isn't pure rhetoric
>Posts Rawls
You could have posted Marx and at least pretend to try

Anything I don't like, disagree with, or supposedly is at the origin of a societal phenomenon from which I don't directly benefit, especially when everyone else does.

>>6433297
>tfw i had to write an essay on that cunt's theory

>>6432221
Epistemicism
Trivialism
Dialetheism
Modal realism

>>6432221
Bait?
How is Leibniz not the most based of all?

For the worst, I'd say everything relying on trial of intention and denying personnal agency : it covers much ground, all those that "decrypted" motives : Marx, Freud, Durkheim, Nietzsche, ...

>>6432221
Unprovable skepticism irks me the most because the utterer usually thinks it's profound

Surprised nobody mentioned nihilism

>>6433439
Depends on the kind of nihilism, or whether it's 'nihilism regarding X' instead of a philosophical system.

Stoicism

>>6433439
Using this word alone makes me suspect you just have no fucking idea what you're talking about, but if you're actually talking shit about mereological nihilism, then I'd like you to try to explain how it doesn't beat any other ontological theory (and fail terribly at it).

>>6433450
It's far from the best moral system ever, but considering it the worst makes you sound like a fag.

>>6433286
>utilitarianism
Just reading the word makes me angry.

>>6432221

Every Nihilist ever though that's basically more to do with the kind of people it attracts than the philosophy itself, same goes for existentialist.

>>6432221
Subjective Relativism
>Hey man, you owe me $20 which you promised to pay back
>I no longer feel paying you back is the right thing for me to do
>I feel it is
>GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE

>>6433470
>Subjective Relativism
As opposed to objective relativism?

>>6433443
uđ9<so9pawđ

>>6433454
God exists, therefore moral realism is correct :^)

>>6433470
Let's assume OP used 'philosophies' to refer to positions held by philosophers, and not random views held by morons.

>I've read Candide
Welcome to eighth grade, OP

>>6432221
You know this running meme with falsification? Without Leibniz it couldn't have a place. Guy [literally] made fundamental step for philosophy o science (beside being great scientist).

Honestly? Everything written by Beauvoir is trash. I've never come across a series of ideas so easily dismantled.

Calculus is sooooo dumbo!

>>6433461
I am a utilitarian/epicurean at heart. No joking. Bentham 4 lyfe.

>>6433294

Looks like someone is angry they have no academic credibility.

>>6434661
But you don't dismantle ideas. That's not how it works.

>>6434782
Shhhh. He's probably an analytic and thinks he has something to say about the modern world.

>>6432385
lol you haven't read a single polphi book
because polphi is precisely not about ideologies
Read Kant you ape

Utilitarism, in relation to the huge amount of people that follow it at least.

Other than that, Peter Singer is ahuge faggot and doesn't deserve to be labelled a philosopher, and Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are too edgy for me to take them seriously

>>6434798
aaah to be 16 again

>>6434809
>muh Arthur
>muh Nietzsche
your luck I don't have any fedora pictures saved, because this post deserves one.

anything other than george carlin

>>6433516

How does the concept of falsifiability depend on Leibniz's philosophy?

Anything that isn't compatible with Catholicism.

>>6434809
as per the other guy's request

Religion is objectively the worst. Let's recap:

-Stunted scientific progress from the dawn of mankind up until the Enlightenment, and even then still hinders our advancement today
-Collapsed the greatest empires ever known to man, past or present
-Guilty of the single-most greatest loss of human life in pointless wars
-Restricted free thinking and open market societies
-The list could go on but why bother, when the answer is so clear?

>>6433286
Locke on the self is almost incoherent, he seems to both assert your "mind" both controls and does not control you

>>6433326
me too anon, me too
I just copied Kymlickas report though

>>6434861

>>6433479
relativism isn't tied to subjectivism

>>6434861
ironic shitposting aside i didnt know there were still pro-enlightenment fags still on /lit/. you should all be sent to the gulags.

>>6434882
>I don't have an argument

>>6433439
But Nihilism is never a conscious philosophy rather than a subliminal mode of thinking often seen as poison to true philosophy.

>>6434932
>scientific progress spook still needs to be dismantled

nah bruv just read any 20th century thinkers

>>6434798
Peter Singer is a huge faggot

>>6434739
You're a night janitor, dumbass.

>>6434947
scarecrow "true" in "true philosophy"

>>6435021

You can accept I'm a Security Guard, or you can accept I'm Janitor, it's whatever you want to make it. It's just a job you don't have.

>>6434861
watch out, we've got a wikipedia genius over here

>>6435030
>bragging
I earn more than you, and I don't have to slave through the night.

I'll stick to programming, have fun being a security guard through your 20's.

Marxism

Marxism.

>>6435084

I'm not planning on keeping this job. I plan on being a social worker, you know, actually helping other humans. Alien concept to a sociopath.

Religion.

lol philosophy

>>6433326
>had to
u r so subservient its laffable

>>6433286
Okay reviewing my Locke, he asserts that the necessary condition (if a mind were to be transposed to another body) for that person to be the "same" person in a different body is if they could remember who they were before entering the new body. Memory is a necessary condition for identity. However, he later contends that a person is still the same person even if they forget all of their same experiences.

>>6433450
Stoicism?

Bad?

Am I in Bizarro World here? If the current political scene could even comprehend Stoic thought, we'd all be in a much better boat.

>>6434861
Someone hasn't had his diaper changed.

And also never read Lewis. Or Pascal.

>>6436346
>Pascal

>>6432221
analytical behaviourism is got to be up there, does anyone in the world still believe that shit?

>>6434798
What exactly do you find "edgy" about Schopenhauer? What exactly is "edgy" philosophy? What are the defining characteristics? Is it philosophy you can not comprehend? I've never seen the word used in a context that wasn't anti-intellectual.

>>6432221
humanism
1789 was a mistake

>>6438348
**tip**

>>6438315
Edgy means to point out someone's view is on the cusp of public acceptability and attribute this attribute as the primary reason for it being continually uttered and reinforced. People who use the term strongly rely on the belief that only the opinions that have been verified as popularly acceptable and peer reviewed contain posturing-free truth.

>>6434861
Very poor overused bait but still gets me mad.
6/10 because no reference to sexual repression.

>>6432221
Epicureanism
>Hijacked Democritus' atomism and made it worse
>Rejected strict logic and boasted their lack of culture
>Promoted depravity and pleonexia by their bad and ambigious definition of pleasure
>Made their gods the absolute role-models for living well, but destroyed any chance of consistent theology by doing that.
>Preached atheism, anarchy and egotism, but didn't admit it.
>Actually had nice lives in their gardens, but because of their lack of culture and instruction were incapable of conceptualize it well in written doctrine. It was more of a cult and a tradition, than a philosophical school, but also didn't admit it.
>Again, it is unexcusable to have so little culture in a city which had Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Zeno of Citium, Xenophon, Isocrates, Demosthenes and even Diogenes.
>Dumb and hipocritical fucks all around.

Cynicism
>Entirely dependent on anecdotes of an ugly, disrespectful pauper of 2400 years ago.

>>6436412

I only read the wager text my lit. teacher gave me !

Even if I'm not fond of religious stuff, he pretty much destroys everyone else's dogma.

Marx and Frued are ultimately contradicting and hypocritical, so them.

Marxism, if you can call it a philosophy.

What's the problem with Freud?

Why all the hate for utilitarianism?

>>6438901
It was half wrong and only spawned and still spawns more completely wrong pseudo-intellectualism.

Nihilism
Relativism

>>6439002
>It was half wrong
What was wrong?

>>6439021
Read Freud, read psychology that has scientific basis and statistical backing, make your own call.

>>6439021
Take a look at this : http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf

>>6439034
But I find the idea of the unconscious absolutely stunning, literally worth being one of the three narcissistic injuries

>>6439046
I'll take a look, thanks

>>6439046
>http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf
wait what

>>6439054
It wasn't his idea, it's older than western philosophy, and he uses it to support his own psychodrama. You read Freud to learn about Freud.

>>6439066
>it's older than western philosophy
Hmm I feel like Fichte is the only one to have considered that there was an otherness in the I
Who said it before him?

>>6439082
The Indians, who said everything that could be said in every possible configuration over 3000 years ago. Maybe not older than western philosophy, but near enough.

>>6434731
You fucking disgust me.

Carpe Diem redefined to YOLO courtesy of millennial mongoloids

>>6439099
>The Indians
Oh, I see, unfortunately I don't know anything about the Indians, do you have a specific author?

>>6439113

>>6433326
i had to write several.

>take course on 20th century social and political philosophy
>"this could be interesting"
>rawls, nozick, rawls, cohen, rawls, rawls, rawls, sandel, rawls

>hurr durr you're just born that way i guess.

>>6433294
I'm really not sure who to cringe at or for in this

>>6439440
Are you really this dumb?

Select all the cupcakes.

>>6439515
>dude anarchy LMAO

>>6434731
Really big bait

>>6433470
I don't mind it so much because their own "philosophy" pretty much gives you carte blanche to do terrible things to them.

>>6432228

>Ayn Rand
>A philosopher

>>6432221

I think Existentialism is just plain boring.