[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 122 KB, 1920x1080, foucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11404366 No.11404366 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the most intellectually dishonest philosopher?

>> No.11404382

>>11404366
Almost every single one of them.

>> No.11404389

>>11404382
This. The better question would be who is the most intellectually honest philosopher, and the answer, of course, is HENRY SIDGWICK

>> No.11404409

>>11404389
kek

>> No.11404415

>>11404366
Rand and Foucault, maybe add Camus for the “lol just be yourself” tier philosophy

>> No.11404432
File: 7 KB, 192x262, índice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11404432

>"whatever happened to the dionysian lmao"
>"i wanna be a yes-sayer, fuck those life-denying platonists"
>proceeds to live the uninteresting and ascetic life possible
>highlight of his life is being cucked by Salomé

>> No.11404442
File: 648 KB, 1462x1914, Jean_Paul_Sartre_1965.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11404442

I don't think Rand even counts because she really did believe her nonsense. Being a bad philosopher isn't the same as being intellectually dishonest. Only right answer to this question is Sartre.

>> No.11404514

>>11404382
No philosopher in Classical through Late Antiquity thought of themselves as intellectuals.

>> No.11404899

Unironically Plato. He just made a bunch of strawmen and used the most famous man of the era as the mouthpiece for his retardation. Reading about how butthurt he got over Diogenes shows that he was really an intellectual lightweight. He only became famous because he was rich and had a big following.

>> No.11404947

>>11404432
Think he wanted to be a candy-raver superslut, but did not have the courage, so he's like, I'm gonna be hell of profound >:[

>> No.11404966
File: 58 KB, 626x602, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11404966

>I don't like this philosophy but I don't have any valid criticism of it
>I know, I will call them intellectually dishonest! Ha, I'm so smart I just BTFO that philosophy!

>> No.11405815

Peter Singer.

>> No.11405823

The most intellectually honest was probably stirner. Although a lot of what he said was bullshit he didn’t hold back on anything he thought

>> No.11406312

>>11404366
really not a fan of foucault at the moment desu. reading madness and civilisation and he just seems to be spouting out vague generalisations about whole societies based on random shit.

>> No.11406318

>>11406312
what you want is called science.

>> No.11406365

>>11406312
welcome to french (((philosophy)))

make sure you read 50kgs of lacan books so you can properly criticize him

after that take your course in "the anaerobic pigeon: how parisian landscape was transformed through feather-fetter into an undulating desert d'esprit"

>> No.11406426

Every intellectual is dishonest nowadays if they do not address the technological question. Theory cannot and will not apprehend technological advancement.
As for Foucault.... I won't even dwelve into it as this thread seems to be polluted by americans, who are incapable of political awareness. But I'm sure those taking shots at him have never read any of his works anyways.

>> No.11406493

>>11406426
>americans
are the only reason foucault and other french pop-intellectual have any legitimacy or weight.

>> No.11406542
File: 807 KB, 1440x2006, 1528484987586.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11406542

>>11404366
>

>>11406365
>after that take your course in "the anaerobic pigeon: how parisian landscape was transformed through feather-fetter into an undulating desert d'esprit"
Sounds interesting desu

>>11405815
Nah, he's just an idiot.

>> No.11406551

>>11406542
Based boomer parents