[ 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: 23 KB, 500x421, 1483317958813.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12276669 No.12276669[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

who is objectively the most brainlet philosopher?

>> No.12276687

You

>> No.12276692

@12276687
im not a philosopher, retard

>> No.12276704

@12276687
Fuck off plebein scum

>> No.12276764

>>12276692
>>12276704
Having a good time, newfag/s?

>> No.12276777

plato or descartes

>> No.12276802

>>12276764
>newfag
Did you join 4chan in ‘06 or something you fucking habboraiding funnyjunker?

>> No.12276804

@12276764
Imagine being this new and thinking you're not

Downvote

>> No.12276807
File: 45 KB, 634x650, 756432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12276807

>>12276704
>>12276692
what are you even doing? Ortega y Gasset is the worst one.

>> No.12276812

>>12276802
>habboraiding funnyjunker
Kek

>> No.12276816
File: 202 KB, 478x720, 20518018a7069290ca7b3a9b228071bf1965041518329c0f0268307ced951080.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12276816

Marx, obviously

>> No.12276825

>>12276816
>Strawman a little harder there chief.

Stirner or Rand

>> No.12276840

>>12276816
If Keynesianism is so good then why has it consistently failed to stop capitalism from going into crisis?

>> No.12276854

>>12276840
because thats part of its natural cycle

>> No.12276860

>>12276669
sartre

>> No.12276880

>>12276816
>>12276840
Keynesianism is hilarious. I literally hate most popular economists. If you get into the scientific side of economics like the Lausanne school or Game Theory, you start seeing the rewards of studying economics, and you start seeing a grander picture of how people function and how prices and wealth are determined within an economic system.

Unfortunately for Keynes, he fundamentally doesn’t understand anything ever. He makes some mistakes in his equations and terminology and tosses his word salad around like it was nothing. Keynes is the opposite of Hayek but they are both unbearingly mediocre with a few Golden insights on how an economy SHOULD work.

If you want to actually respect economics, read the scientific stuff. Otherwise, don’t even bother.

>> No.12276896

>>12276669
Nick land

>> No.12276909

>>12276669
Pessimists, theologians and other Christian apologia shyte

>> No.12276923
File: 181 KB, 1384x1364, 1490957017456.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12276923

Carl Yung, you might know him as Carl HUNG

>> No.12276929

>>12276816
lmao I remember creating this image like 9 years ago

>> No.12276930

>>12276880
economic realism is cringe as fuck my dude

>> No.12276935

>>12276930
What does Economic realism mean

>> No.12276936

>>12276825
>doesn't know how to use greentext
tumblr refugee spotted

>> No.12276939

>>12276816
why do empiricists meme the austrian school of economics

do they not see the irony

>> No.12276945

Derrida, covers his lack of insights with obscurantism

>> No.12276957

>>12276945
>obscurantism

how to spot the pseud

>> No.12276958

>>12276825
>Can't even use greentext properly

>> No.12276960

>>12276957
>pseud calling others pseuds
You're the pseud king now

>> No.12276962

>>12276939
I can already tell you're winding up to say some dumbass shit.

>> No.12276969

>>12276929
lmao me too

>> No.12276971

>>12276880
based

>> No.12276972

>>12276960
rather be a king than a peasant

>> No.12276975

Camus
>It's impossible to find a reason to live
>Let that be your reason

>> No.12276978

>>12276935
If you actually take the conclusions "scientific" economics presents us with then you will just help accelerate the destruction of the environment and encourage mass consumerist ideology. Basically, you need to stop caring about profit (regardless of how important profit is to the current economic paradigm) because it is morally, spiritually, psychology, and socially reprehensible.

>> No.12276985

Daniel Dennett.

>> No.12277148

>>12276978
> then you will just help accelerate the destruction of the environment and encourage mass consumerist ideology
There are certain sectors of the economy that do this more than other. Economics is not simply about making a profit, it is just analyzing the way things operate in an economy. You can take these findings and try to help make the world a better place. That’s how ideologies like Georgism evolved

>> No.12277154

>>12276985
This

>> No.12277158

>>12276985
>>12277154
>Catholic posting

>> No.12277160

>>12276909
Dumb, probably ugly
>>12276985
Correct, probably a beautiful soul

>> No.12277161

>>12276880
>scientific
yeah dont kid yourself dude.

>> No.12277173

>>12276816
people who really think theyre redpilled by the austrians are hilariously shortsighted, just like autistic faggots cringe/unaware enough to call themselves "Mencius Moldbug" publicly

>> No.12277177

>>12277161
? Don’t be that retarded bud

>> No.12277198

>>12277177
there’s no such thing as scientific economics

>> No.12277199

>>12276669
Rousseau or Montaigne

>> No.12277223

>>12276669
Objectively, it's Ayn Rand. She was willfully ignorant of any philosophy that wasn't done by Nietzsche or Aristotle. She didn't engage with any of her contemporaries even when she assumed she had the answers to every difficult and well-trod problem. It's like a some random guy on the street thinking he's an accomplished physicist without knowing what relativity is. Her influence is that of a cult leader, and sadly this cult continues to induct members to this day.

She is one of the few thinkers that I can safely say the world would be better without.

>> No.12277231

>>12277198
There objectively is. And it’s not Keynesianism or Austrian school, that’s for sure

>> No.12277234

>>12277223
What part of her ideas are wrong?

>> No.12277236

>>12276669
Rand

>> No.12277241

>>12277223
Also, for any philosopher you disagree with, no matter how much you disagree you can at least say they've advanced the conversation and got the opposite side to refine their arguments. Not so with Rand. Even anything she's inspired philosophers to be more dismissive.

>> No.12277342

>>12277234
The issue isn't even that she's wrong. It's that her arguments are completely worthless, not philosophically interesting, do not contribute anything to the debate besides further obfuscation.

Take her proposed solution to the is-ought problem for example. The is one of the foundational problems of ethics so when someone says they have a solution, you must expect a robust argument. Rand essentially just declares it a false dichotomy without providing a proper argument. You can denounce it as a pseudo-problem, that's a possible move - but only IF you have an argument. She just assumes from the outset a MORAL claim, which is that the only good is that which allows you to survive, and since the two are inseparable the problem is meaningless. This is flagrantly circular, leaving aside how vague and uninformative that principle is. She didn't bother arguing why this should be true, and furthermore it's completely useless as an ethical principle (especially when the problem has nothing to do with anyone's immediate survival).

The biggest issue is that all of this is tied up with her completely baseless system, and you need lots of time on your hands to pick apart every bad metaphysical argument she makes. The worst part is that you could make a cogent argument for the things she believes, but she makes no attempt to do so and is thus worthless.

>> No.12277365

bertrand russell basically just said a bunch of retarded shit and tried to prove logical constructs based off of logical constructs. he's everything that i hate about analytics

>> No.12277509

>>12277231
There is nothing scientific about economics no matter how much mathematical obscurantism is utilized. Show one reproducible experiment. Past data has been analyzed to develop economic theories but it is not scientific.

>> No.12277564

>>12277231
>>12277509
Follow up. Sorry dude, I'll have to check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_economics

>> No.12277571

>>12276692
>>12276704
disgusting
>>12276669
Aquinas, Augustine, Kant in that order of gay retarded brainlets with high verbal iq

>> No.12277577

>>12277564
lol this is trash and has been shown to be not even vaguely as rigorous as the hard sciences by economists, most economics doesn’t replicate or is woefully underpowered. Its not at all compatible with the word science.

>> No.12277608

>>12277571
explain wjhy stupid fuckhead

>> No.12277626

>>12277608
God isn’t real, reason is an incoherent concept and so is phenomena and noumena, categorical imperative is evolutionarily selected against and unproductive, being a goblin is a moral crime against the fitness of the species.

>> No.12277639

>>12277564
>>12277509
You post the same shit over and over. I post what I read and you post Wikipedia articles.

I’m wondering what kind of books you read?

>> No.12278198
File: 29 KB, 405x482, 1544194330975.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12278198

>>12277342
>It's that her arguments are completely worthless, not philosophically interesting, do not contribute anything to the debate besides further obfuscation.
The Objectivitist Theory of Concepts says hi.

>> No.12278210

>>12276669
My diary desu

>> No.12278242

>>12276962
He’s alluding to the fact that the Austrians treat economics a priori.

>> No.12278256

>>12276669
Newton

>> No.12279208

>>12277626
t. hume

>> No.12279267

>>12277223
Tbh she doesn't seem to have read Aristotle or Nietzsche. I think she read Russell's HOWP and shitposted from there, convincing only people who also haven't read any philosophy either

>> No.12279358

How has no one said singer yet? Easily the biggest retard to ever write “philosophy.” Also, people who lump stirner in with rand deserve the rope