/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1354441]

Good evening, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.1354451]

where are you on that list OP? you seem to be judging a lot of famous intellectuals.

[Anonymous No.1354457]

>>1354451

I'm Russell reborn, you prick.

No, I'm actually not. But you don't need to be famous to be able to see flaws in arguments, you silly.

[Anonymous No.1354486]

>analytic philosophy
>god tier

try not to be so obvious. can't believe you put all the effort into that pic, lmao. get a fucking life, shitty troll.

[Anonymous No.1354496]

Why do you bother posting this? it's not even a good troll.

[Anonymous No.1354507]

>>1354486
>obvious

Not quite sure what you're getting at, good sir.

[Anonymous No.1354510]

>>1354507

>shitty troll

[Anonymous No.1354512]

>>1354510

Nope. I'm a student of philosophy and honestly believe in the ranking.

[Anonymous No.1354514]

>>1354512

well say something about it then, you big gay faggot nigger.

[Anonymous No.1354518]

>>1354514
>gay faggot nigger.

Not getting much to work with here :|. The ball is in the court of anyone that disagrees with me.

[Anonymous No.1354520]

>>1354518

Analytic Philosophy is for big gay faggot niggers.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1354522]

fixed

[Anonymous No.1354524]

>>1354522
>Crowley

You know magic doesn't work, right :3?

[Anonymous No.1354528]

>>1354524

>student of philosophy
>doesn't rate crowley
>smh

[Anonymous No.1354542]

>>1354528
>>1354524

Seriously.. if you can give me a good reason that Crowley belongs anywhere near a list of philosophy, I will stop posting about analytic philosophy on /lit/ *and* delete this thread.

You won't because you can't.

[Arcueid Brunestud !ARCIkc4cG6 No.1354548]

>>1354524

Bullshit. Put two magnets together and bam, fucking magic.

[Anonymous No.1354549]

Add Kafka to shit level.

[Anonymous No.1354557]

>autistic troll makes thread that doesn't even rile any1 up

>his attempts to keep his troll thread going are unprovocative evasions of arguments

[Anonymous No.1354563]

>>1354557
>arguments

[Anonymous No.1354843]

>>1354549

Literature's already there :3

[Anonymous No.1354866]

15-25 years old faggots thiking that they know something about philosophy

[Anonymous No.1354869]

>>1354866

>thinking

fix'd

[Anonymous No.1354872]

>Ayn Rand in the same category as Kierkegaard, Zizek and Derrida

[Anonymous No.1354879]

>>1354518

>doesn't provide proper evidence to back up his assertions

I see why you took philosophy as your major - you couldn't master basic analytical techniques most of us got down in the 11th grade

oh, no, please, don't let me depress you like that. I'm sure after you kill yourself your Platonic soul will rise above the rest of us and spend the rest of its life wandering the world, and in that case it'll have plenty of time to brush up on material. Hopefully you'll catch that in the next go-around

[Anonymous No.1354885]

>>1354866

Are 26 year olds qualified?

>>1354872

They're all equally shitty, and all equally adored by incompetent imbeciles.

[Anonymous No.1354896]

I hate analytical philosophy but I fucking hate continental philosophy

[Anonymous No.1354913]

Nothing to see here people, Analytic philosophy was disproven and is only championed by butthurt pro-western conservatives and/or impressionable young men with the need to "stand out".

[Anonymous No.1354917]

>>1354913

All them and the top 50 departments in the world (those big jerks!). Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford...

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp

[Anonymous No.1354929]

God Tier
Heidegger, Lao Tzu, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Hume, Heraclitus, Diogenes, Dogen
High Tier
Kant, Augustine, Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Derrida, Rorty, Kuki Shuzo, Husserl, Descartes, Kripke, Epicurus
Mid Tier
Sartre, Gadamer, Nishida Kitaro, Leibniz, Marcus Aurelius
Low Tier
Russel and all Russel-like philosophers
Shit tier
Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.1354937]

Where my J.S. Mill at?

[Anonymous No.1354941]

>>1354929
>dislike analytic philosophy
>ranks Kripke highly, probably just because he wrote about Wittgenstein
>Probably does not understand Kripke
>my face

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1354950]

>>1354929

[Anonymous No.1354955]

Tier threads are always the worst threads.

Recommendation threads, now those are of value.

[Anonymous No.1354956]

>>1354917
Those universities are great and all, but notice how they're all Anglo-American? The only reason analytic philosophy exists is because of a political campaign to shut-down all alternative forms of discourse. It's all essentially a huge fit thrown by those who refuse to engage Heidegger and Wittgenstein, and those that followed them. If you havn't done a dedicated study of Being and Time or Wittgenstein's later work, you're absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous No.1354959]

>>1354955

Really? People usually just link the lists and go.

>>1354956
>The only reason analytic philosophy exists is because of a political campaign to shut-down all alternative forms of discourse

Either that or they, just, you know, are interested in answering questions that fall within the scope of analytic philosophy. There's no conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.1354978]

>>1354959
Who said I always talking about a conspiracy theory? I was talking about a religion, specifically, a religion that worships technologized thinking. Read Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology, it will blow your mind, man.

[Anonymous No.1354987]

>>1354978
> I was talking about a religion, specifically, a religion that worships technologized thinking.

This is all metaphorical, right? Just checking. Analytic philosophy is not a religion. Rather than expressing your criticism through metaphor, say exactly what is wrong (Failure to engage with Wittgenstein and that other German was a nice, concrete criticism, I'm looking for more like that).

[Anonymous No.1354997]

>>1354987
>that other German

Fuck you. You're not even worth arguing with until you attempt to understand Heidegger.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355002]

>Rather than expressing your criticism through metaphor
>through metaphor
>through metaphor

[Anonymous No.1355011]

>>1354997

You seem a little upset :3. I was right, wasn't I? He's a German? Collecting true facts about him is like the first step to engaging with him, imo.

>>1355002

Derrirda was confused about pretty much everything.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355015]

ITT: pic related

but seriously folks why don't we all just hang a swastika over our doorsteps lol! Just like all those nip thinkers (nishida et co, kyoto school) who were war enablers!

[Anonymous No.1355040]

>>1355015

[Anonymous No.1355158]

>>1354937

Ethics isn't philosophy, it's just wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.1355174]

Quine, Khun, Russel, The Vienna Circle...

[Anonymous No.1355184]

>>1355174

Yes, what about them? Complete sentences, please.

[Anonymous No.1355191]

>my face when analytic philosophy

[gay baby No.1355194]

>>1354441

Almost agree with it. Not sure about your Wittgenstein placements. His writing is shit but he was a brilliant person.

[Anonymous No.1355208]

>>1355194

I've actually recently become more sympathetic to his concerns about the practices of communities and rule-following. However, his hinted-at behaviorism makes me gag.

[Anonymous No.1355214]

>>1355184
Why are they not on the list. My apologies it is rather late.

[Anonymous No.1355216]

>>1355214

Russell is on the list, he's in God tier.

Quine isn't because gavagai pisses me off.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355217]

>my face when thinking at all

[Anonymous No.1355224]

>>1355216
"jungle language" pissed me off more than Gavagai but his overall point about the inadequacy of direct translation even over simple objects still holds I think. And where is Khun we trip over the term paradigm shift now (perhaps to much) but his influence is undeniable.

[gay baby No.1355228]

"Kuhn", and "Russell".

[Anonymous No.1355233]

>>1355228
I have been reviewing 18th century lit for my exam all day. I will not spell names correctly as I cannot see straight right now.

[Anonymous No.1355248]

>>1355224

Translation is hard, not impossible. Basically, I disagree with him.

[Anonymous No.1355256]

>>1355248
after working with many translated texts I can't say I do. Let's face it Kant is most likely easier (see readable) in German. On a completely different note Joyce showed me that, in order to get certain puns, sometimes one must speak four languages. word of advice never read Finnegan's Wake...I don't even think Joyce read the damn thing

[Anonymous No.1355267]

>>1355256
>Let's face it Kant is most likely easier (see readable) in German

A German told me no, actually :3. The english translators quite helpfully build some interpretation into their translation. Apparently literally translated he's worse (this would be the Cambridge translation rather than the Kemp Smith)

Essentially, Quine is concerned not just about translation. He's concerned about interpretation within our own language, and whether there is any manner of fact about what state mental we are in. The same sort of doubts apply, if you only look for behavioristic evidence. But behaviorism is false, so :3.

[Anonymous No.1355409]

>>1355217

Is that your philosophical method? Not thinking?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355416]

>>1355409

[Anonymous No.1355418]

>>1355416

But that's dumb, right? Intuitions are unreliable.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355425]

>>1355418
>implying your senses ever lie to you
pfffth

[Anonymous No.1355430]

>>1355425

They're only reliable about information that pertains to my health, not information in general :3.

[Anonymous No.1355437]

God Tier: L. Ron Hubbard

Shit Tier: Everyone else.

[Anonymous No.1355443]

>>1355437

ALIENS GONNA KILL US ALL AIEE

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355451]

Your senses are always reliable. You are labouring under the illusion of cartesian idiocy.

>information that pertains to my health
bullshit phrase

>information in general
bullshit phrase

make me lol some more bro

[Anonymous No.1355456]

>>1355451

Hey now. It's maybe wrong, but not incomprehensible if you understand the Cartesian framework I was relying on.

My senses tell me that my laptop is solid. Scientists tell me that it is mostly empty space (atoms and shit). Scientists are more reliable than my senses. Therefore my senses are wrong in this case, and might be wrong in other cases.

Now, you might say the scientist is just using his sense is a fancy pants way. But this fancy pants way is important. It's not, "don't think just feel".

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355465]

>>1355456
>My senses tell me that my laptop is solid.
That is not what your senses are "telling you", your senses are not "telling you" anything.

[Anonymous No.1355469]

>>1355465

Oh, so it's just sense data and you're a filthy disjunctivist?

Okay, you still can't maintain your original position. Under this sort of picture (perception = sensation + judgment) thinking becomes even more important.

[SemperFi No.1355473]

>>1354441
Badly read Asian philosophy is bad.
But when well read and understood, Buddhism philosophy, for example, is very valuable.
btw, why is there no Karl Marx?

[Anonymous No.1355477]

>>1355473

Forgot about him because he's so shitty. Shit tier.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355479]

>>1355469
>you still can't maintain your original position
I don't have a position. Are you going somewhere with this beyond projecting a certain set of propositions (some stupid nonsense about thinking and sense data that I don't give a shit about) into and out of my mouth for your own benefit or what?

[SemperFi No.1355482]

>>1355477
So you haven't read him, I figured.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355487]

lyotard lyotard lyotard axioms axioms axioms metanarrative metanarrative metanarrative

I mean jesus how much of a dunce do you have to be to buy wholesale into this 2 + 2 = 4 will to systems horseshit in today's day and age

[Anonymous No.1355490]

>>1355479

EARLIER YOU SAID FEEL DONT THINK

WHY

WHY

WHY

>>1355482

I've read him. I've read him extensively enough to have read his anti semitic newspaper columns, too.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1355495]

>>1355490
That was a deviantart image of bruce lee which maybe you took a little bit too seriously.

[Anonymous No.1355498]

>>1355495

I GUESS I DID

[Anonymous No.1355509]

>>1354522
>high tier Lao Tzu
you have my respect Deep

[Anonymous No.1356086]

mfw truth is eternal

[Anonymous No.1356740]

[God Waitings !!KJNFTNo2Sxw No.1356759]

what's so great about Lao Tzu anyways?

[Anonymous No.1356761]

kitzo hekotormos > any school of philosophy

[Anonymous No.1356959]

Saul Kripke could be identified three ways: his fluffy white beard, his impossible smile, and the way he could not. Shut. Up.

Even Kripke would, from time to time, acknowledge with one of his flashing grins that he was talking too much. This didn't mean he'd stop, though.

The first few times he had found himself in the same restroom with the man, Searle had tried to laugh off Kripke's insufferable love of logic, his incessant chatter, and, worst of all, his tendency to leave his pants down throughout the entire process. When, at the APA conference, Kripke followed him into the restroom and spent twenty minutes prattling about semantics or some shit, Searle decided it was time to act a little more drastically.

[Anonymous No.1356986]

>>1356761
Yes, he will always be a true original.

[Anonymous No.1356999]

>>1356740

[Anonymous No.1357005]

The conference was being held at a small hotel, and Searle had just finished tidying his room when there was a knock at the door.

"You wanted to see me, Searle?" Kripke let himself in before Searle could respond and plopped down on the sagging bed. "Does this have anything to do with what I was saying yesterday? Because if you'd like to talk more about Wittgenstein and philosophy of language, I'm definitely your guy. I could go for hours..."

Searle's only response was to raise an eyebrow as he watched Kripke fidget from his chair in the corner. Picking up the small black bag next to him, he crossed the room without a sound and sat next to a now clearly nervous Kripke.

"Saul." He leaned in, voice low, and Kripke stiffened. "You're a passionate thinker. That's one of the reasons you're so respected in your field. But you know what they say about silence?"

Kripke looked down, his fingers knotted together in his lap. After several moments in which the only sounds were their breathing, he mumbled, "It's golden."

[Anonymous No.1357024]

Kripke looked down, his fingers knotted together in his lap. After several moments in which the only sounds were their breathing, he mumbled, "It's golden."

Searle grinned, teeth bright in the dim light, and turned away to unzip the bag. Despite himself, Kripke tried to peer over and see what was in there, but Searle turned around and abruptly pushed him down onto the bed. Taken aback, he didn't notice what Searle was now holding until their faces were impossibly close.

"Oh, what—" And then Searle was forcing his mouth open, fingers getting wet with spit, and stuffing the wiffle gag behind his teeth. Kripke tried to bite down, pop the gag out, anything, but Searle had already fastened it shut. "The hell do you think you're doing," he continued, but the gag turned it into near-moaning, drool leaking through the holes.

Smiling broadly, Searle grabbed Kripke by the chin and straddled him, uncaring of their once-crisp suits. He rubbed his thumb across Kripke's stretched lips, spreading spit across his face. Kripke struggled to yank his head out of Searle's grip, but his writhing only served to grind their crotches together, and was that an erection?

[Anonymous No.1357026]

God-tier: Jesus the Nazarene
"Thou has conquered, o pale galilean"
Good tier: Soren Kierkegaard, Henri Bergson, Sextus Empiricus, Hegel, Jaspers, Marcus Aurelius, Alain Badiou
Okay-tier: Slavoj Zizek, Aleister Crowley, Jean Genet, Antonin Artaud, Felix Feneon, Borges
Shit-tier: Wittgenstein

[Anonymous No.1357960]

>>1357026
>Crowley

What is it with you kids and Crowley? It pisses me off.

[Anonymous No.1357971]

Man, I need to work on my own analytic tier troll so I can get my first lengthy thread on /lit/. I don't even know much about philosophy, but I've seen enough of these to know how it's done.

[Anonymous No.1357993]

>>1357971

Aren't you tempted to go take a course on Russell :3?

[Anonymous No.1358001]

>>1357993
No man, I'm already a materialist, which means I eek by on some film theory stuff for hipster chick pussy. My material wealth and pleasures will not be increased by studying philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1358011]

>>1358001
>My material wealth and pleasures will not be increased by studying philosophy.

But what about wisdom :|

[Anonymous No.1358063]

Truth shall not leave page 1

[Anonymous No.1358840]

.

[Anonymous No.1358869]

>>1358011
they are not material.

And you don't get any wiser by studying philosophy. Seriously, ask the people who do (and not the one who pretend, like the lazy fuck-ups on this board).
You learn about other peoples philosophies so you can, maybe!!!, develop your own.

[Anonymous No.1359179]

> Wittgenstein & Russell > French post-structuralists
Fail troll is fail.

[Anonymous No.1360548]

>>1359179

Aren't they post-post structuralists by now?

[Anonymous No.1360569]

God tier is missing Hobbes.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1360577]

>political philosophy

why don't we just let idiots like Singer in while we are at it

[Anonymous No.1360579]

>>1359179

why are so many on /lit/ eager to ride the dick of a bald gay frenchman who enjoyed fisting and contracting AIDS? "This is not a pipe", INDEED! Rubbish.

[Anonymous No.1360591]

>>1360577

[Anonymous No.1360605]

So /lit/, I have a question: Does anybody here is studying Oriental Studies (specially regarding India) or something like that?
The thing is that I'd like to know which essential texts you need to study and know (specially regarding history in india and philosophy).
For example, I'm in the B.A. in Philosophy (pretending to study oriental studies after this), and essentials texts would be Kant's, Hume's, 2 or 3 from Plato, etc.

"Philosophies of India" by Heinrich Zimmer, would be one for example? (which I think by the way that it is really outdated and that his misinterpretations of Buddhist philosophy is because of the translations that were in his time available)
Or the texts by Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti? (Although I think he clearly didn't understand Nagarjuna's exposition of emptiness)

[Anonymous No.1360623]

>Locke anything but shit-tier and below

Just what criteria are we ranking these philosophers by /lit/?

[Anonymous No.1360636]

>>1360623

Mostly by whether they say for true things or false things. Old people get a slightly free pass, and get credit for moving towards true things (Locke, empiricism) or spitting on really false things (Descartes, Scholastic philosophy).

[Anonymous No.1360655]

It's like /v/ has come to /lit/ and slightly changed topic! You people will argue about anything.

[Anonymous No.1360674]

>>1360655
>arguing over the eternal truths is just like arguing over pixels

[Anonymous No.1360709]

>>1360674
What I mean is that there isn't any actual argumentation; rather, there are large, unqualified blanket statements about several thinkers and entire schools of thought, that are simply swept aside without any further examination. Why is Plato, for example, shit tier? There is no explanation. It is as if we are treating philosophy as if they were video games, to be trashed in such a sophomoric fashion.

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360727]

>>1360709
This dude's right. These "rate the philosopher" threads are pretty bad. I get the sense that some posters are pretty well-read in the subject, so it's sad that they'd settle for these hackneyed, regurgitated "discussions".

[Anonymous No.1360728]

>>1360709
>large, unqualified blanket statements about several thinkers and entire schools of thought

Oh, so that's what you're upset about. That's just how I roll, baby.

As for Plato- Forms are abstract objects, and I've never seen an abstract object. So abstract objects don't exist, and Plato was silly for saying that they did. Pic related.

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360756]

>>1360728
I don't know, I thought he was doing okay for 2500 years ago, and compares favorably to those of his time. His ideas might be pretty easy to argue against, but Plato was among the first to illuminate some of the most enduring problems in our intellectual history. I'm inclined to give him a pass for being wrong about everything.

[Anonymous No.1360765]

>>1360756
Skepticism is still a problem... remember modern philosophers?
Maybe the thing is that... skepticism was never a problem, but the fucking hyper-mystical-realist like Plato were.

[Anonymous No.1360803]

>>1360756
>I'm inclined to give him a pass for being wrong about everything.

Shrug, that's your taste. I'm more interested in new and/or correct ideas (research) than paying respect to bad but early ideas.

Furthermore, in work in the history of philosophy there's a tendency to re-interpret the hell out of old, venerated people until they seem to be slightly right, which is just annoying. It's firstly false- thinker A didn't say Y, which is an interpretation you can get by ignoring half of his corpus, thinker A said X, which he obviously asserted to and is also, unfortunately, obviously wrong. It`s secondly just the wrong sort of question- come up with your own damn theory rather than reinterpreting Aristotle for the 1000th time.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1360813]

Hey guys why don't you explain your fuckin tier lists for once, it's not like people haven't written 50,000 words at the very least on each and here you guys are with the fucking gall to just put them in a hierarchy for the sake of debate i mean ggeeeeeeeeezzzzz

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360867]

>>1360813
Alternatively, we could skip the tier lists altogether, and have some discussion.

[Anonymous No.1360881]

Insane Tier

[tyrinnizingbrox No.1360887]

>>1360813
but you did that for fiction, which is actually important to the world. im pretty sure some of these guys up there would be humbled to even be recognised on this chart on /lit/

[Anonymous No.1360900]

>>1360881
>necessity of contingency
>necessity of contingency
>necessity of contingency

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360905]

>>1360803
My way of looking at it: modifications to these older ideas can result in versions that are arguably correct. If Kant was wrong-but-almost-right about something, and you recognize the necessary correction, do you really have a choice but to acknowledge that Kant was your stepping stone? Otherwise it's going to resemble plagiarism, or possibly ignorance. You'll just have to live with the label NeoKantian, but your argument will still be evaluated on its merits.

I'm not sure I can even envision the sort of argument that's so novel that it wouldn't make heavy reference to preceding thought. Every topic has been done to death.

Am I misunderstanding your criticism?

[Anonymous No.1360924]

>>1360905
>If Kant was wrong-but-almost-right about something

Trust me on this. 75% of the articles in the history of philosophy are about claiming that *dead wrong* people are right. If Kant was *almost right* and you correct him, sure, call it a Kantian theory. If he was dead wrong but inspired you, mention him in a footnote.

>I'm not sure I can even envision the sort of argument that's so novel that it wouldn't make heavy reference to preceding thought. Every topic has been done to death.

Basically, no.

>Am I misunderstanding your criticism?

We disagree in two places:

(A1) You think that current work done in history of philosophy based on historical figures is about correcting almost-right thinkers.
(A2) I think that current work done in history of philosophy based on historical figures it mostly about correcting dead-wrong thinkers.

(B1) You think that everything has been done
(B2) I don't

[Anonymous No.1360927]

>>1360924

>history of historical

I'm tired ~

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360943]

>>1360924
Thanks for that. As you no doubt suspected, I know fuck-all about what's being written in history of philosophy. I suppose I'm thinking more along the lines of work in metaphysics which is still making reference to Kant.

I guess I'll go read a Stanford article so I can get straightened out. Better that than ask my wife the professor, and get "that look".

[Anonymous No.1360952]

>>1360943

If your wife is a historian of philosophy, she might be tempted to think B1 & B2. It's not like I'm unbiased :3.

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360965]

>>1360952
No, she's mainly in applied ethics, medical ethics, and philosophy of law.

I don't see an article at plato.stanford.edu--I was hoping for a 1/2 hour read to give me the outlines. Do you have any recommendations? The wikipedia article is simply a "history of philosophy", not any kind of survey of the contemporary subject area.

[Anonymous No.1360983]

>>1360965

You didn't specify what you're looking for. Earlier you said metaphysics, so:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProMetNewMet

"new" metaphysics

I would also say that it's a good guess that any philosopher after Frege is particularly different from older stuff because Frege introduced the predicate calculus. Particularly language: Russell, Wittgenstein, Dummett, Davidson, Grice.

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1360988]

>>1360983
Sorry--I'm trying to get a sense of the boundaries of what you're talking about when you refer to "history of philosophy" as a specific subject area.

[Anonymous No.1361001]

>>1360988

Oh- you won't find that in a wiki. I mean any given journal that publishes historical articles.

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1361009]

>>1361001
Gotcha, thanks.

[Anonymous No.1361011]

>>1361001

And of course, checking whether I'm right will involve a case by case analysis of:

(a) How close to the text is the interpretation?
(b) How often and to what degree is the principle of charity applied? What do we take the principle of charity to be?
(c) If the theory is modified, just how many modifications a new theory make?

It's obviously a hard question, and here I tend to speak in grand generalizations and talk about it like it's easy.

[ForcedMeme !IsAMEmE6C2 No.1361027]

>>1361011
I think you're also going to have to hope for a convincing account of which philosophers were dead-wrong vs. almost-right in the first place--for each of their important arguments. Sounds like a good project, get to it.

[Anonymous No.1361031]

>>1361027

Oh, I'm on it :3. These things take time.