/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14854720]

Which philosophers are right about everything?

[Anonymous No.14854744]

>>14854720
Baudrillard
Nietzsche
Spinoza
Adorno
Horkheimer
Debord

[Anonymous No.14854769]

>>14854720
ﷺ Guénon ﷺ

>>14854744
>Baudrillard
>Nietzsche
>Spinoza
>Adorno
>Horkheimer
>Debord
OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.14854779]

>>14854769

[Anonymous No.14854786]

>>14854720

[Anonymous No.14854787]

>>14854720
Adi Shankara

[Anonymous No.14854790]

>>14854744
Richard Feynman the famous physicist laughed at Spinoza. Was it antisemitism? I heard Einstein liked Spinoza's pantheism.

[Anonymous No.14854793]

>>14854787
shankara was a cryptobuddhist

[Anonymous No.14854796]

[Anonymous No.14854808]

>>14854790
>Spinoza's pantheism.
That and his transhumanistic ideas are quite neat

[Anonymous No.14854834]

>>14854793
nagarjuna was a crypto-pyrrhonist

[Anonymous No.14854853]

>>14854790
Source? I like Feynman and Spinoza

[Anonymous No.14854854]

>>14854720
The correct answer is Schopenhauer. Fits like a glove not just into the western philosophical canon, but just as much with the sciences, the arts, and eastern religions. Truly one of a kind.

[Anonymous No.14854857]

>>14854786
Vico.

[Anonymous No.14854868]

Which philospers are most red pilled on women?

[Anonymous No.14854875]

>>14854720
Fichte, spinoza, first Witt and Weber

[Anonymous No.14854885]

>>14854868
Schope?

[Anonymous No.14854888]

>>14854854
Yeah but he's a bit of a bitch. Dude was in a wealthy family, and sat around complaining about how hard life is. Dude sat at a well set table and did nothing but complain.

>>14854868
Deleuze, Foucault, Zizek

[Anonymous No.14854985]

[Anonymous No.14855003]

>>14854888
It's true that he never had to work but clearly that doesn't magic away the sufferings of existence. And as a philosopher he was taking a broad look at reality and trying to step out of his own experiences. He wouldn't be much of a thinker if he was incapable of looking beyond his own circumstances.

[Anonymous No.14855014]

Kant,
Plato,
Boethius,
Hegel,
Schiller,
Baudrillard,
Deleuze

[Anonymous No.14855017]

Plato

[Anonymous No.14855022]

>>14854853
>My son is taking a course in philosophy, and last night we were looking at something by Spinoza – and there was the most childish reasoning! There were all these Attributes, and Substances, all this meaningless chewing around, and we started to laugh. Now, how could we do that? Here’s this great Dutch philosopher, and we’re laughing at him. It’s because there was no excuse for it! In that same period there was Newton, there was Harvey studying the circulation of blood, there were people with methods of analysis by which progress was being made! You can take every one of Spinoza’s propositions, and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world – and you can’t tell which is right.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.14855057]

Still nothing on the rightest of them all?
OP os being trolled

[Anonymous No.14855225]

>>14855014
How can Kant, Plato, Hegel and Deleuze all simultaneously be right about everything you pseud? The thread isn't titled "post your favorite philosophers." And don't try to play some stupid mental gymnastics as if you have somehow had some key insight into Deleuze in which his thought is reconcilable with the rest of the thinkers on your list.

[Anonymous No.14855252]

The Alexandrine School and Orthodox/later Neoplatonist philosophy followed by Kant, Schelling and Hegel and Heidegger..

[Anonymous No.14855264]

>>14855252
Germans were btfo.

[Anonymous No.14855279]

>>14855225
>all philosophers only have one idea
Quiet, the adults are talking.

[Anonymous No.14855304]

>>14855264
Am I an idiot for not knowing Empedokles?

[Anonymous No.14855329]

>>14855225
The post says ‘which philosophers are right about everything’. The very fact that OP included the plural means that the field is open to listening multiple thinkers. You’re a damn pseud. Deleuze misunderstood Hegel, and actually fell into a form of Hegelian dialectic himself without even realising it. The originally Hegelian concept of ‘negative capability’ (as borrowed from Keats) is almost exactly the same as the process of becoming a BwO.

[Anonymous No.14855348]

>>14854720
Kierkegaard is the only correct answer

[Anonymous No.14855376]

>>14854720
None of them

[Anonymous No.14855383]

>>14855329
The post says ‘which philosophers are right about everything’. The very fact that OP included the plural means that the field is open to listening multiple thinkers.
Right about everything in their respective branch of philosophy which is why it's plural.

[Anonymous No.14855403]

>>14855383
So your comment that the anon is listing incompatible philosophers was completely ridiculous, then.

[Anonymous No.14855412]

>>14854720
Probably none of them, but Hume is about as close as you can go. Certainly closer than most of the lunatics who comprise the western canon.

[Anonymous No.14855485]

>>14855329
Retard. If Deleuze directly contradicts Plato and Kant on multiple points then they both can't be right about 'everything' can they?

[Anonymous No.14855488]

>>14854720
terrence mckenna
max stirner
jordan peterson
frantz fanon

[Anonymous No.14855493]

>>14855304
It just means you haven't read the Pre-Socratics or Aristotle for that matter.

[Anonymous No.14855499]

>>14855485
>>14855383
Are you a spastic?

[Anonymous No.14855501]

>>14855279
Nowhere did I imply that, but the OP is asking for a philosopher who is universally correct. How can you list multiple thinkers who contradict each other while claiming each to be universally correct? Obviously if Deleuze is right about everything, then Plato can't be because Deleuze openly criticizes multiple major areas in Plato's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14855508]

>>14855499
This>>14855383
is not me.

[Anonymous No.14855533]

>>14855022
Scientists are such unforgivable brainlets. Newton believed in "Substances" and "Attributes" just as much as Spinoza. What's Feynmann's alternative to substance ontology?

[Anonymous No.14855536]

>>14855501
>>14855508
Each philosopher I’ve listed is absolutely correct in at least one field. There is no philosopher who is universally correct. OP asked for ‘philosophers’, too, so the question isn’t asking who is universally correct, anyway.

[Anonymous No.14855547]

Allah knows all, sees all. And fuck you infidel OP!!!

[Anonymous No.14855561]

Leo Strauss .

[Anonymous No.14855565]

>>14855536
Is the OP question asking for the philosopher absolutely correct in a specific field? You just wanted to paste your list of big body pseud philosophers to seem smart while blatantly ignoring the OP. If there is no universally correct philosopher in your opinion then don't post on a thread asking for one. And just because the question is plural doesn't necessitate that the question isn't asking for someone universally correct. Hint: reread the fucking question without applying attention-seeking autism to it.

[Anonymous No.14855569]

>>14855536
Where is Deleuze correct?

[Anonymous No.14855580]

>>14855565
How can multiple philosophers be right about everything you fat fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.14855590]

>>14855580
Your intelligent enough to read the wikipedia on Hegel and Deleuze, go ahead and take a guess.

[Anonymous No.14855605]

>>14855569
In ‘difference’ as a synthesis of Kant and Plato, and in his development of the rhizome over arborescent structures as a framework for conceptualising the world.
>>14855590
So, in other words, you don’t have an answer lol

[Anonymous No.14855611]

>>14854769
What is Guenon instance on Spinoza?

[Anonymous No.14855612]

>>14854875
Why Fichte? You usually here one of the other ones

[Anonymous No.14855618]

>>14855329
>The originally Hegelian concept of ‘negative capability’ (as borrowed from Keats) is almost exactly the same as the process of becoming a BwO.
YO, holy shit i have been thinking this a fucking lot lately, have you read anything on this? I've been trying to figure out why Deleuze seems to hate Hegel so much because Hegel strikes me as a clear predecessor to the kind of philosophy Deleuze participates in

[Anonymous No.14855622]

>>14855605
Two philosophers can be correct about everything if you believe that they adequately share a framework or system of thought. You could have put Spinoza and Deleuze together for instance instead of jumbling a bunch of incompatible thinkers together in a thread that implies at least a semblance of uniformity.

[Anonymous No.14855637]

>>14855611
Guenon is critical of Spinoza, though to my knowledge he isn't explicit about it.

[Anonymous No.14855651]

>>14855618
There’s a book, I can’t quite remember the name, called something like ‘Hegel and Deleuze: Together at Last. I believe that has some discussion on the topic!
>>14855622
I suppose that’s true, but Plato and Kant do share uniformity with Deleuze in a lot of areas, and I’ve already made an argument for where I see Hegel in Deleuze. There is a semblance, perhaps you just can’t see it.

[Anonymous No.14855687]

>>14855651
I can understand the Hegel connection, but I really don't think Deleuze is compatible with Critical philosophy or Platonism.

[Anonymous No.14855706]

>>14855687
Deleuze’s metaphysics borrows from Kant by locating difference in the ‘noumenal’ (to borrow terminology) and his resultant ‘virtual’ shares a fair few similarities with Plato’s Forms. I suppose ‘synthesis’ is perhaps the wrong term here, but I see Deleuze’s metaphysics as a progression or perfection of both Plato and Kant’s ideas.

[Anonymous No.14855708]

>>14855687
Have you read Deleuze's book on Kant? Platonism yeah I definitely see less so, but Plato Deleuze was still probably fond of (I mean, who isn't?)

[Anonymous No.14855830]

Me

[Anonymous No.14855874]

>>14855708
I've not, is it good? I have been meaning to start reading Deleuze's work on other philosophers (I have a little familiarity with the Spinoza book) and was thinking of beginning with his book on Nietzsche but I'll certainly consider following that up with his work on Kant.

[Anonymous No.14856130]

>>14855874
I'd read the Nietz book after the Kant one because Deleuze's understanding of Kant informs his reading of Nietz, BUT the book on Nietzsche is an absolute gem that I love and the book on Kant is just a damn good exposition of Kant's philosophy. If you're already here the order obviously doesn't really matter though lol

[Anonymous No.14856209]

>>14854786
Based

[Anonymous No.14856245]

[Anonymous No.14856246]

>The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another.

[Anonymous No.14856316]

>>14854854
Very based

[Anonymous No.14856326]

>>14855533
But Newton worked on more useful things as well. Feynmann didn't give alternatives because he spent his time doing more useful things (reinventing QED).

[Anonymous No.14856328]

>>14854744
Nietzsche's ultimately defeated by Kierkegaard, as he failed to live up to his own philosophy.

[Anonymous No.14856340]

Goonan

[Anonymous No.14856362]

>>14855003
This. This is exactly where his genius lies.
> Already as a teenager Schopenhauer could distance himself and view things from a cosmic perspective.

[Anonymous No.14856495]

>>14856246
Not a single word of this makes sense much like everything this hack wrote

[Anonymous No.14856505]

>>14856328
Nietzsche didn't believe everyone had to be ubermensch and that certain hierarchies were natural

[Anonymous No.14856516]

>>14856505
weren't natural^

[Anonymous No.14856549]

>>14856505
I can tell you that Nietzsche's philosophy did not make him a happy and flourishing person.

[Anonymous No.14856570]

>>14856549
Nietzsche did not live his philosophy, retard. He actually considered it a point of his objectivity that he is personally removed from his teachings.

[Anonymous No.14856607]

>>14856549
Ah yeah Nietzsche the "do this and you will be happy and flourishing" guy

[Anonymous No.14856653]

>>14856570
Which is why his philosophy wasn't perfect. Read Kierkegaard

[Anonymous No.14856687]

>>14856495
literal brainlet

[Anonymous No.14856701]

>>14855687
>or Platonism.
>he hasn't read the Timaeus or Parmenides

[Anonymous No.14856765]

>>14856362
What don't you get about that? The law of identity says A = A, so what is the truth of an apple tree? the bud isn't equal to the blossom, and the blossom isn't equal to the fruit, A != B, B != C, and yet all of those things are equal to an apple tree at various stages of its development, X = A, X = B, X = C. this is because the tree (X), just like any concept, changes throughout time/history

[Anonymous No.14856783]

>>14856765
Yes, but what does that have to do with what I said? Are you sure you're replying to the right post?

[Anonymous No.14856815]

>>14854720
So-called "philosophy" is the degenerate's theology, so none of them.

[Anonymous No.14856832]

>>14856495
What don’t you understand anon? This is one of Hegel’s most foundational paragraphs, and it definitely makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14856840]

>>14856495
>thesis and antithesis are cringe but synthesis is based

[Anonymous No.14856991]

>>14856246
>>14856495
Not even for Hegel, this was relatively easy to understand anon.

[Anonymous No.14857050]

The simple-minded use of the notions 'right or wrong' is one of the chief obstacles to the progress of understanding.

[Anonymous No.14857063]

>>14857050
Yeah just let me write down my ideas of fairyland and you're supposed to agree with me. If you disagree you are just simple minded bucko

[Anonymous No.14857106]

>>14854720
There are only two: Aquinas and Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.14857121]

Goonan

[Anonymous No.14857187]

>>14854790
IIRC Feynman was being autistic about Spinoza’s (clearly stated) redefinition of certain words to suit the style of The Ethics, which naturally Feynman was reading in translation not Latin anyway.
>>14854744
Based

[Anonymous No.14857541]

>>14856246
Ironically, actually correct.

[Anonymous No.14857579]

[Anonymous No.14857809]

>>14854720
>Which philosophers are right about everything?

Maimonides.

[Anonymous No.14858190]

>>14857809
Al-Farabi, Damascius and Maimonides are the lost royalty of philosophy

[Anonymous No.14858218]

>>14854720
Me

[Anonymous No.14858258]

>>14857063
>Yeah just let me write down my ideas of fairyland and you're supposed to agree with me. If you disagree you are just simple minded bucko
Very small brain.

[Anonymous No.14858280]

>>14856783
yes was meant for the post below
>>14856495

[Anonymous No.14858574]

>>14858190
Indeed.

[Anonymous No.14858604]

>>14854720
Very few. Typically those who recapitulate what we already know but have forgotten, or whose positions follow perforce from virtually unassailable argumentation. Socrates, Parmenides, Leibniz and Valberg are the only ones I can think of who were/are probably correct in everything they say.

[Anonymous No.14858670]

Rorty

[Anonymous No.14858689]

>>14858604
>Leibniz
Fucking based

[Anonymous No.14859303]

Hard if not impossible for a single philosopher to be right about everything, and if you think so you're probably being shallow
The closest I've read so far to what I think is the truth about the world and how to approach life has been Epicurus

[Anonymous No.14859398]

>>14854720
my n word Noam

[Anonymous No.14859411]

>>14854786
Correct. Here's a close second.

[Anonymous No.14859487]

>>14855057
nonbeing is the true epicurean ideal, he should have just admitted it

[Anonymous No.14859546]

Idk about philosophers, but clichés and your gut are always right

[Anonymous No.14860500]

>>14855057
Epicurus is a perfect flytrap for midwits.

[Anonymous No.14860513]

>>14855264
Why do both of them make horrible choices and why is it in an even worse order?

[Anonymous No.14860538]

>>14860500
Why?

[Anonymous No.14860562]

[Anonymous No.14860591]

>>14854720

[Anonymous No.14861029]

>>14859411
>the one that copypasted the other is superior
Christians I swear...

[Anonymous No.14861047]

>>14861029
>He can't distinguish the Thomistic interpretation of Aristotelianism from Aristotle and the countless streams of peripatetic thought in the middle ages.
If you think that Aquinas simply copied Aristotle you are either talking out your ass or a midwit.

[Anonymous No.14861677]

>>14854720
How can one philosopher be so based?

>metaphysics: BTFO
>morality: BTFO
>religion: BTFO
>Rationalists: BTFO
>the Self: BTFO
>causation: BTFO
>induction: BTFO
>all scientific paradigms before and since: BTFO
>philosophy: BTFO

Where were you when the entirety of human intellectual history was kill?

[Anonymous No.14861681]

>>14854720

[Anonymous No.14861928]

>>14861677
Kant embarrassed him

[Anonymous No.14861955]

>>14857106
based!

[Anonymous No.14861962]

>>14854790
>Feynman
>antisemitism
Perhaps you mean jewish self-hatred?

[Anonymous No.14862446]

>>14861928
Kant was disingenuous christian cope

[Anonymous No.14862746]

>>14862446
Sorry you couldn't understand the Critique buddy.

[Anonymous No.14862767]

>>14861677
>>14861928
>>14862446
>>14862746
Why you guys so polemic? I usually take the two together, with Hume being the one of general principles and Kant explaining the basis of those principles more precisely.

[Anonymous No.14862901]

>>14862767
???
The Critique is widely accepted as an attack on Hume among others. I don't see how you can take Hume's positions seriously if you agree with Kant. Have you actually read either of them? It's not as if Kant is simply expanding on Hume's principles, or explaining them, he is actively attacking them by proposing his Copernican revolution that objects have to adhere to the categories of the understanding and that we have no knowledge of the thing-in-itself.

[Anonymous No.14862970]

>>14862901
And have you read Hume more closely? Kant does not directly attack Hume, he addresses certain parts of him. Hume basically posits that most metaphysical and philosophical inquires are bull, but fully admits that we can only explain much of what we know, cause and effect, empirical inquiry, through custom than anything approaching truth. Now in Critique of Pure reason at least, Kant dissects as far as one can go into this "Custom" and makes hypothetical structures and claims, like the Copernican one you mentioned. THis doesnt invalidate hume, Its just that Hume is mostly content to stick in the sphere of practical summation of possible logic, while Kant Goes further into the hypothetical.

[Anonymous No.14863039]

>>14860513
Who would you sub in?

[Anonymous No.14863048]

>>14862970
Kant does attack Hume in the Critique... I could go and fish out the passages in the Deduction where Kant explicitly addresses Hume's arguments regarding causality and custom. Kant does not dissect "Custom" at all, I encourage you to reread the Analytic of Concepts because you seem to have a confused understanding of Kant's project. Kant is attempting to ground synthetic a priori knowledge, not dissect Humean skeptical Empiricism. Kant's structures are not hypothetical (at least according to Kant himself) they are apodictic or necessary structures which are conditions for experience to occur.

[Anonymous No.14863148]

Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.14863167]

>>14861677
How can one be so behind on recent developments in philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14863175]

>>14856246
>dude everyone is kind of right in a way
brainlet take

[Anonymous No.14863228]

>>14863175
more like,
>don't be salty, you're only being usurped by your betters, so too shall all of us who touch truth, we thought-gangsters only give a fuck about truth anyway so why you cryin bout

[Anonymous No.14863522]

>>14863167
What's been happening in philosophy recently?

[Anonymous No.14863561]

>>14863522
it's been replaced by science

[Anonymous No.14863573]

>>14855830
>>14858218

[Anonymous No.14864387]

>>14854786
Based and Long Live Christ King pilled

[Anonymous No.14864395]

The nihilists, most philosophy that comes afterwards is takes on how to behave or think about the world in the absence of truisms.

[Anonymous No.14864624]

>>14855533
This unfounded disdain for philosophy is only a hallmark of the last few generations of scientists.
Einstein and Heisenberg for example read Kant, Plato, Hume etc... (which allowed them to question the prevalent paradigms in their respective fields and think outside the box, unlike the autists of today)

[Anonymous No.14864868]

>>14854796
Based

[Anonymous No.14864872]

>>14854720
all of them.

[Anonymous No.14864883]

>>14864624
im a brainlet, but imho a "new philosophy of science" can only be produced if we have a new physics/science that justifies it, or the other way around

[Anonymous No.14864891]

>>14863048
No need. Pretty sure he mentions it in Introduction. Im being loose with my wording here, so its mostly my fault. I was using hypothetical as a byword for non-empirical and apodictic (I was using Hypothetical in contrast with Practical, as in the hypothetical being the absolute truth and practical being the experientially demonstrable one).

[Anonymous No.14865406]

Kant

[Anonymous No.14865412]

>>14864883
Philosophy justifies science not the other way around. It’s applied empiricism. Or expression of likelihood vs something like mathematics which is not empirical. I think science would be so much better if it was in vogue for scientists just to read the beginning part of Humes Enquiry. It was literally custom made to give a run down for an informed empericists view on the subject matter. Even for those not philosophically inclines. Outlining the limits and epistemological principles of science.

[Anonymous No.14865418]

>>14854720
buddha

[Anonymous No.14865419]

>>14863561
What a gook you are nigger